Approved - 6 to 1.

Magnus Court Zone of Annexation and Outline Development Plan

Case: ANX-2019-137; PLD-2019-374
Consider a request by CR Nevada Associates LLC, JLC Magnus LLC and Bonds LLC for a Zone of Annexation for two (2) properties and rezone of two (2) properties from R-E (Residential Estate) and R-2 (Residential – 2 Dwelling Units per acre). All properties are seeking a zone district of Planned Development with an associated Outline Development Plan (ODP) called Magnus Court to develop 74 single-family detached lots with an R-2 (Residential – 2 du/ac) default zone district. The properties combined are 69.67 acres and are generally located at the west end of Magus Court and include the property addressed as 2215 Magus Court #A.

To join the public meeting, click here. If you would like to leave a public comment please use the "chat" feature during the public hearing period. 

To watch the meeting live stream, click here. (Available 6 p.m. on May 26, 2020)


Applicant Presentation

Staff Presentation


Development Application ( 51.66 MB )
Staff Report ( 0.92 MB )
Location and Maps ( 0.54 MB )
Draft Ordinance(s) ( 0.27 MB )
Decision Making Criteria

For Outline Development Plans

Per Section 21.02.150 of the Zoning and Development Code, the planning commission and city council shall base their decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the following criteria have been met:

(i)    The Comprehensive Plan, Grand Junction Circulation Plan and other adopted plans and policies;

(ii)    The rezoning criteria provided in GJMC 21.02.140;

(iii)    The planned development requirements of Chapter 21.05 GJMC;

(iv)    The applicable corridor guidelines and other overlay districts in GJMC Titles 23, 24 and 25;

(v)    Adequate public services and facilities shall be provided concurrent with the projected impacts of the development;

(vi)    Adequate circulation and access shall be provided to serve all development pods/areas to be developed;

(vii)    Appropriate screening and buffering of adjacent property and uses shall be provided;

(viii)    An appropriate range of density for the entire property or for each development pod/area to be developed;

(ix)    An appropriate set of “default” or minimum standards for the entire property or for each development pod/area to be developed;

(x)    An appropriate phasing or development schedule for the entire property or for each development pod/area to be developed

