Commissioners, staff express frustration that project stems from a 30-year-old rezoning decision

The citizen-to-be-heard portion of the Tuesday, January 16 meeting of the Grand County Commission ran over an hour and a half before being cut off. Residents spilled out of the County Commission chambers and down the hallway, waiting to say their piece about a 580-unit development planned near the Colorado River on Kane Creek Boulevard.

Commission Chair Jacque Hadler began the comment period by setting ground rules and cautioning the attendees that the Grand County Sheriff’s Office and the county attorney were aware of threats against the developers of the Kane Springs property.

“The sheriff’s office is investigating the allegations and working with various agencies,” Hadler read from a statement. “They have also stepped up regular patrols and increased law enforcement presence in the development area.”

The statement set a serious tone that was mirrored by comments from the public, one of whom compared the proposed development to the Titanic. Concerns ranged from noise, pollution, increased traffic along the narrow road, and the risk of building close to a floodplain.

Kane Creek Preservation and Development partner Tom Gottlieb also commented to say that they viewed the property as run-down and degraded and that the developers aspired to improve the local ecosystem and provide housing.

At the heart of the issue is a 1992 rezoning of a majority of the 180 acres in the development from undeveloped General Grazing to Highway Commercial.

The rezone was issued to the previous owners of the property, who applied as they intended to buld an overnight camping area. However, that zoning also permits commercial uses and the construction of residences.

The property must have extensive improvements, including regrading the area of the property near the Colorado River to be 12-inches above Base Flood Elevation and building an entire water and septic system for any development.

Despite the impassioned comments, county staff and commissioners said that little could be done about the zoning issue. The Commission meeting also saw a presentation on the long and complicated history of the land parcel.

Commissioners were frustrated with the issue, indicating that their hands were tied by the actions of officials decades ago.

“This commission doesn’t really have a say on whether or not they can develop up to 18 units per acre, said Planning Director Elisa Martin. “It’s in the zoning, it’s legal, they’re entitled to that development.”

Martin acknowledged the strangeness of the zoning, saying “It’s tough to reconcile because it’s a beautiful, pristine piece of land right on the river.”

“Once those rights are there, and once they submit an application, there’s not a whole lot the county can do,” said Commissioner Kevin Walker. “Doesn’t mean there’s zero we can do. But, to use a sports metaphor, if it were a basketball game, we’re down 20 points, there’s six minutes left to play…Someone might argue there’s only one minute left to play.”

While Walker flagged a possible issue with the legal definition of the properties as included in the 1992 zoning change as something to look into, he also urged residents to consider where land-use issues could cause similar problems in the future.