I just heard about this yesterday for the first time and have not had time to adequately research it, but want to voice a couple of requests before the closing of comments. I live one more block to the West than was notified. First, 205 dwelling units is too high of density for this area. It is too close to Central High School. The character of a multistory structure does not fit in this neighborhood. The greatest complaint though has to do with the traffic on E 1/2. It is very difficult to get out on the street right now when School begins and ends. It is in a highly congested place with Wall Mart Neighborhood Market, Central High, Longs Park, and new commercial development across Warrior Way. Please reduce the density to be compatible with the existing size lots in the neighborhood to the West and East of Central. Also, I am totally against being annexed to the City. It looks as if this approved, enclaving of our Fruitvale area will be nearly complete. I want to see maps to see why Patterson North of us City Limits already. Thank you for your consideration of my comments, Caryn Romeo 560 Sol Ln

To Whom It May Concern: I recently was informed by a neighbor of a proposed subdivision going in on 17.42 acres East of 31 Road and North of E ½ Rd. It was stated that the proposal is for 205 units. My family which includes my husband and two sons live on Bookcliff Ave just east of 31 Road, 5 houses in and we were not given any information about this proposal. It was mentioned to me that you only had to contact people/homeowners within 500 feet of the proposed site. With the location of my home I am not sure how fair that is knowing the large amount of vacant land between the site and the established homes so that we would not have to be formally informed. From the information I was given, the developer is asking to have this area approved for RSF-12, stating it would fit within the current area. From the information I have found the zoning is RSF-4 with a few RSF-8 so I am not sure how that would fit into the surrounding neighborhoods. This also will be additional traffic to our area and with both a High School and a Middle School in close proximity and a new Charter School slated to begin in the old Rocky Mountain Gun Club location our traffic is very high during start and finish times of schools. If they did approve the entrance with a bridge to enter into our subdivision this would add so much traffic to our quiet neighborhood where the kids feel safe to play outside and ride their bikes. I am hoping a traffic and facility/store study was done and could be provided for all of us who are concerned about the proposal. I am not opposed to development, I know this is going to happen, but please take into consideration the safety of the families and children in the neighborhoods close by. The children want to be able to be kids and be able to play outside and ride their bikes and not have to worry about so many additional cars driving by their front doors. If you would consider it truly being a like development with staying with the RSF-4 zoning I believe we would be more receptive to this. So please hear my voice for my family. As I stated if you would keep it RSF-4 then I feel you would have less opposition and more support. Jamie Snodgrass

The increased traffic, the character of our neighborhood, the ingress and egrss to the site at E 1/2 Rd all are very troubling to me. I do not think this is an appropriate plan for that site. It is way too dense for this area. A single family home development would likely have my support as it is in keeping with the fit and tone of our neighborhood. I have lived in Eastbrook for 20 years.We do have a very nice vibe here in spite of the occasional traffic jams during peak school and going to work hours. I have seen some very close calls between pedestrians-mostly school kids at our intersection of E 1/2 and 31Road. It defies logic to think that this little intersection could handle all that increased traffic. Safety alone is enough to cause me to wonder about such a radical change in zoning. I am against this re-zoning to R-12.

Google Dwyer my living right next to the to that Annex Station and I think that's it should stay like this stead of being. okay well it starts at 4 but I'm going to change while I think it out and maybe not be that big and go to 8 or something like that where it's not as many people live there so. thank you

I join my neighbors in expressing concern regarding the rezoning of this area. While I am normally in support of low-income housing, I do not feel that this neighborhood and roads, etc. can support such a large increase in population and traffic. I take E 1/2 to work daily and already find the 31 Rd/ E Rd intersection to be perilous, with students biking to and from the high school without checking both ways before crossing 31 Road. Adding to this traffic is only asking for trouble, unless the County plans to put in an adequate bike path and traffic light at this intersection. This change promises to lower the quality of life of 31 Road residents in numerous ways: road traffic, safety of residents, taxing of the school system, danger to the eco-system, etc. We already have issues with vandalism and crime along the road and would expect the issues to increase if said changes were to move forward. I implore the board to consider other options.