Comments & Feedback

This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
Online comments closed at 6:00 PM MDT 5/25/20.
While I can see that efforts to respond to some concerns have been made, specific improvements as well as funding of these improvements remain inadequate or unaddressed. Road/human safety, existing and potential water/drainage issues, and property devaluation surrounding the proposed access route need further examination. In a nutshell: Too many unknowns, too many risks, too many cars, too many houses. Because we continue to see this area repeatedly make mistakes causing us and others many headaches, the following are additional ground instability questions: Without knowledge of the quality of soil, can plans really be finalized? Given the numerous past (and present) issues with movement in this area, who will verify proper foundation plans are being used? Will builders be mandated to hold proper builder insurance which specifically includes coverage of foundation/movement and builder defects? (My builder did not have this coverage, and we don't want to see anyone else go through this nightmare.) Given the substantial erosion--including soil, rock, and boulder slides--have building envelopes been adequately defined to mitigate the risk? Will a buyback program be considered? (In the newer neighborhood, RedRocks, off S.Camp near Monument Road the builder was required to buy back foundation-defective homes.) Our point: Given this location, additional improvements, extra precautions--including probable expensive foundations--and ongoing remediation are likely. Very specific scopes and defined accountability are a necessity. Again, too many unknowns, too many risks, too many cars, too many houses.
May 26, 2020, 6:26 PM
Lora Curry
1 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Regarding the Magnus Court subdivision: As a resident of the Redlands, I am concerned that building the proposed subdivision in such a prominent location (right around the peak of Riggs Hill) will negatively affect the character of the Redlands. The subdivision documentation states: “The project location can be generally described as the northeast facing ‘backside’ of Riggs Hill.” It is, in fact, atop Riggs Hill, a world-renowned site (see figure). The bulk of the subdivision would be clearly visible from the Redlands Roundabout, the Liberty Cap trail/Colorado National Monument, Tiara Rado Golf Course, Broadway and S. Broadway/Redlands Parkway, and especially from the museum owned portion of Riggs Hill, including the parking area. It appears to me that there are numerous inconsistencies and questionable claims made in the submitted documentation. Housing Density The largest parcel, 62% of the land total, is not currently in the city, and is designated in the GJ Comprehensive Plan (City Ordinance # 4406) as RUR 5-10 acres. The plan states: "Rural 1 du/5-10 acre lots Private land that will remain in parcels of 5 to 10 acres on average. The uses will vary among low density residential lots, low intensity agricultural operations, orchards and other small scale farm operations. Rural land use areas serve as a transition between urban and agricultural uses. Clustering techniques are required to achieve maximum density. No urban level services are supplied." The development proposes approximately 34 dwellings on this parcel, well above the number allowed by the comprehensive plan (maximum 8 dwellings). This lot would house roughly 50% of the total dwellings in Magnus Court. The adjacent Desert Hills Estates and Rocky Heights subdivisions have a total of 26 large lots (1 to 2+ acres) and over 20 acres of open/ preserved space. During the February Planning Board meeting where Magnus Court was discussed, there was discussion about the inability of the city to zone another property for less density than the Comprehensive Plan allows. But the Magnus Court proposal calls for annexing and rezoning this parcel at a much higher density than the Comprehensive Plan allows. Preserving Scenic Vistas The GJ Comprehensive Plan includes preserving scenic vistas. The subdivision would wreck views of Riggs Hill from the entire surrounding area while the developers tout the “spectacular panoramic views of the valley” from the subdivision, thus wrecking part of the scenic vista to provide great views to Magnus Court. Open Space The subdivision documentation highlights 64% of the site as open space “respecting the natural conditions of the site.” The developers plan to build on the land that meets slope requirements for development. That essentially leaves the much steeper, unbuildable land as “open space” while claiming this is “predominantly placed to protect natural slopes and view sheds.” The Planned Development (PD) and Outline Development Plan (ODP) cites “More usable public and/or private open space.” Most of that open space consists of very steep slopes that are not usable. Public Benefit Section The subdivision documentation claims that the residential project meets the intentions and densities of the Growth Plan – although it certainly does not meet the GJ Comprehensive Plan. The subdivision documentation mentions drainage improvements. A subdivision is certainly not going to capture water as well as the existing natural vegetation on this steep hill. Code amendment and rezoning The Code Amendment and rezoning section includes several requirements that do not appear to be met: 1 - The subdivision documentation claims that “the character of the area has changed with the annexation and development of adjacent residential subdivisions.” As noted above, both Rocky Point and Desert Hills Estates have far larger lots and considerable open space as well. Magnus Court is not consistent with these neighboring subdivision annexations. Additionally, these older subdivisions are not built atop a hill and are not visible from adjacent neighborhoods. 