Lost Creek zone goes to Summit County Council after planners urge denial, 6-0

The Summit County Council put a proposed Lost Creek Community Zone on its Oct. 28 work session agenda, even though the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission voted 6-0 in August to recommend that the council deny it. The county's staff report asks the council to say whether to proceed. ^[1][2]

Garff Rogers Ranches LLC and Ivory Development applied to add the zone to the Eastern Summit County Development Code, creating a process for a master-planned development in the Brown's Canyon and Lost Creek area. It would allow residential neighborhoods, neighborhood-scale commercial uses and related infrastructure on qualifying properties, which must lie within a mile of Lost Creek. The staff report says this application is only a text amendment: approving it would not rezone any property, approve a development or authorize construction. ^[1]

Anyone who wanted to use the zone would then file a separate rezone petition with a community plan, a development agreement and utility plans. The Planning Commission would hold a hearing, and the council would decide after its own public hearing. ^[1]

The commission held a public hearing on Aug. 6 and cited several concerns, according to the staff report. They were no significant public benefit, a proposal that does not meet the rural community character described in the General Plan, vague language with too few limits and a lack of adequate water and sewer in Brown's Canyon. The others were possible effects on Browns Canyon Road, too much allowable development and too little workforce housing. ^[1]

Staff noted the zone is meant for developments of at least 100 acres and sets no maximum density, commercial floor area or overall intensity; those limits would be decided in the rezone. It would require at least 10 percent open space and at least 10 percent of homes designated affordable. A draft community plan attached to the report lists 407.5 acres with between 2,285 and 3,002 residential units. ^[1]

The agenda scheduled the item for 60 minutes. The county had not posted a recording summary or minutes of the discussion as of Nov. 1, so the outcome is not reported here. ^[2]