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.

Summit County residents will need to wait until next month to comment on Ivory Development’s proposed rezone of Browns Canyon, which could allow up to 3,000 homes to be constructed in the historically rural area.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission verbally directed county staff to schedule a public hearing for this Thursday, but county planner Mustapha Osman confirmed the discussion has been postponed.

The Planning Commission typically meets twice a month, with one meeting in Kamas and the second in Coalville. Osman said commissioners decided to wait until August, which is when the next Kamas meeting is scheduled, because Browns Canyon residents live closer to Kamas than Coalville.

The exact date and time of the hearing have not yet been announced.

Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based Ivory Homes, has been working with the Planning Commission to draft the Lost Creek Community Zone. However, commissioners have repeatedly expressed concerns about the scope of the project. They’ve noted the lack of infrastructure in Browns Canyon, plus water needs and traffic impacts the development would likely have on the area.

The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing the proposed zone and forwarding a recommendation to the Summit County Council, which will then issue a final decision on whether the zone will become a permanent fixture in the county code.

Creating the Lost Creek Community Zone is only the first step in Ivory Development’s process, though. If the County Council were to approve the zone, the housing company would still need to negotiate with the Planning Commission and County Council for a second time to draft and finalize a development agreement.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission will still discuss proposed amendments to the area’s future land use map this week, but there will not be an opportunity for public comment.

The post Public hearing on Browns Canyon development pushed to next month appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County residents will have an opportunity next week to comment on future growth in Browns Canyon as part of a public hearing regarding Ivory Development’s proposed Lost Creek Community Zone.

The hearing will be on Thursday, July 16, at the County Courthouse in Coalville, with the exact time to be announced later.

Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based Ivory Homes, has been working with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission to draft the Lost Creek Community Zone, which could potentially allow the company to build up to 3,000 homes in Browns Canyon.

However, commissioners have repeatedly expressed concerns about the scope of the project. They’ve noted the lack of infrastructure in Browns Canyon, plus water needs and traffic impacts the development would likely have on the traditionally rural area.

Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes previously said she’s also worried about the project creating a landscape of urban sprawl in Browns Canyon, telling Ivory Development representatives that she visited Terraine, one of the company’s neighborhoods in West Jordan, and 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 is responsible for reviewing the proposed zone and forwarding a recommendation to the Summit County Council, which will then issue a final decision on whether the zone will become a permanent fixture in the county code.

Creating the Lost Creek Community Zone is only the first step in Ivory Development’s process, though. If the County Council were to approve the zone, the housing company would still need to negotiate with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission and County Council for a second time to draft and finalize a development agreement.

Planning commissioners met with Ivory Development representatives last week to discuss the finer details of the zone’s text, although they still mentioned outstanding concerns regarding water, traffic and infrastructure. However, the meeting was mostly procedural, with commissioners and Ivory Development representatives revising grammatical and linguistic choices in the drafted document.

But the Planning Commission also scheduled a public hearing on the Lost Creek Community Zone to allow residents to weigh in on whether the zone and large-scale developments should be allowed in Browns Canyon. The Planning Commission is tentatively expecting to vote on its recommendation to the County Council at the same meeting, but the decision could be delayed.

The post County to hold public hearing on Browns Canyon development next week appeared first on Park Record.

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.

The post Proposed Lost Creek Community Zone highlights growth fears in eastern Summit County 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.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission is open to working with Ivory Development to build up to 3,000 homes in the Browns Canyon area, but only if the development team sticks to the local process instead of pursuing other avenues.

Ivory Development previously applied for a preliminary municipality in the same area, which the company is referring to as Lost Creek. However, the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office rejected the application because of statutory limitations on the number of preliminary municipalities that can be proposed within one calendar year.

But Ivory Development President Chris Gamvroulas repeatedly said the company preferred to work with local officials and that the application was only a safeguard in case proceedings with the county weren’t moving along at a “timely and predictable” pace.

The real estate company debuted its Lost Creek project at the local level last week, appearing before the Planning Commission to discuss a proposed addition to the Summit County Code — the Lost Creek Community Zone.

The Lost Creek Community Zone would be a new zone for the county, specifically designed to accommodate Ivory Development’s project in Browns Canyon. Codifying the zone would be the first step in making Lost Creek a reality, followed by a second round of negotiations with the Planning Commission and Summit County Council to approve a master planned development agreement.

Developers last week told planning commissioners that the Lost Creek community is intended to serve workforce housing and primary residents, not families looking to purchase a second home to take advantage of the Wasatch Back’s ski resorts. They compared Lost Creek to Park City Heights, another Ivory Development project in Summit County, and said residential buildings will be “clustered” together to avoid sprawl and preserve nearby open space.

