South Point project in Brown’s Canyon modified |

South Point project in Brown’s Canyon modified

Hotel and helicopter pad removed from proposal

Last week, the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission revisited the large housing and commercial project that is being proposed along Brown’s Canyon Road to discuss the modifications that have been made to the plan, including the removal of a 350-room hotel and helicopter pad.

Under the South Point Master Plan proposal, the applicant, South Point LLC, is asking the planning commission to amend Promontory Development’s Specially Planned Area to more than quadruple the previously allowable residential density in the southernmost 800 acres of the original Promontory Specially Planned Area. The development would be located between Roger’s Ranch and Black Rock Ridge development on Brown’s Canyon Road.

A 350-room hotel, including an indoor water park, and helicopter pad have been removed from the plan. However, an additional 140,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and 45,000 square feet of office space is being requested in its place.

The revised plan still shows 735 residential units, in addition to the 285 units that are currently approved, for a total of 1,020 units, and 190,000 square feet of commercial space to be allocated on an approximately 600-acre site. It includes a 110-acre reservoir and 26 additional lakeside lots with a dock.

“Once we got some negative feedback on the hotel and we looked at the county’s policy, we came back and took the hotel, heli-pad and commercial recreation out,” said Tom Ellison, a consultant for South Point LLC. “We expanded village commercial uses to include some convince retail, but also 140,000-square-feet of opportunistic retail, which meets county code to find locations for new businesses.”

The applicant is offering the following community benefits: dedication of a 52-acre site to the South Summit School District, a 2.3-acre site for a fire station and a 33,000-square-foot transit center/park-and-ride lot, which will include 50 parking spaces. An additional 25 workforce housing units were also included to bring the total number of units proposed to 60.

Ellison said the county could not otherwise require the community benefits that are being offered under the plan. He added, “We have a number of benefits here that are above and beyond what the county could require a developer to do.”

As part of the discussion with planning commissioners, Doug Smith, Wasatch County planning director, provided details about development in the area that has already been approved by Wasatch County.

In an interview with The Park Record, Smith said there are about 525 units, in addition to a 250-room hotel, that are approved along State Road 248. As part of the rezone process for the hotel, Smith said a traffic study showed there would be significant failures at the intersection of Brown’s Canyon Road and S.R. 248 by 2020, unless a light was installed. He added, “With a light, you would be back down to a service level of B or C.”

“It will be a busy intersection. I told them with the projects that have been approved in the Jordanelle area, north of the fire station and on the west side of the lake east of U.S. 40, and then you have another 500 units there in Mayflower,” Smith said. “With the long-term buildout of the Jordanelle and J-SPA, although it could be a 30-year buildout, we are anticipating up to 9,000 average daily traffic movements on the Jordanelle Parkway.”

Tom Clyde, planning commission vice chair, said the development plan is “stunning.” He added, “My sense of it was the density they are asking for is a knock-your-socks-off proposal.”

“In turn, I am looking for community benefits that will equally knock my socks off and I’m not seeing them,” Clyde said. “I don’t know that the commission, as a whole, is far enough into it to know what we are looking for, but, in my view, solving our middle-class housing situation would be a significant community benefit. But, that is not what they proposed.”

At a public hearing last month, several East Side residents strongly urged the commission to deny the application citing concerns about the price of the units and the impacts the project would have on the surrounding homes.

“Our code gives them the right to file this application and we are obligated to process it. But, the mood of the commission was to say ‘Show us your best idea with the guidance we have given you and we’ll look at it,” Clyde said. “I think there probably is a majority on the commission who would be inclined to deny it if there aren’t material changes. That doesn’t mean they won’t come in with something that starts a meaningful discussion. But, so far, it hasn’t been along those lines. It’s stunning and, functionally, as a whole, there are a lot of problems with it.”

Another work session on the matter is anticipated next month before a decision will be requested by the planning commission.

To view the staff report prepared in anticipation of the meeting, go to

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.