2 - Public and community facilities include the road system. The proposed subdivision does not address the inadequacy of the county roads leading to the proposed development nor the obvious traffic problems that will occur on both Broadway and S. Broadway/Redland Parkway resulting from the additional traffic. 3 - The availability of suitably designated land within Grand Junction may be a concern, but this land is not particularly suited to the need for high-density housing such as proposed. So, it’s not much of a benefit to the community compared to other (flatter) parcels. 4 - Is the availability of sewer and water along Magus Court a benefit to the community? It appears to affect only 4 or 5 properties, all of which are currently developed. Infill Development At the planning board meeting, this property was characterized as an “infill” development. This project in no way meets the description of infill in the Comprehensive Plan: "Infill development on vacant and underutilized land in City Center, at higher densities, will significantly increase housing affordable to workers. The Villageand Neighborhood Centers designated in the Comprehensive Plan offer housing types that will be affordable to workers through higher densities and housing-over-stores spaces. Being in walkable centers that are near transit further impacts affordability by lowering the total cost of living. Retention of existing housing stock is also a means to retain an affordable product". Magnus Court would push a dense subdivision into an area of low-density and unimproved county land, thus creating more sprawl in an area largely composed of houses on large lots and open space. Further, Magnus Court is planned to be upscale housing, not affordable housing. Dark Skies 74 houses atop Riggs Hill will contribute significantly to the light pollution in the Redlands. Conclusion Magnus Court will wreck the historic treasure of Riggs Hill and have a negative effect on the character and quality of life in the Redlands and Grand Junction. Such character cannot be regained once lost. I see no benefit to the people and city of Grand Junction in annexing the proposed parcels. Respectfully submitted, Michael Petri
May 26, 2020, 5:07 PM
Michael C. Petri
2 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
City of Grand Junction Planning Commission: In regards to the proposed Magnus Court Development Plan, I do not believe that the significant negative impacts of increased traffic and congestion are realized or accounted for in the planning process. Specifically, the narrow county roads leading to the proposed Magnus Court development lack the infrastructure to support the size and scope of the proposed development. There are no street lights, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pedestrian crossings, walking/biking paths, etc. Further, given the steep dropoff into the deep drainage ditch along the east side of 22 ¼ Rd and the surrounding established yards, there is no room to add infrastructure such as sidewalks. Currently, if vehicles are parked along the street (which they commonly are), traffic is already reduced to a single lane. No amount of additional stop signs will counteract the increased safety hazards to pedestrians in this residential neighborhood that would result from construction of such as ambitious undertaking. Regardless of if the narrow county roads can physically handle the increased traffic, given the narrowness of the roads and the lack of sidewalks, in practicality the access roads to Magnus Court could not safely be used through this residential neighborhood to convey vehicle traffic anywhere near the estimated 700 vehicles per day as predicted with this new construction. If this development is to proceed as planned – notwithstanding potential drainage, foundation, and other issues - alternative vehicular access must be devised, such as potentially through Escondido Drive to the west. Given the plethora of safety, traffic, foundation, and drainage issues raised by neighborhood residents during and after the initial meeting for this development that remain unresolved and the excessive size and scope of the proposed development that would amplify these concerns, I urge the Planning Commission to again vote “no” on the Magnus Court development. The proposed development is simply too large, dense, complex, and therefore too risky to safely develop as currently planned. Thank you. Garrett Williams 515 22 ¼ Road
May 26, 2020, 4:37 PM
Garrett Williams
2 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
I feel that 2 house to an acre is too dense for the area. Traffic congestion would be a problem not only getting out of immediate area but also increasing the traffic of Redlands Parkway. Pedestrian walks and bike trails would have to be addressed. Irrigation is another problem that is not sufficiently addressed and would cause problems with Goat Creek. Besides the above considerations, I think that the State of Colorado and the county will not have sufficient money to make all the improvements necessary. Judy Shoffner 532 Park Ridge Ct. Grand Junction, CO 81507
