Developers outline phased ‘Cedar Crest’ plan; public raises concerns about traffic, water and density; hearing continued

Larry H. Miller Real Estate representatives presented the Cedar Crest concept to the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission, describing a phased infrastructure plan that would begin with a modular wastewater treatment plant sized to serve roughly the first 500 equivalent residential units (ERUs), options to join or supplement local water systems, two primary vehicle access points and a network of trails and open spaces. The applicant said the material in the staff report and slide deck was illustrative and that early phases would deliver about 62 units each, with the applicants modeling roughly 227 ERUs in their first three phases and noting a broader overlay of about 1,800 ERUs for the larger plan.

Why it matters: commissioners and dozens of public commenters pressed developers for concrete commitments and data on wet water availability, traffic impacts on Hoytsville Road and downstream I‑80 interchanges, the number of homes genuinely affordable to local workers, and the sequencing needed before later phases proceed. The commission agreed to continue the public hearing to March 21 and requested additional materials (density maps of the full overlay, by‑right eligible unit counts, AMI‑based pricing tables and clarified water and traffic analyses) before further action.

The presentation and early phasing
Greg Flint, identified in the meeting as SVP of acquisition and entitlement for Larry H. Miller Real Estate, said the team planned a modular sewer plant that could be expanded in 500‑ERU increments and described two water strategies: connecting to the existing Hoytsville pipe company or drilling new wells and building storage tanks. He said the illustrative figures in the packet rely on conservative indoor water use assumptions (0.45 acre‑feet per household) and that the parcel-level phasing illustration showed about 62 units in the first phase, roughly 99 in the second (bringing cumulative to about 161) and a third phase that would bring the near‑term cumulative example to roughly 227 ERUs.

On infrastructure sequencing and state involvement, the applicant said they have discussed the corridor with UDOT representatives and would seek coordinated, phased investments if thresholds are reached, but noted UDOT gives priority to projects with an identified, titled development and that interchange-level improvements would require additional state engagement and funding partnerships.

Public concerns: traffic, water, schools and scale
Multiple residents said Hoytsville Road and nearby intersections would not safely absorb the additional traffic without state or county upgrades. One nearby resident, Clinton Vernon, said he was “partially excited, but partially concerned” about daily commuting impacts and asked the commission to require proactive traffic and water safeguards. Commenters repeatedly asked whether the applicant’s claimed water inventory was wet water (available for immediate distribution) or merely “paper water”; the applicant acknowledged some shares are under contract and said they control substantial shares (the team referenced over 700 acre‑feet in their holdings) but did not produce a complete wet‑water accounting at the meeting.

Commissioners also asked how many early units would be affordable to local workers. The applicant proposed a package intended to reserve roughly 9% of units in some form as restricted housing, using combinations of ADUs, donated lots to nonprofits, deed restrictions, micro‑lot designs and potential tax‑credit subsidies. Commissioners and residents noted that, under the applicant’s early phasing and local AMI assumptions, only a very small number of the first 227 units would be affordable at 80% Eastern Summit County AMI without additional interventions or subsidies.

Requests and next steps
The planning commission asked the applicants to return with a clearer set of comparative numbers: (1) the number of eligible development rights/lots under current underlying zoning, (2) a mapped comparison showing the proposal versus by‑right development and potential density bonuses or TDR conversions, (3) AMI‑based price and rent tables showing how the proposed affordable units would be structured, and (4) a clearer wet‑water accounting and traffic analysis that includes downstream I‑80 intersections. The applicant agreed to provide additional graphics and tables and the commission continued the public hearing to March 21.

What was not decided
No formal approval, vote on entitlements or binding development agreement occurred at this meeting. The commission focused the record and the applicant committed to return with specific numeric and mapped materials requested by the commission for the March 21 continuation.

The Planning Commission closed the meeting by scheduling director items and adjourned; the public hearing on the Cedar Crest proposal remains open and is continued to March 21.