Grand County’s Planning Commission voted on Nov. 24 to recommend that the county commission approve a rezone for the LaVena Subdivision at 1972 Plateau Drive, forwarding the item to the county commission with the staff‑recommended considerations.

Staff told members the 14.78‑acre parcel includes a mix of highway commercial, general business and large‑lot residential zoning and that the applicant, Foothold Inc. (represented in the hearing by Troy Naylor), proposes townhome and duplex residential development consistent with the future land‑use designation. Staff said the proposal satisfied the general plan’s tests for consistency but noted outstanding questions around traffic and stormwater that would need continuing review.

Troy Naylor, the applicant, said the project intends to deliver smaller, locally affordable rental units that follow the existing architectural theme. Naylor described plans to extend sewer via a pressurized line and to pipe and retain stormwater in engineered basins to address an existing drainage channel on the lower part of the site.

“I’m trying to put together some affordable housing for people that live in the community,” Naylor said.

A local resident, Karen Feary, asked the commission to weigh flooding and narrow local roads, telling the commission she has opposed building on the ravine because runoff already causes erosion on adjacent properties. Commissioners questioned site elevations, flood easements and the split of zoning types across the parcel; staff and the applicant said the developer has engineered catch basins and a piping plan to contain stormwater on site and that the subdivision plat is already approved for the parcel in concept.

After deliberation, a motion to recommend approval inclusive of staff bullets a through k passed, and the chair reported the vote as 3 in favor, 2 opposed (Mary and Aaron) and one abstention (Bob O'Brien). The commission will forward its recommendation and the staff findings to the county commission for final action and additional engineering review.

Next procedural steps: the planning commission’s recommendation and staff responses to the a–k questions will be included in the county commission packet; county staff indicated the item is expected on a subsequent county commission agenda pending confirmation of the public comment window and packet completeness.

(Reported from the Nov. 24 planning commission hearing; formal final action will be at the county commission.)