May 26, 2020, 2:10 PM
Judith Shoffner
5 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Reference: Magnus Court of Annexation and Outline Development Plan Case: ANX-2019-137: PLD-2019-374 At the Grand Junction Planning Commission meeting on February 25, 2020, area residents expressed concerns on the impact that the Magnus Court development will have on the surrounding neighborhoods. These concerns include but are not limited to traffic safety, congestion, flood and drainage control. I live at 2226 Mowry Dr., on the corner of 22 ¼ road. Every time that it rains, Magnus Ct. sheds water that ends up in my yard and driveway. Our water main gets buried frequently from debris accumulated as this water erodes dirt not protected by a curb on 22 ¼ Road. Heavy rain causes flooding to the extent that the walkway from our driveway to the house floats, this is inches from flooding the crawl space and worse, the house. At the meeting on Feb. 25, 2020, I expressed my concern over the magnified impact that paving and widening Magnus Ct. will have on flooding the properties below Magnus Ct. The flooding issues will be greatly magnified as soon as Magnus Ct. is widened and paved, long before a single house is built. Once Phase 1 begins, there will be at least eight properties that lie below the detention pond, that will contribute to the water shed from roof and driveway runoff, further magnifying the problem. Applicants response to my concerns at the Feb. 25, 2020 meeting (video:3:25:03): “With regards to the gentleman’s comment on additional drainage coming down Magnus Rd. We are already aware of that. We are already aware that we can reduce that, it’s not just water getting to the detention pond, there has to be some other interception that happens and we know where the current driveway comes out of the current house up there, it’s funneling water, it’s created its own water shed and made matters worse in that situation, and those things get resolved, and do they get totally fixed? No. I don’ t think so, are we aware of them, and do we need to address them? Yes.” I would like to see a plan for this “interception.” How do these “things get resolved” without any plan in place? A plan for this flood control should be a part of the development plan. With responses to the concerns of the homeowners of the surrounding neighborhood like: “Those things do get fixed.” (video 3:19:45) in reference to traffic safety and congestion, and “… those things get resolved” (video 3:25:32) in response to the flooding that Magnus Ct. are evidence that the applicant has no concern or plan(s) for the issues that the development will create in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant’s response to the peripheral issues created by the proposed development are often non-specific, vague and lack consideration. In conversations with Carrie Gudorf of Mesa County Flood Management, I was told that if annexed, the city will be responsible for any water that sheds off Magnus Ct. If this is the case, then by approving this project as presented, the city willingly and knowingly assumes the responsibility and liability for any flooding and damages caused by the water that Magnus Ct. will shed as a result of widening and paving Magnus Ct. I am asking that before this project is approved that a planned and engineered solution to the water shed below the detention pond be included in the application of the Magnus Court of Annexation and Outline Development Plan. Thank you for your consideration, Mike Mahoney
May 26, 2020, 1:12 PM
Mike Mahoney
5 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
As the owner of 2226 South Broadway, I am most concerned about the ingress and egress, amount of houses to be built, and the drainage issues. To reach the Redlands Parkway, you must go down South Broadway to the south, to the north you would have to cross private property to Broadway, then to the Redlands Parkway. A traffic light or roundabout would have to be built where South Broadway meets the Redlands Parkway. At this time it is very difficult to enter the Parkway because of the traffic and ability to see right or left. With 74 houses proposed to be built, that will be at least 150 cars trying to enter either the Parkway or Broadway. Plus there are no sidewalks for once you exit or enter the Magnus subdivision. How does the developer propose to install piping for the drainage emptying into Goat Wash without crossing private property?
May 26, 2020, 12:32 PM
Linda Rattan
5 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
See attached for a letter delivered via email to City Staff and members of City Council from Lisa R. Smith.
May 26, 2020, 12:18 PM
Lisa Smith
5 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