This area will not find balance by adding R12 zoning. The majority of homeowners prefer the lower population density here. The roads cannot handle more traffic, they are already in disrepair and crossing E 1/2 road or accessing Patterson is already a challenge. Drivers speed up and down an already narrow and busy 31 road. Stoplights and speed bumps will be required in addition to widening the existing streets to accommodate such an influx of people. I can only imagine that the crime rate will grow as well.

The proposed annexation is poor planning on the part of anyone who would consider establishing apartments or condos in this area. Doing so is deeply concerning in many ways. To add to the concerns of so many well-spoken neighbors and the surrounding community, I am compelled to add my voice. It is such a shock for this peaceful community to think of such a dramatic and long-term change to a piece of land that serves so many purposes which may go unseen to those who are not part of this much-beloved and needed place of refuge for the county, the people, and also wildlife that is dependent on the land for sustainability. I implore the board and county commission to reconsider this agenda for numerous reasons. One of the many pressing concerns is that 31 road has more traffic than one might expect as many non-residential commuters use it as “cut through” between Orchard Avenue and Patterson. Many drivers are careless regarding speed which has led to numerous accidents that are costly to residents whose vehicles are parked in their driveway or safely the on the street. Additional traffic would only add to this already-existing issue which is costly to the homeowners, commuters, and the county. Please keep in mind that this area, though small, offers a much-needed refuse for a variety of wildlife including red-tail fox, raccoons, beavers, doves, ducks, geese, two-horned owls, and the endangered screech owl which is under the watchful eye of the Audubon Society. Reducing their much-needed habitat and access to nesting resources would only increase the risk of extinction to a raptor whose population is already at great risk. In relation to this is the concern about the irrigation ditch in the area. It is a fast-moving, deep irrigation ditch that is not safe for small children or pets. If there is a significant increase in the population of the area that will have access to a bridge of some kind over the ditch, it will be necessary to build and maintain a barrier to keep innocent lives from falling in or exploring the area around the banks which are a sharp 90-degree angle and filled with soft, thick mud. The hazard for slipping and falling in and getting stuck or being swept downstream is significant and concerning as it is difficult (nearly impossible) to climb out. There is also concern that a significant increase in the population of the area will be a burden on the district 51 school zone. The high school and middle school are already struggling to maintain faculty, staff, and administration. Any increase in the student body would only further increase the stress on the local education system which only adds stress to the students body who is already attending and also those who will be admitted. Another point for consideration is the reduction in property values for homeowners who enjoy a wonderful view of the Mesa from their back porch. If an apartment building obstructs this highly desirable view, the value of the homes will decrease which is unfair to the homeowners who will lose money in property values. I ask the board to consider alternatives. The land under discussion is large and there’s certainly potential. Has there been a discussion about extending the park which might include a community garden? Given the opportunity, many local people will benefit from coming together for a collective purpose of feeding, not just their own families, but others who may not have access or resources in terms of fresh produce. This open land is an opportunity. There are many options that have possibly gone without consideration. My question is how do we make this land useful for our community? An apartment building or condos will simply limit the potential for this area and hinder those who are already deeply invested financially and otherwise. Again, I ask the board and county commission to reconsider how best to put this land to use and do so setting aside brick and mortar offers coming from far outside our community with no regard for quality of life for those who live and dwell here.

Please see the attached signed petitions with over 120 of our neighbors opposed to this rezoning. This petition was taken by volunteers, knocking on doors to bring attention to our neighbors of this planned rezoning. Very few of our neighbors were aware of this, and were astonished as to what is being proposed and the impacts it will have on our community and our quality of life. Everyone that we had the opportunity to speak with, signed the petition and will be sharing this information with those we didn't have the opportunity to contact.

