Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission hears land-use code audit; staff to separate cleanup from policy
Summary
Consultant Daniel Jensen presented a land-use-code audit focused on reorganizing and cleaning the county’s code to make it more intuitive for staff and residents. Commissioners supported removing unnecessary conditional-use permits in many cases but told staff to flag policy questions for a later phase rather than attempt big policy changes in the cleanup effort.
Daniel Jensen of Sunrise Engineering presented the planning commission with an audit of Grand County’s land-use code aimed at reorganizing decades of scattered and duplicated amendments to make the code easier to read and administer. Jensen said his team is consolidating language, eliminating duplicates and identifying areas where modern Utah statute updates have not yet been integrated.
Commissioners pressed Jensen on conditional-use permits (CUPs), with several saying CUPs create administrative burdens and neighbor disputes. One member argued for minimizing CUPs and converting many into permitted uses with clear standards; Jensen agreed that where objective standards can be written, he will recommend moving uses from discretionary CUPs into permitted-use sections.
Commissioners repeatedly cautioned against treating the cleanup as a vehicle for rapid policy change. Jensen said he will surface policy questions—such as how overlays are implemented and whether certain overlays are effectively new zones—in a separate document for future phases. The commission emphasized timetable concerns and urged staff and the consultant to balance speed with thoroughness.
Several commissioners raised technical editorial items that the audit would address, including the use of a ‘commercial acre’ (40,000 sq ft) convention versus the true acre (43,560 sq ft) in some subdivision calculations and clarifying overlay language so that overlays function as overlays rather than implicit zone changes.
Planning staff said they will compile policy topics identified in the audit into a separate list to be addressed after the structural code clean-up. No formal votes or policy adoptions took place; commissioners asked staff to return with clarified drafts and policy issue lists for later public engagement.
