Planning commission debates 'MFR 45' high-density zoning; seeks workshops with utilities, emergency services

At its July 28 meeting the Grand County Planning Commission discussed a proposed land-use code amendment, informally called “MFR 45,” that would allow up to 45 multifamily residential units per acre in parts of the county.

Commissioners said the proposal raised questions about infrastructure, emergency access, and whether the provision should be limited to specific locations. Planning staff member Chrissy, who presented the draft language, told the commission the version before them was not a repeal-and-replace but an addition intended to add specificity; she said she would not forward any draft to public hearing without development standards attached. “Before I would even put this in front of you, I would make sure that we have development standards for this specific section of code,” Chrissy said.

Why it matters: Allowing 45 units per acre on single-acre parcels would substantially increase allowable density compared with existing county standards and the June 23 future land use plan, which commissioners said does not include densities above 18 units per acre. Commissioners warned that adopting the change without standards or mapped locations could create conflicts with utilities, evacuation routes, and fire access and could produce unintended consequences for nearby neighborhoods.

Key points raised

- Infrastructure and utilities: Commissioners urged staff to consult utility providers, naming Pacificorp and Rocky Mountain Power, about the feasibility of providing power and distribution for concentrated multifamily development. Members also flagged sewer and water infrastructure and the need for appropriate piping and impact fees.

- Public safety and access: Several commissioners said the county should vet sites with the fire district and the county emergency manager to confirm apparatus access, building setbacks and evacuation capacity before allowing the new density. One member summarized his concern: “We need a map for appropriate places to put this,” (Jerry).

- Relationship to the future land use plan and zoning map: Multiple speakers argued the MFR 45 text should be tied to the county’s future land use map and limited to nodes already identified for higher density, especially highway-commercial or other high-density nodes. Commissioners repeatedly recommended limiting applicability by road classification (arterial/collector) so projects would have adequate access and existing easements.

- Affordability language and federal grants: The draft references affordability levels (a 60% area median income benchmark was discussed) and appeared written around federal grant requirements, which would generally limit units to rental occupancy and restrict resale. Some commissioners said that requirement risks concentrating poverty and asked whether ownership or mixed-income models should be considered. Staff cautioned a code that assumes grant funding is not legally sustainable; code should stand on its own even if grant funds are used.

- Design standards and site constraints: Draft numerical standards mentioned a maximum building height of about 42 feet and a minimum parking requirement around one space per unit; commissioners asked how projects would be handled when a site cannot meet both standards and how large buildings would affect adjacent properties.

Process and next steps

- Workshops requested: Commissioners directed staff to organize internal work sessions and a joint workshop with the county commission and identified subject-matter stakeholders (utilities, fire district, emergency manager, public safety, and transportation) to examine site suitability, utility timing and realistic infrastructure costs before a public hearing.

- Scheduling: Planning staff (Chrissy) said she will circulate scheduling options by email and suggested using a doodle poll. Commissioners discussed canceling or rescheduling the Aug. 11 meeting if staffing gaps would prevent a full agenda; no formal vote was taken at the meeting.

- Staffing and capacity constraints: Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted the planning office is understaffed and that current workloads limit time available for a major code rewrite. Chrissy said she will be out of town for some upcoming meetings; the commission discussed relying on a contract planner, Andrew (contract planner), and keeping day-to-day coordination through planning staff. The commission also noted a recent hire in economic development, Melissa Jeffers.

No formal action or vote was taken on MFR 45 at the July 28 meeting. Commissioners concluded they want a focused, evidence-based approach — identifying eligible parcels, having technical reviews by utilities and emergency services, and presenting mapped, graphic materials to the public before any public hearing.

Ending: Planning staff will compile commissioners’ questions and suggested edits, circulate scheduling options, and arrange internal and joint workshops before a public hearing is scheduled.