Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission seeks consultant to rewrite and simplify Grand County land‑use code
Summary
Planning staff presented an RFP to audit and update Grand County’s Land Use and Development Management Code, splitting work into a phase‑1 audit and a phase‑2 rewrite; commissioners debated timeline, public outreach and costs and a member of the public urged an ambitious schedule.
The Grand County Planning Commission on Jan. 26 advanced a request for proposals to update the county’s Land Use and Development Management Code, a project staff described as a two‑phase effort to audit existing zoning and subdivision language and then revise it to be clearer and more usable.
"This is a request for proposals to go out for the land use and development management code," Andrew Jackson, county planning staff, told commissioners, summarizing the RFP’s scope and the proposed two‑phase approach: a phase‑1 audit to identify inconsistent or outdated sections, followed by a phase‑2 drafting effort to reconcile zoning and subdivision language and produce a usable code.
Why it matters: commissioners said the county’s rules contain inconsistencies (for example, different sections that treat animal uses and accessory units differently) and that a clearer code would reduce confusion for residents and staff. Commissioners emphasized two competing priorities: move quickly so the county has usable rules soon, but avoid rushing substantive changes that require robust public outreach.
Major points and process: staff said the RFP asks respondents to identify deliverables, cost and schedule. The procurement timeline discussed on the record includes a proposal due date in early March and a target notice of award timed for a county commission meeting in April (the conversation referenced April 7). Staff described a sealed‑proposal process with a scoring committee composed of staff, county commissioners and planning commission leadership; incomplete proposals would be rejected.
Commissioner concerns: several commissioners argued the county should minimize undefined "conditional uses" and require that any conditional use include explicit criteria, so applicants and staff know what standards must be met. Others cautioned that if the project grows beyond a cleanup into major policy changes (for example, adding a density overlay), the timeline must expand to allow additional public engagement and workshops.
Public comment: AJ Throckmorton urged the commission to pursue an "optimistic" schedule and to produce a code the public can read without special training. "Making sure it is well written so that it is legible without a master's degree makes total sense to me," Throckmorton said during the citizens‑to‑be‑heard period.
Next steps: staff will issue the RFP on procurement platforms (Bonfire was mentioned as a commonly used site), accept proposals, assemble a scoring committee and bring a recommendation back to the commission and, as needed, the county commission for award and subsequent public workshops.
Votes and formal actions at this meeting were limited to routine procedural items; no final adoption of code language occurred at this session.
