Commission tables proposal to allow permanent outdoor film set facades; staff to work with applicant

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission voted unanimously to table a proposed amendment to the county development code that would add a new conditional use for "permanent outdoor film set facades" in several agricultural zones. The commission directed staff to work with the applicant to refine language addressing lighting, duration, scale and other protections before returning with revised proposals.

Planner Madeline summarized the proposal: add the use to the chart of allowed and permitted uses, add a definition in Appendix A and add an exception to the county's lighting regulations for film-permit-approved temporary lighting. The proposed definition described exterior walls of a film set designed to mimic a real or imagined location and noted limited interior filming space without intent for full-time habitation. Madeline told commissioners the intent is that the conditional use permit would be obtained prior to building sets that are meant to remain standing longer than the temporary-use period; each filming event would still require the county's film/special-event permit.

The item prompted substantial commissioner and public discussion about permanence, visual impacts, duration, and enforcement. Jan Perkins, an Oakley resident who said she lives in the Browns Canyon area, urged the commission to reject a blanket amendment while the county is rewriting its general plan, noting a deteriorating movie set in Browns Canyon and warning that language such as lighting that "is not to shine unreasonably beyond the boundaries" is too vague for neighbors.

Applicant representative Dan McKinnon and the applicant described the existing set in the Garff Ranches area, explaining the structures were built in 2016–17, engineered to higher standards, and have been used for productions including Yellowstone. McKinnon said significant private investment was made in the existing set and that repeatedly building and tearing down high-quality structures is impractical; he said structures have cost more than $1 million to construct. The applicant also noted a notice of violation was issued in 2024 because temporary-use authority had expired and the applicant had applied to amend the code.

Commissioners raised multiple concerns: whether a renewable temporary-use regime would be a better fit than a permanent code change; whether lighting exceptions should be time-limited or tightly conditioned; whether the new use should be allowable in smaller AG zones (AG-10 and AG-20); and how the county would enforce removal of unused or deteriorating structures. Commission members suggested alternatives including a film-set–specific temporary-use category with periodic reauthorization, parcel-size limits, time limits for standing sets, and stronger permit conditions.

County staff said the temporary-use route had been used previously but is limited in duration (one year plus a single six-month extension), which left the applicant seeking a path to a more durable permission. Staff also noted that enforcement action remains an option and that an NOV (notice of violation) issued for the existing site remains in effect while the code amendment is pursued. The commission voted to table the matter and directed staff to work with the applicant on revised language reflecting the commission's concerns.

The tabled action preserves the county's enforcement options while giving the applicant and staff time to prepare more detailed language and conditions to bring back at a future hearing.