The addition of R12 zoning does not bring balance to our community. This and the surrounding areas should remain R4 or R5. The majority of the people who live here prefer low density populated areas. The streets in this area cannot support more people. They are in disrepair and E 1/2 road is nearly impossible to cross on a school day. I foresee many accidents on E1/2 as well as Patterson. Hopefully someone will have foresight to install stoplights as needed. Speed bumps on 31 road between the highway and Patterson would be great as well, I am surprised someone has not been hit with the number of cars currently speeding on our streets. Has anyone thought about the possibility of crime in the area increasing?

We are against changing the zone from R4 to R12. We are concerned about the quality of life from over population in our neighborhood. We live on 31 Road and it is a busy street already and have had two car accidents occur in front of our home in the last few months. We have a land license with the county for land next to our home. We have had dear, foxes, owls and other wild life that is a part of the benefit of living on 31 Road. These things could very well change the ascetics and beauty of this area if the land in our back yard is zoned from R4 to R12 to inhabit multifamily dwellings. I would hope that the quality of life of people in our neighborhood and city would be of a greater importance to our officials making the decisions for their constituency than for business interest of investors that live out of our state. Dear Public Officials, if this project was proposed in your backyard would you change the zoning from R4 to R12? Sincerely, Joe and Sharon Jones

You zoned in Cross Orchard's as an R-4, please reconsider Grand Valley Estates for an R-4 not R-12.

Why so many units on such a small parcel of land ? Were else has the city changed its zoning from RSF4 to R12??. Why not continue to build single family homes. This is a single family community. Who maintains E1/2 road? City or country ? The traffic you will be adding to E1/2 road a two lane road . At 205 units lets say 300 cars daily that's 2100 cars a week 8400 a month that's 100,800 a year !!!!!! Do you think E1/2 road can handle that kind of traffic ?????.This is a stupid idea !!!!! What does this due to the value of the homeowners adding apartment buildings and not new homes. I thought part of this land is a flood plain . Why would you build on a flood plain ? Looks like the city has little or no concern for the home owners around this parcel of land .Another question who pays for inner structure water sewer gas electric ? What tax breaks are you giving and for how many years . What about the additional students to our school system who pays for that ? Looks like the home owners will get stuck with these bills !! The right think to do is not change the zoning and build single family homes and respect the wishes of the home owners around this land. Denis

hi I just wanted to say that I do support Urban growth in the area however I do want to specify that I think the gross should come in the form of single family housing in the area rather than low income apartments my understanding is that low income apartments do not actually a long term benefit Residence Inn areas they pulled back the ability for people to be able to purchase her own single family homes and that is ultimately the goal to help resolve the housing crisis that we are currently dealing with him this climate long term housing Solutions such as single family homes can also be rented out short term which I think is going to be more beneficial option for the county and the area as well as it's residence rather than low income short term rental apartments. I would like to recommend that we use the space in that manner rather than building additional short term housing thank you

My husband and I just bought a home in this area. I support the idea of building single family homes but do not want to see low income housing rental apartments developed in the neighborhood. Building more rental apartments does not help the ongoing housing crisis. It continues it. We need more affordable housing that encourages people to own their homes. Even if the owner of the homes rents out their house this is still more beneficial to the neighborhood and those who live in Grand Junction than another apartment complex.

My wife Debbie and I have lived here since 1988. We have enjoyed the semi country atmosphere but we are not anti growth. We were blessed to have a great neighbor in Bill Long. He loved his small farm so much that he donated his land in lieu of development. We have a beautiful family park that was his wish that he didn't live to see. We have a beautiful housing development going in on the east side of the park and We feel that this would fit in on the subject property instead of high density housing. Thank you Emery and Debbie Welsh

The application from the developer to Grand Junction specifies R-8. There is continued inconsisitencies w regard to this proposal.

A density change from R-4 to R-12 for ~17acres for this neighbourhood is too much. If one considers the areas that would need to be excluded as unsuitable for building including, Army Corp designated flood zone, irrigation canal and right-of-way and hardscape for parking, driveway, bridges and access roads, that packs alot of density in a much smaller acreage. The result, it would seem would be 3+ storied apartment blocks rather than the touted "mixed use" of single family, and condos and light retail. The goal of infill and utilizing existing infrastructure, while admirable, must also acheve the balance for the quality of life for the existing owners/residents which is R-4. In no case, should a high-rise be considered to "balance" this developers plan. Thier goal to maximize the profit on this land purchase should balance the character of this neighbourhood to much less than R-12. Further I see in the planning maps, which seem inconsistent to change properties along E1/2 to "medium" density as well as change some R-4 to Commiecial. As another commenter pointed out, the addition of another school at the former RMGC property will further impact the density of this area.

Has a planner come out to the proposed annexation property to see the existing subdivisions and how it is all R-4? Or are they just going by paperwork being filled out by the developer and what they feel fits the area? R-4, R-5 fits the area come out and see.

Meeting Date December 13, 2022 The Zone district R-5 is also consistent with the residential medium land use category of the comprehensive plan. How do you recommend approval without our input?

E 1/2 Road is the overflow road today for Patterson and I-70B. It is one of the three main east-west roads in the area now. What will be done to address the expected increase in traffic? How are you planning on incorporating bike paths, turn off lanes and sidewalks?

The impacts that are going to be made by these proposals ,are being grossly underestimated in my opinion. I live on the corner of E 1/2 and 31 road. My family has owned the property for over 90 years. The traffic situation that the planner seems to be downplaying is indeed Dire. If anyone doubts that situation, please come down and observe 31 and Orchard Avenue when school is letting out, or around 5:00. I cringe to think how bad it will be if the proposed Charter school,(grades 1- 12) is passed. 31 Road has always been slated for realignment to the other side of Lewis wash and now all of that is off the table? What about the park and walking path promised for the curvy 31 Road ,north of E 1/2 Road ? Now there is talk of a bridge off of Bookcliff Ave ? At what cost ? Have those Homeowners been contacted? We all understand the need for infill,and progress is inevitable .But to change from R4 to R 12? Perhaps,R5 might be more appropriate?

How were the concerns from the required Neighborhood Meetings from June 8th and September 12th addressed by the Planning Department? Are these just requirements that you need to check off your list, how do we get any answers to what your doing to forever change our neighborhood.

Is there anyway we can consider a subdivision like Country Place on 29 1/2 and D 1/4 roads? 105 homes on 15.5 acers? That size fits into the area quite well.

Looking at the map associated with this proposal. It looks like the surrounding area is mainly RSF-4. I am apposed to changing from the counties RSF-4 to the extreme R-12. R-4 or R-5 is more consistent to the surrounding area.

I am concerned that the R-12 proposed annexation does not fit the same density as the surrounding area. I am unable to find any other R-12 subdivisions in the city limits except by Colorado Mesa University. Can you advise as to other subdivisions that have been developed in the city limits zoned R-12?

In the presentation to City Council on December 7th under Fiscal Impact the following was stated. The developer will also be constructing the east half of 31 Road along the west side of the development. The City will reimburse the developer to construct the 16 feet of 31 Road with Transportation Impact Fees. The City has $200,000.00 in the proposed 2023 budget under the transportation impact fee fund. What are the plans to access 31 Road from this development?

Will the proposed annexation and rezoning of 545 31 Road (Rocky Mountain Gun Club) to establish a school on 4.5 acres (MTG-2022-858) have any effect on your calculations that the current infrastructure is sufficient for this rezoning to R-12?

How do you compare 83.9 Acres with 205 homes to a proposed 205 dwelling units on only 17 Acres?

I would like to know how you plan on accommodating a minimum of 400 cars onto E 1/2 Road safely?