Ivory Development representatives said the area is a good option for development because of its proximity to Park City and the need for affordable housing on the East Side. They said the natural topography of the property, which covers approximately 407 acres, will make it easier to “nestle” the community into the valley to limit visual impacts while still having the neighborhood accessible because of its proximity to Browns Canyon Road.

In addition to residential homes, developers proposed commercial areas within Lost Creek and the establishment of “civic spaces” that could be used as town halls, parks, schools or other necessary facilities in the future.

Gamvroulas said the company hopes to build Lost Creek so that residents can have their needs met without driving to Park City, which is why commercial spaces and grocery stores are included as potential uses within the proposed zone.

If the County Council were to approve the Lost Creek Community Zone, other developers could potentially use it for their properties. However, the zone is geographically tied to Lost Creek, which means a developer couldn’t implement it in another area of the county.

Planning Commissioner David Darcey asked Gamvroulas about Ivory Development’s plans for short-term rentals within the Lost Creek development, pointing out that the preliminary municipality application filed with the state specifically mentioned planned short-term rental units on one side of Browns Canyon.

But Gamvroulas said the short-term rental proposal was only included in the preliminary municipality application to meet the state’s revenue requirements to be considered a viable township. He said Ivory Development is no longer focused on short-term rentals in the Lost Creek community and is instead opting to gear it entirely toward primary residents because there are no financial requirements associated with the county’s development process.

Planning commissioners said they weren’t opposed to working with Ivory Development on the project, but they repeatedly emphasized the importance of community engagement. Multiple commissioners said they were only in favor of exploring the proposal if Ivory Development continued to discuss it “in good faith” with community members and local officials.

Commissioners also mentioned the state Legislature a handful of times, telling Ivory Development that they would prefer the team follow Summit County’s process instead of approaching state lawmakers.

The Planning Commission directed county staff to continue working with Ivory Development on its application with the county, asking planners to focus on phasing so commissioners can have an idea of how many homes would be built and at what pace.

The Lost Creek Community Zone will go before the Planning Commission at least one more time for a public hearing before being forwarded to the County Council. The public hearing had not been scheduled as of Tuesday morning.

The post East Side planning commissioners consider working with Browns Canyon developer, if it follows the local process appeared first on Park Record.

Ivory Homes may still develop more than 400 acres in Browns Canyon, but the approvals process is now dependent on county officials rather than the state government.

The Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office previously confirmed it received a request for a feasibility study to create a preliminary municipality, dubbed Lost Creek, in Browns Canyon on New Year’s Day. However, the request was ultimately denied because the department had already received multiple filings for preliminary municipalities in other parts of the state.

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

But Ivory Development President Chris Gamvroulas, who was also listed as the preliminary municipality’s primary sponsor, said in an interview with The Park Record that the company already hoped to work with the county rather than pursue incorporation. He called the preliminary municipality application a “backstop,” or safeguard, for the development if proceedings with the county weren’t moving along at a “timely and predictable” pace.

Now, it appears that working with the Summit County government is Ivory Homes’ only route to create a residential community along Browns Canyon Road. The company submitted a request to establish new zoning in the area last month, with plans to collaborate with the Summit County Council on a development agreement if the project moves forward.

The proposal differs slightly from what was submitted to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, though.

In the application for the preliminary municipality, Ivory Homes estimated the neighborhood would have 193 single-family homes, 127 townhomes, 190 cottage homes and 10,000 square feet of retail space by the end of the project, as well as 255 nightly rentals on the south side of the development area. The company also claimed 642 full-time residents would live in Lost Creek following its last phase of construction.

However, the numbers outlined in the application with Summit County indicate Ivory Homes plans to build up to 3,000 residential units on 407 acres of land, with at least 10% of the homes designated as affordable housing. Construction would occur “over several decades,” with 100 units added each year.

The application included a “community plan” that described the developers’ vision for the area. It also laid out a request for a development code amendment to create the Lost Creek Community Zone, a new zone designed specifically for the Ivory Homes project.

The Lost Creek Community Zone would only apply to properties located within one mile of Lost Creek Road, which means it could not be used for future developments in other parts of the county. The zone would encourage building homes and roads based on the area’s topography and environmental concerns while also creating a community with dedicated open spaces and public parks.

“The overall layout is structured around the site’s natural drainage corridors, ridgelines and slopes,” the application said. “Hillside preservation areas are strategically designated to protect steeper terrain and visually prominent landforms, maintaining the natural character of the landscape and minimizing disturbance. … Road alignments follow natural contours, reducing visual impacts and infrastructure costs while improving safety and drivability.”

Information on how exactly the development would be situated was not immediately available, though, with the application saying further specifics would be determined at a later date through negotiations with the County Council.

“The Community Plan is intentionally conceptual in nature, allowing for refinement through future subdivision, site plan and phased development approvals while maintaining consistency with the approved vision,” the document said. “Together, the Community Plan and the development agreement are intended to ensure that future development occurs in a manner that is consistent with county policies, responsive to community needs and aligned with the long-term public interest.”

The application said the development would provide a range of lot sizes and housing types to support “diverse household needs, life stages and income levels.” Ivory Homes also emphasized its focus on pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, as well as open space preservation.

“Development areas of the project are clustered in the locations that are best suited for construction,” the document said. “This clustering allows for more efficient infrastructure extension, preserves larger contiguous open spaces and reinforces a clear transition between developed and natural areas. The result is a pattern of growth that feels embedded in the landscape rather than superimposed upon it.”

Summit County residents with reservations about the project have mentioned the size of the community and water access as two key concerns. The county application is the only document so far to address water rights and sewage, although specifics remain unclear. 

Generally, though, Ivory Homes said it anticipates developing sewer infrastructure that could then be connected to the regional system operated by the Eastern Summit County Water Conservancy District as part of a future expansion. The company also plans to build a water reclamation facility in phases based on the number of online residential units, with the potential of decommissioning the plant if a regional facility is built at a later date.

The application said Ivory Homes “may” create a new public water drinking system, which could either remain independent or become part of the Mountain Regional Water Special Service District.

“However, new sources, adequate infrastructure and additional water rights will be needed,” the document said.

It did not provide any further details on what infrastructure or water rights need to be obtained or how that process will occur.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission is expected to review the Lost Creek Community Zone application and forward a recommendation to the County Council, although a date had not been set as of Monday afternoon. If the County Council ultimately approves the zoning request, it would then work with Ivory Homes to create a development agreement before construction begins.

The post Ivory Homes applies for new zoning, up to 3,000 residential units in Browns Canyon appeared first on Park Record.

Partygoers across the country cheered as the clock struck midnight on New Year’s Eve, toasting to their futures and saying goodbye to 2025 as they participated in one of humanity’s oldest traditions.

In Summit County, the celebrations also ushered in yet another year of development projects, with a prominent construction company submitting an application for a preliminary municipality — dubbed Lost Creek — in Browns Canyon in the first two minutes of the new year.

Ivory Homes, Garff-Rogers Ranch and EBR Management are spearheading the joint proposal, according to documentation obtained through the Government Records Access and Management Act.

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.

This is the second time Summit County has seen a request for a preliminary municipality. Dakota Pacific Real Estate similarly filed an application for a town named Park City Tech last year as a safeguard for its Kimball Junction development project.

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 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 intend 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.

The application states the town would have seven distinct phases of construction, but there wasn’t a timeline available regarding how quickly developers plan to build.

In total, the municipality would have 193 single-family homes, 127 townhomes, 190 cottage homes and 10,000 square feet of retail space by the end of the seventh phase.

“The preliminary municipality will include approximately 255 nightly rental units located exclusively in phases south of Brown’s Canyon Road,” the application said. “These units are not included in the population calculations; only primary residents are used to calculate the population.”

Approximately 642 full-time residents would live in Lost Creek by the end of the seventh phase, with a majority of those — around 405 full-time residents — added in the first three phases, according to the application.

If the Lost Creek proposal meets the statutory requirements for preliminary municipalities, then the lieutenant governor, whose office oversees incorporations, will initiate a feasibility study to determine whether the town would be financially viable.

Ivory Homes would be required to file to incorporate as a town once the population exceeded 100 people. If the developer did not file a petition for incorporation within six years, the lieutenant governor would dissolve the preliminary municipality, and all roads and infrastructure would revert back to Summit County’s jurisdiction.

Summit County Community Development Director Peter Barnes confirmed the county has 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 was still under evaluation last week, but Ivory Development President Chris Gamvroulas, who is also listed as the preliminary municipality’s primary sponsor, said the company’s hope is to work with the county rather than pursuing incorporation.

Gamvroulas specifically said 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. His preference, though, would be to create and implement a new zone in Browns Canyon under Summit County Code to develop the residential neighborhood.

Only two preliminary municipalities can be considered statewide per calendar year under Utah Code, which is likely the impetus behind filing the application first thing on New Year’s Day.

County officials previously said they expect Rep. Tiara Auxier, a Republican who represents part of Summit County, to file a bill changing how preliminary municipalities function during the ongoing general session. The Utah Legislature listed a bill modifying municipal incorporations as “in process” online, but the language of the legislation — and if it would impact the Browns Canyon proposal — had not been published as of Thursday afternoon.

The post Ivory Homes files application for 490-acre town in Browns Canyon appeared first on Park Record.