A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Planning commission backs rezoning of Steele family property to resort commercial, despite density and annexation concerns

March 23, 2026 | Grand County Planning Commission, Grand County Boards and Commissions, Grand County, Utah


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Planning commission backs rezoning of Steele family property to resort commercial, despite density and annexation concerns
The Grand County Planning Commission recommended approval of a zoning‑map amendment to change a parcel owned by the Steen family from range and grazing to resort commercial, clearing the way for continued and expanded commercial recreation uses on the property.

Applicants Ashley and Mark Steen said they had followed county guidance and submitted materials aligning their request with the Spanish Valley future land‑use plan; Mark Steen told the board the property already hosts commercial recreation and easements that allow public access to features such as the Slickrock bike trail and a zipline operation. “We’d like to request that you approve this so that the people who are using our property can do so in a way that makes it more profitable for all concerned,” Mark Steen said.

Planning staff told commissioners the request is consistent with the Spanish Valley future land‑use designation and recommended the planning commission forward approval to the County Commission. Staff also identified several issues previously raised at an earlier hearing — annexation status, infrastructure and access, use scope, food truck policies, ATV‑accessible event spaces, future‑land‑use alignment and environmental protections — and said the applicant had submitted responses.

Several commissioners expressed reservations about rezoning to resort commercial, citing the property’s location within an annexation area, lack of existing water and sewer services, and the potential for high density under the resort commercial designation. One commissioner cited the county’s “do no harm” place type and said rezoning to a designation that allows higher unit densities could permit future owners to pursue more intense development than the applicants describe.

After extended deliberation the commission voted to recommend approval; the motion passed with five votes in favor and two opposed. Commissioners asked staff to obtain a legal review and to coordinate with applicants and the County Commission to ensure annexation and infrastructure questions are addressed before final action at the county level.

Next steps: staff will coordinate legal review and ensure administrative items (for example, updated title reports and any requested city correspondence regarding annexation) are prepared before the County Commission considers the application.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee