Approved - 7 to 0.

Paxton Valley Rezone

Case: RZN-2021-183
Consider a Request by WDM Corporation to Rezone Three Parcels Totaling Approximately 2.49 Acres from R-2 (Residential - 2 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential - 12 units/acre) Located at the Southwest Corner of 26 ½ Road and Northacres Road.
This meeting will be held as an in-person/virtual hybrid meeting. The virtual meeting link is below:
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.


Applicant Presentation

Staff Presentation


Development Application ( 1.94 MB )
Staff Report ( 0.09 MB )
Maps and Exhibits ( 1.16 MB )
Neighborhood Meeting Documentation ( 0.49 MB )
Public Correspondence ( 5.19 MB )
Decision Making Criteria

Per Section 21.01.140 of the Zoning and Development Code, the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the following criteria have been met:

(1) Subsequent events have invalidated the original premises and findings; and/or

(2) The character and/or condition of the area has changed such that the amendment is consistent with the Plan; and/or

(3) Public and community facilities are adequate to serve the type and scope of land use proposed; and/or

(4) An inadequate supply of suitably designated land is available in the community, as defined by the presiding body, to accommodate the proposed land use; and/or

(5) The community or area, as defined by the presiding body, will derive benefits from the proposed amendment.

Comments & Feedback

This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
Online comments closed at 5:30 PM MDT 5/10/21.
I appreciate the well-drafted video on the proposed re-zone of Paxton Valley because it gave good information on why this poor idea is being considered at all. It seems the shoehorning of a grossly overpopulated density zone into not one, but potentially TWO (with the construction of a bridge) single-family home neighborhoods is being proposed for our greater good, thank to city growth projections as of a year ago. The plan states this parcel IS NOT consistent with the new comprehensive plan, but looking at the map it is CLEARLY consistent with the intended use and neighboring lots. It is surrounded by already developed lots that range from R1 to R4 - rezoned to R12 it will stick out like a sore thumb, and stick into the neighborhood's side like a thorn. Seems when the city declared its goals it then immediately declared imminent domain to reach those goals. Yes, developing vacant land is a good thing, especially so near jobs and community services, but R12 is totally over the top. While officially labeled medium density, this is 3-6x more dense than anything around it. We should not be slapping in units of unwelcome in the name of "efficient development." Please reconsider.
May 10, 2021, 5:26 PM
Kirsta Jacobs
2 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Our family moved to the Northridge subdivision 20 years ago and have been very happy to be part of this neighborhood. We are concerned that rezoning of neighboring area from R2 to R12 and/or extending Northacres Road would negatively affect the safety and integrity of our neighborhood. I feel that in the best interest of the affected property owners, there should not be any rezoning and/or extending of Northacres Road.
May 10, 2021, 4:26 PM
Suzanne Steel
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Hello- I am opposed to the Paxton Valley Rezone application. We recently purchased our home in Northridge Estates and one of the most appealing features was the quiet, small, well kept neighborhood. There is only one way in and out which keeps traffic down. Light traffic allows our children and the other children in the neighborhood to play outside, the small number of neighbors allows us to get to know each other and feel safe letting our children go outside. The neighborhood is well kept because people love it here and take pride in owning a home in a coveted neighborhood. Adding 30 ‘affordable’ housing units and a bridge to the mix will diminish the sense of community and safety. Traffic will surely increase within the neighborhood and put more strain on an already busy section of Patterson Rd. Other high density housing and commercial projects have yet to be completed along Patterson Rd. Approving another multi unit project before the true impact of the projects in progress is measured is premature and could have negative impacts on more than just our small neighborhood. Yes, the demand for housing is high right now, but there are better places in Grand Junction for multi unit housing, and there are other ways for the developer and the City to make money on this 2.5 acres, so I urge you to deny this application. Thank you.
May 10, 2021, 4:16 PM
Thomas Wright
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
We have lived in Northridge Estates for 45 years. When we moved here, there was no mall; Patterson was 2-lane; there were stop signs on Patterson and 1st and none on 1st Street; and little traffic. I am appalled you want to change the rezoning from 2 to 12. If anyone on the planning commission lived in our area, I might, maybe, perhaps understand it; but I think that this comes down to dollars. Sure, there will be development fees, and then after it is built, we are stuck with a horrible idea and a horrible bridge to ruin our neighborhood. Miriam Grafe
May 10, 2021, 1:33 PM
Miriam Grafe
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
I am against approving the rezone application for R-12. I have attached a detailed PDF file with the reasoning.
May 10, 2021, 1:27 PM
Gregory M. Glenn
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment

Due to all the development north of Patterson, the 1st Street intersection is extremely difficult to go south east or west on Patterson Road. This backup is the worst in the 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. timeframe by adding another bridge and access to Northridge Drive will exasperate the situation. Please reconsider Paxton Valley as it will isolate Sage court and will put a horrible burden on Northridge Estates. Thank you.

May 10, 2021, 1:21 PM
Jaye Sarapata
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment

We are against the high density in this area our traffic is already horrible this is not a walkable neighborhood now. I worked at Saint Mary's for 20 years you can't walk there from here. If this is approved over there on 7th street they should enter and exit on 7th Street there is no reason to ever put a bridge across this canal to the Northridge area. Our whole Northridge subdivision of 160 homes has only one exit in the whole subdivision; you may be confused about this because on a Grand Junction City Map it does show that there is another exit out of this subdivision near the canal and F 1/2 Road that was never done that is now private land there is still only one way out. So, if you put a bridge across people are going to try to come through here wander up and down through the hills, through the subdivision and exit only at the only exit which is almost at Patterson Road on 1st and opposite a surgery center, mind you, so the traffic is almost impossible to get out of here now. So, please do not put a bridge across here and have people wandering around through here. This is already a huge high traffic area as you know if Patterson that everything is exiting on the Patterson, and it's very very crowded you're trying to do something about the traffic there now. You can't widen the road so try not to do really high density housing just think about it and the future of Grand Junction. Thank you.

May 10, 2021, 11:02 AM
Nancy Psencik
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment
I am a Personal Representative for a property on Northridge Drive. I believe that rezoning the area to a higher density after a lower density has been the make up of these properties that are existing in the area is a very bad decision. The people that have trusted you when they voted to look out for their best interests will be looking at their property values dropping. This also allows for traffic problems and I am not sure a proper traffic study has been done, as it appears that property would be land locked and other ways of relieving the traffic issue would create congestion for other properties already in existence. Not sure that all areas of planning have been looked at as to infrastructure and how they will provide for such a density problem. Thank you.
May 10, 2021, 11:02 AM
Lonnie Grossnickle
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Accepting the change in zoning for this property from R2 to R12 would greatly diminish the very nature and long term success of the surrounding areas and neighborhoods adjacent to these three lots. We moved to Northridge Estates, from downtown, last fall for the very reason this is a safe, quiet, low development zone with one entrance/exit from the neighborhood where kids can play freely. The amount of activity and safety enjoyed in the neighborhood by all ages would be greatly affected by opening these lots to r12 development. The justification by city development for "Infill" are inappropriate for this particular area. We are not the city center nor would it be conducive to walk to any of the mentioned amenities or businesses. Ultimately this would be detrimental to the integrity of surrounding neighborhoods by increasing traffic, speed of traffic, litter, noise, and access. We are growing and housing is needed. I agree. Appropriate housing is needed but R12 is not appropriate for this area. Land is not as limited at city planning makes it sound. Drive around this town. Many areas are more appropriate for R12 zoning. Allowing development of R2 levels on these parcels are still an asset to the developer, the future homeowners, and the current homeowners who have chosen to live here because of the low zoning levels and the lifestyle that comes along with those zoning levels.
May 10, 2021, 10:50 AM
Nicole Burkey
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment

I'd like to comment on this high density R-12 zoning on the apartments up there by Sage. I think it's ludicrous that they're going to put more traffic that would put more traffic on both 7th Street which is two lane, and on 1st Street because if you actually put a bridge over the canal and run some of that traffic to Northridge there's only one exit out of Northridge and Willowbrook, it's a two lane, the streets are very narrow in Northridge going to have a lot of traffic problems there plus some days it's very hard to get on 1st Street from the traffic that's there now if you increase it's going to be worse, and I don't think that this is the proper thing for a 30 unit multi purpose apartment house anyway that's my comment I'm definitely opposed. Thank you.

May 10, 2021, 9:45 AM
Robert L Cherveny
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment
Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Paxton Valley proposal and the Main Line Bridge over the Grand Valley Canal.  The proposed rezoning of 2.49 acres just south of North Acres Road on 26.5 Road from an R-2 designation to R-12. While the local community may be unable to prevent development, that in itself will be detrimental to the area, nearly all residents in the Northridge Estates neighborhood are completely opposed to the addition of multi-family housing that will destroy our neighborhoods community, cause traffic and safety problems, and potentially lower the property values of the existing community.  This plan will destroy our neighborhood.  We specifically bought our home in Northridge Estates because it is a quiet, small, family-style neighborhood. One of the things we love about this neighborhood is that there is only one entrance and exit, which prevents heavy traffic and people who are not from our community in our neighborhood. The March 1, 2021 plan to build a bridge over the Main Line of the Grand Valley Canal that would connect North Acres Road and Northridge Drive will drastically change the flow of traffic in our neighborhood along with the safety of our community. This is a small neighborhood where everyone knows each other and kids are constantly at play outside. It is the neighborhood that so many of us are nostalgic about or dream of with the summer block parties to get together, endless summer nights of kids playing baseball or other neighborhood games, and is a quiet, peaceful place in the center of Grand Junction. Your plan will destroy this neighborhood by increasing the volume of traffic and people. In addition, I am greatly concerned about  how this proposal will impact the value of property in our community.  Recently,  two prominent realtors from different companies stated that a project at this density next to our one-house-one acre neighborhoods will decrease the value of our homes and property.  These 30+ units will become investment rental properties, which will bring inconsistency to our neighborhood.  Again, we chose  to live here because it was a quiet, child-center, low density neighborhood with minimal traffic. Finally, I am very upset with the lack of transparency and direct community outreach concerning the March 1, 2021 plan to build a bridge over the Main Line of the Grand Valley Canal as well as the Paxton Valley rezoning plan. I had to find out about both of these plans through our HOA President which is inexcusable from your City Planners team.  Your team’s lack of communication and outreach suggests you are more motivated by the dollar amounts projected by developers and than the well-being of the communities that will be directly impacted by these changes.  Why has there not been letters consistently sent out to our communities disclosing these proposals?  Have you toured through our community to talk with us about the change this would inflict on our community?  Would you be willing to have this happen to your neighborhood? I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning and bridge development from happening in our community. I know my opinions are shared by many who have not managed to attend meetings or write letters and emails from my recent meetings and discussions with my neighbors. Thank you for your consideration and for standing up for the well-being of our communities.
May 9, 2021, 10:13 PM
Jessica Miley
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
I have been a property owner and full time resident of Northridge subdivision for over twenty eight years. I believe the proposal to to change zoning of the Paxton Valley property at North Acres Road to an R-12 designation is not congruent with the area and I oppose the rezoning to higher density. Furthermore, I oppose a bride being built over Grand Valley Canal that would connect North Acres Road and Northridge Drive. Northridge Drive is a residential street and the likely increased traffic through a residential neighborhood is undesirable.
May 9, 2021, 8:41 PM
William Feely
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
My concerns to the Paxton Valley Rezone has to do with the future development of the 2.5 acres located at the southwest corner of 26 1/2 Road and Northacres Road. Since the Applicant provided no proposed development plans for the subject site, I have to assumed a total of 30 residential units could, and probably would be built in the 2.5 acres in consideration. Even though there are a few higher density sites in the nearby area, such as The Capella Assisted Living Facility, Solstice Senior Living Center, and the proposed Village Co-op Senior Apartments, the future development on this site would be much different. The housing types that could be built on these 2.5 acres would consist of duplexes, triplexes, multiplexes, apartments, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units. These housing types provide different dynamics to the existing neighborhoods than do Senior Assisted Living Centers or Senior Apartments. These housing types would not maintain the character of this neighborhood as stated under item 5 of the Analysis section of the recommendation to approve the rezoning from R-2 to R-12 to the Grand Junction City Council by Senior Planner Jace Hochwalt. This does not even address the future possibilities of increased traffic flow through the Northridge Estates Subdivision where I currently live. Based on these concerns I request the Paxton Valley Rezone not be recommended for approval to the Grand Junction City Council.
May 9, 2021, 8:40 PM
Leslie W Perich
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
May 9, 2021 Dear Members of the Mesa County Planning Commission and Grand Junction City Council, We have purchased our home and pay property taxes to live in an area that is not high density because this is the manner of living that we desire. Our home is our place to come to where we feel balanced and safe, as well as our lifetime investment. Our subdivision and the surrounding areas are of non-high density living and the chosen transient lifestyles that high density allows. Our subdivision and surrounding areas do not have the infrastructure to well-tolerate the traffic and impact that high density building would bring. Please do not allow the Paxton Valley Rezone project to come to fruition in the area proposed. Please know that I respect and wish for others to enjoy our valley and enjoy their lifestyle choices, but also please understand that continuity in building and residential areas are sought after for all of the reasons above. Please help us keep it this way. Sincerely, Lori A. Sommers Home Owner in Northridge Subdivision.
May 9, 2021, 6:06 PM
Lori A. Sommers
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
To the GJ Planning Commission: The Paxton Valley Rezone is an unnecessary and unwanted proposal. Currently zoned for low density residential, as is all the land around it, there is no need to create an island of high density housing, moving from 1 residence per plot to as many as 12. These residences will almost certainly become rental properties in short order. Having previously lived in a neighborhood where the primary housing occupants changed from owners to renter in a period of only a few years, I have had personal experience watching the area quickly change from upbeat, personable, and desirable to overgrown, run-down, vandalized, and unwelcoming. Cramming multiplex housing into an area currently designated for single family changes the dynamic of an area and frequently creates significant problems. It is unsurprising that those who are pushing for such a change are those who would build the housing complexes and reap the financial benefits of such construction, then leave without having to deal with the consequences foisted upon the residents, students, and professionals who currently occupy the area. The land can and should be developed, certainly, but as it is currently zoned and as it was intended to be used. There is no need for a bridge from 7th through the area, either, which would turn the safety of Northridge Subdivision into through traffic for anyone looking to skip Patterson and not drive to G Road. This would compromise safety for the residents, children, and properties. The rezoning proposal, of course, notes all of the rose-tinted possible positives without addressing the realities of the situation. People do not walk across 7th or Patterson if they can help it. There are indeed some of the commercial sites available that were mentioned, but they are not in need of jamming 2½ dozen houses into 3 acres a half mile away. Parking would be another problem for the housing, as there is insufficient space for 30 houses plus the parking, and nowhere to overflow to without additional rezones and putting the entire area in disruption. The school, church, senior living, and memory care centers would bear the brunt of the parking problems until then, again endangering safety and security. Please consider declining the rezoning proposal. Thank you, Eric Gustavson M.S., NCC, LPC
May 9, 2021, 3:34 PM
Eric Gustavson
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Dear GJ Planning Commission, The Paxton Valley Rezone south of North Acres Road is a huge concern to area residents. The 3 plots that are currently there should hold 3 residences by current zoning. This makes a lot of sense with surrounding neighborhoods. It does not make sense to re-zone it as R-12 and put in 8-12 units per plot and put in 30 units. The increased traffic to 7th street would decrease safety for St. Mary's Hospital employees and surrounding businesses, as well as Juniper Ridge Community School students and families. I understand that Grand Junction planners want to grow and continue to increase business to our region, however, there are other things that our community could use more than increased residents and increased traffic. Please consider adding more recreation opportunities such as mini-golf, an ice rink, supporting public pools, and other sports opportunities in addition to the parks and trails here. Aside from Bananas and Get Air, there are not many chances for our youth to be active. The 30 units would probably become rental properties over time and this would bring additional problems to the community as it reduces property values and increases crime. Please consider this request to keep the zoning as-is and maintain the residential community that has already existed here for over 30 years. Best regards, Amy Gustavson, M.A. CCC-SLP
May 9, 2021, 3:03 PM
Amy Gustavson
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment

I'm calling about the Paxton Valley Rezone. I have lived in Northridge since 1985 and I am totally against the rezoning. I would like to make that a note that I am not for it; totally against it. Thank you.

May 9, 2021, 2:30 PM
Julie Jussel
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment
I would like to add my input to this matter. This is a similar issue that has come up time and time again from my hometown of Santa Barbara, California. The need for desirable housing to accommodate the need for workers in neighboring areas is important, but that should not compromise the quality of those areas or neighboring areas. Over the years my hometown went from what was called the Riveria of the West Coast to an over populated area due to poor city planning and is now less desirable to live in than the surrounding cities. It appears that this rezoning causes more harm to the value of the affected areas than it benefits the need for additional housing. In this instance, I would think there must be a better alternative to resolve the need for additional housing as there are currently multiple projects in the works to increase the housing availability for the city. We moved to grand junction 3 years ago so my twin boys could have the type of town to grow up in as I did before Santa Barbara turned it turned into another Los Angeles. I want to see grand junction grow and prosper, but would hope more thought and consideration is taken so it doesn’t lose the feeling is has and the intrinsic value that make this town desirable to call home.
May 8, 2021, 11:23 AM
David Roozee
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
As a nearby property owner I am greatly opposed to the rezoning of the said property from R-2 to R-12. This would only benefit the pocket books of a selected few and not impact in a positive manner the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed density of R-12 does not reflect the area and would only devalue the existing homeowner's investments. A more reasonable proposal would be to leave it as is and build beautiful homes with safe areas for families or at best R-4 zoning. Alicia Gleason Morrill
May 7, 2021, 7:09 PM
Alicia Gleason Morrill
7 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment

Hi, I would like to leave a comment regarding the Paxton zoning. I think 22 units per acre is inappropriate for the subdivision with the single houses that live south and west of that, and I think that that Duke Wortmann being on the city council and his wife being the realtor for that property is inappropriate. I think you need to keep the character in the value of this part of the valley and mixing and all that high density with really more rural one acre lots that are in those areas inappropriate more appropriate would be at the most 4 units per acre. Thank you.

May 4, 2021, 9:21 AM
Margaret Pilcher
8 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Your Question has been submitted.