Developers present 250‑unit master plan for 94‑acre Browns Canyon site; commissioners raise water, transit and school concerns

Developers told the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission on April 20 that they are considering a master‑plan rezone for a 94‑acre site near the west end of Browns Canyon Road that could include up to 250 housing units, a clubhouse and commercial services, and an 80‑bed assisted‑living facility.

Michael, speaking for the development team, described a mixed plan with market‑rate twin and single‑family homes, stacked flats and townhomes, plus a workforce‑housing component. "We understand there is a, desperate need in the county, to house the people that work in the county," Michael said, listing teachers, nurses and firefighters among the targeted workforce. The team said the concept would include open space, trails and a proposed bus stop or depot to encourage transit service to the site.

Project numbers presented during the pre‑application: about 250 total units, with roughly 100 market‑rate units and a developer‑stated workforce component (the applicant later referenced a 1.5:1 ratio of workforce to market units in portions of the plan). The proposal also included an 80‑bed assisted‑living facility of about 60,000 square feet; the developer said they would seek an outside operator for that use.

Commissioners' questions focused on three main constraints: water and sewer availability, school assignment and site topography/snow operations. Staff and the applicant said the parcel lacks sufficient on‑site water rights and that the project team has discussed water service with Mountain Regional Water, which the applicant said indicated availability subject to impact fees. The applicant also said sewer service would be coordinated with the Snyderville Basin Water Reclamation District; county staff cautioned that downstream lift‑station capacity and coordination with Promontory operations would be required.

On schools and services, commissioners noted the site's distance from likely school assignments and grocery/retail destinations and warned that long bus rides could be a burden on families. Commissioner Clint asked directly about income targeting: "Are you thinking, like, is it 80%, 60%?" Michael replied that affordability targets had not been fixed and that the applicant wanted county guidance. Commissioners suggested tying occupancy or ownership restrictions to county employment or specific AMI bands to ensure workforce households benefit.

Topography and snow management were also raised as constraints for the workforce housing portion. Commissioners asked about steep slopes (areas "over 30%" in places), snow‑plowing logistics and the potential for HOA costs to erode affordability; the applicant said snow removal provisions and HOAs would be considered in design.

The commission did not give a formal direction to approve or deny; instead members outlined the principal issues the applicant must address in a full application: demonstrated water rights or service agreements, sewer and lift‑station coordination, traffic and transit mitigation, school‑assignment impacts, and a refined site plan that shows where development avoids steep slope or hydric soils. The applicant said they will assess whether to proceed with a full master plan application after further design and service‑provider coordination.

Next steps: applicant to resolve water and sewer arrangements and refine topographic/site details before returning with a full master‑plan development application.