Grand County planning commission backs HDHO edits, recommends up to 30% outside ownership of deed‑restricted units

The Grand County Planning Commission voted June 9 to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commission on edits to the county’s High Density Housing Overlay (HDHO) ordinance, including language that would allow up to 30% of deed‑restricted HDHO units to be owned by individuals who do not qualify as an “actively employed household,” provided those units are rented to qualified local households.

The move came after more than three hours of discussion among commissioners, staff and members of the public over two central issues: how the ordinance defines the “local area” for eligibility and how much of the deed‑restricted housing stock to permit for outside ownership. Planning staff said the recommended edits also include updated enforcement language that clarifies the county may seek injunctive relief through the courts to enforce violations of the overlay.

Why it matters: Commissioners and housing advocates said the decision balances two competing goals—protecting ownership opportunities for local residents while improving financing feasibility for developers so more projects can be built. Commissioners repeatedly noted the vote would affect vested, deed‑restricted units already in the pipeline: staff advised that 253 deed‑restricted HDHO units are vested (313 total approved units, of which 98 and 34 were described in the meeting as rental‑only projects), so any change would have immediate effect on those properties.

Planning staff member Chrissy said the draft ordinance has been through initial legal review but that some pieces still require further attorney review once the commission indicates which options it prefers. Chrissy also explained a separate deed‑restriction contract the county attorney would prepare for applicants; that deed restriction would be recorded by the attorney’s office and is separate from the land‑use code text.

Planning Commissioner Tony and several colleagues argued for a broader “local area” definition that would allow people who serve or work in the community—sometimes across county lines—to qualify, noting the county’s labor market and service geography are larger than the immediate city. Other commissioners pushed for a narrower geographic test limited to Grand County (and the 84532 ZIP code or the county boundary) to keep benefits aimed at residents who live and primarily work in the county.

On the ownership cap, commissioners debated prior precedents (including condo ownership rules) and multiple proposals ranging from keeping the existing 80/20 split to allowing a 50/50 or other compromise. After discussion and straw polls, the commission settled on a recommendation that limits outside ownership to up to 30% of the deed‑restricted HDHO units (the language as recommended specifies units, not a partial ownership interest). Several commissioners said the number is intended as a compromise they hope the County Commission will accept.

A public commenter who identified herself as Courtney (resident and housing advocate) urged attention to loanability and federal program requirements: “FHA specifically denied this deed restriction language,” she said, adding that FHA loan access is important to local buyers because of the low down‑payment requirement. Courtney said outreach and adjustments to eligibility remain necessary because staff and developers have repeatedly encountered local residents who meet the community test in spirit but fail to meet some code minutiae.

Staff and commissioners also discussed enforcement and remedies: the draft contains language (cited in the meeting as section 4.7.11b) that allows the county to institute appropriate legal action, including injunctions and, where applicable, seeking damages or civil remedies. Commissioners noted that an injunction would require a court order; the ordinance language does not authorize extrajudicial evictions by the county.

The commission’s recommendation asks the County Commission to consider two edits: clarify the local‑area definition (options discussed were county political boundary and 84532 ZIP code, or a 75‑mile radius consistent with prior procurement policy language) and adopt the proposed cap that up to 30% of deed‑restricted HDHO units may be owned by non‑qualified individuals provided those units are restricted and rented to qualified households.

The commission’s motion to forward the favorable recommendation, as recorded in the meeting, carried after a roll call. The chair announced the result and noted recorded opposition from two members. The meeting minutes will record the formal tally.

Looking ahead: Planning staff said the draft ordinance will receive additional legal review before it goes to the County Commission. Commissioners repeatedly urged that the County Commission be told where there was disagreement among the planning commissioners so the County Commission can weigh the tradeoffs. Staff also noted that the HDHO program as previously adopted had vesting and sunset provisions, and commissioners discussed how the recommended edits would apply to vested projects already in the pipeline.

Ending: The planning commission moved on to other departmental housekeeping items after the HDHO discussion and closed the meeting shortly after 8:20 p.m.