Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission discusses Moab Area Housing Task Force data and land-use code rewrite plans
Summary
Members of the Grand County Planning Commission heard updates on the Moab Area Housing Task Force, discussed sharing data and possible inclusion of HDHO (housing program) priorities in an upcoming land-use code rewrite, and contemplated using the county’s $80,000 planning update budget to address housing policy.
The Grand County Planning Commission on March 10, 2024, discussed recent work by the Moab Area Housing Task Force and the possibility of incorporating housing priorities — including a revival or review of HDHO-related policy — into a planned rewrite of the county’s land-use code.
Commission member Aaron reported that the task force has compiled new data and may present a dashboard soon. He said the task force could make a presentation to the commission and that staffers Caitlin Myers and Laura Harris had materials and timing to coordinate. "They're gonna come online with that probably within the week," Aaron said of the task force’s data dashboard.
Members discussed whether the county’s planned land-use code update (a staff-procured consultant budgeted at about $80,000) could or should include housing policy changes such as HDHO adjustments or overlays that allow denser or different housing types. Planning staff and commissioners agreed the RFP/procurement and the scope of the consultant are administrative decisions handled by county staff and the county administrator, though the commission can convey policy priorities. “We can advise them how that works, but ultimately that's the staff all the way up to the county administrator,” a planning staffer said.
Commissioners asked staff to gather historic HDHO application results and other performance data so commissioners and the task force can evaluate what succeeded and failed under prior programs. Planning staff cautioned that some applicant-level data may include personally protected information and should be reviewed by the county attorney for redaction before public distribution.
No formal motion or vote occurred. Commissioners agreed to invite task-force representatives to a future meeting and to circulate the task-force data in advance so commissioners can prepare questions to make any presentation more productive.
