The Grand County Planning Commission unanimously voted on Nov. 10 to forward a favorable recommendation for the county’s non‑motorized trails master plan — an update focused on active transportation and trail connectivity — to the Grand County Commission.

Katie Murphy, the GCAT project coordinator and consultant team lead (Alta Planning and Design), presented the draft plan, describing it as an update to the county’s 2005 plan (with 2008 and 2011 revisions) and explaining why an expanded scope was needed. She said the plan shifts toward a network-based, active transportation approach and includes two complementary sets of maps and matrices: paved active-transportation corridors and natural-surface recreational trails. The plan is supported by a GIS tool for internal county use.

Murphy described public engagement and project funding: the project received a $120,000 Technical Planning Assistance grant from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) with a $30,000 match provided by the city; no county cash outlay was reported. Outreach included stakeholder meetings, a vulnerable‑users advisory group, open houses, an online map-based survey with 439 responses and 18 direct landowner contacts.

Public testimony from Trailmix representative Emily Lessner and research scientist Christina Young stressed improved connectivity for daily needs, safety, cost-effectiveness of advance planning and local greenhouse-gas reductions from shifting trips away from cars. Murphy repeatedly told the commission that inclusion of private property in the plan is conceptual only, Utah law does not allow the use of eminent domain for trails, and any easement or alignment through private property would be negotiated with owners; the plan enables the county to set aside funds or pursue voluntary easements or development‑agreement mechanisms when appropriate.

A commissioner moved and Laura seconded that the planning commission forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commission. After brief discussion about the plan’s role relative to the general plan and land‑use code (some future code amendments were flagged as possible), the commission voted to forward the plan unanimously.

Next steps identified by staff include providing the plan and its matrices to the County Commission and, if adopted, coordinating subsequent land‑use code updates and subdivision/permit processes that implement priority projects.

Supporting documents and the agenda summary (most up to date copy) are available in the county meeting packet.