Grand County planning panel recommends denying rezoning of Raven’s Rim parcel

The Grand County Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend denial of a request to rezone roughly 234 acres identified as parcel 0300360063 from Range and Grazing to Resort Commercial, saying the county lacks the procedural and technical information needed to support a wholesale upzoning.

Planning staff summarized the application and recommended denial, saying the parcel “needs to be annexed to the city” and that changing the zoning to a broad commercial category would amount to spot zoning and raise access and infrastructure questions. Chrissy Hawthorne, planning staff, told commissioners the parcel is “accessed via Hell’s Revenge, which is a Class D road,” and that the most intense potential uses must be considered when reviewing a rezone.

The applicant and property owners said the land already functions primarily as a recreation and tourism site. “All we’re asking now is the zoning to recognize the reality that it actually exists on the ground right now,” said Mark Steen, who spoke for his family as owners of the property. Ashley, principal owner of MiniLea Ventures, said the county’s recent future land-use work indicated the parcel as resort or tourist recreation and argued the rezone is consistent with that guidance. “We cannot invest in infrastructure without proper zoning,” Ashley said, describing a chicken-or-egg problem between zoning and infrastructure investment.

Public commenters and some commissioners disagreed that a countywide Resort Commercial designation was appropriate for the entire parcel. Several speakers, including Bob Greenberg, Kirsten Pearson and former planning commissioner Kevin Walker, urged the board to reject or substantially narrow the rezoning request. Concerns cited by commenters and staff included the parcel’s size, the parcel’s varied topography and constrained areas, the lack of utility and road infrastructure, and the parcel’s inclusion in the city’s annexation area and in the North Gateway/future land-use planning work.

Commissioner Obi moved that the board send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Commission to deny the rezoning request; Jerry seconded. The motion passed with six votes in favor and one abstention (Mary), and the board closed the public hearing. The action sends the board’s recommendation to the County Commission, which retains final authority on the legislative rezoning decision.

Board members who supported the unfavorable recommendation cited three recurring points during deliberations: (1) the parcel is within the City of Moab’s annexation area and the board needs written confirmation from the city before acting; (2) Resort Commercial allows a density and range of uses that are inappropriate for much of the 234-acre parcel and could constitute spot zoning; and (3) the application lacked a specific development plan and detailed infrastructure proposals that would show how commercial uses could be supported given current access and utility limits.

Planning staff and several commissioners said narrower approaches could address both applicant and community concerns: subdivide and rezone only the specific developable portions along the highway corridor, pursue a different county zone (for example, Resort Special) tailored to remote tourist uses, or obtain a city annexation determination and then revisit the zoning question. Kevin Walker and others recommended aligning future land-use designations with a revised land-use code before approving large, generalized rezonings so that zone names and permitted uses match the county’s policy goals.

The public hearing remains part of the record and the County Commission will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation, staff materials and written public comments filed during the required post-hearing period. The board did not approve any development permits or annexation and did not adopt a final county decision; it sent a recommendation to the County Commission to reject the rezone request.