After reviewing the revised plans submitted by the developer I find they fall short of addressing the community concerns in two key areas: increased traffic and drainage. Rather than solving the issues they have been shifted, quite literally, to my doorstep. First, the issue of traffic. The revised traffic study has actually increased the estimated number of vehicles that will be added to the neighborhood on a daily basis. It has also revised the split of traffic utilizing Reed Mesa and South Broadway to enter/exit the neighborhood so that 85% of that traffic is now expected to use South Broadway to access Redlands Parkway. By the developer's own admission, this will more than double the peak local traffic at that intersection from 24 vehicles per hour (VPH) to 71 VPH in the morning and from 31 VPH to 80 VPH in the afternoon. This is on a street that has no sidewalk or shoulder, where children walk to access their bus stop, and that bicyclists use to access the Redlands Parkway bike/pedestrian path. Once vehicles reach this intersection, where most make a left turn towards businesses and services in town, they must navigate increasing traffic from South Camp and Tiara Rado golf course housing developments , a 45 MPH speed limit, and obstructed views in both directions. The developer deserves credit for offering to help fund a sidewalk on Reed Mesa to improve safety for children walking to Broadway Elementary. But with such an increase in traffic utilizing South Broadway they should also install a bike/pedestrian path that ties into the path on Redlands Parkway. The city needs to consider measures to ease access to Redlands Parkway such as lowering speed limits or installing a roundabout. Drainage is also still an issue in the revised plans. The developer proposes building a retention pond and diverting water that traditionally flowed northwards to the wash that runs between our house and Redlands Parkway. While this may mitigate drainage issues for our neighbors that live directly below Magnus Court, it may also be shifting the problem to a new area. I cannot find where any study has been done on how this will impact the flow of the wash. The wash has running water year-round with typical increases in the summer due to irrigation waste water flowing into it. Occasionally the flow increases dramatically due to desert thunderstorms. Presumably, diversion from the development would coincide with this storm runoff. While the risk of flooding at our home is minimal, it is likely that increased flow will cause erosion that could threaten the trees that provide us with some privacy and block sound from the traffic on Redlands Parkway. Further downstream the wash flows under the Parkway. Are the culverts adequate to handle the increased runoff? Additionally, other developments are underway or planned along South Camp Road. How many of them are being allowed to divert storm runoff into this wash? At what point does this wash reach its capacity to safely handle it? The proposed route of the drainage from Magness Court would be uphill from our home before it reaches the wash. If the drainage failed or flowed over we would be faced with flooding. A few years ago a sewer pipe in that same general area failed and our property was contaminated with raw sewage. This is a prospect I never want to face again. Also included in the developer's revised proposal were sightline elevations. They show that from the middle of South Broadway directly in front of our house, the upper half of the homes on lots 12 and 13 would be visible. From our home another 60 feet to the east of the elevation study even more of the homes will be visible and our view of the ridge line will be completely disrupted. With our new neighbors peering off of their decks into our backyard, it may start to feel like we live on the wrong side of the fence at the zoo. The developer needs to be required to move the set back for these homes so that they are not visible from South Broadway. Due to these issues of traffic, safety, and preservation of property value, I respectfully urge the commissioners to vote 'no' on this development in its current form.
May 26, 2020, 11:36 AM
Wayne Smith
5 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
As a neighbor to the proposed Magnus Court Planned Development, we have concerns about how the subdivision has been planned. These concerns are as follows: Ground instability: The owner/developer of the Magnus Court proposed development is from Michigan and doesn’t know about building on the unstable ground in the Grand Junction area. We’ve had many disastrous results in our area; Escondido Circle (the neighbor to the West of Magnus Court) and Spyglass Ridge are examples. Building on this land can be done – but it’s costly and frequently repairs and piers need to be done after construction. The developer/builders should be required have a $1 Mil bond for foundation repairs for each property, so they don’t pass that cost on to the homeowner who has problems, or to the city if the property is condemned. Drainage: The developer represents that their drainage plan will benefit the neighboring communities as well. We will trust the Planning Commission and City Council to ensure that this is accurate. There is already a documented drainage issue downhill from the Magnus Court properties. If not done properly, drainage issues will cause additional ground instability in the development itself and water issues below. Fire Hazards: The fire department has required many modifications to the proposed Planned Development, including widened roads, no parking areas on some of the streets, fire truck turn-arounds. However the fire department is also acknowledging that there’s still quite a bit of threat of damage if a fire starts, as there’s only one access road for the subdivision. This threat is evidenced by the fire department requiring an automatic fire sprinkler system in all the homes in the Magnus Court development. Despite the fire hazard, the Magnus Ct subdivision still has 5 non-conforming lots in its proposed Planned Development. These do not comply with current code in terms of the size or width of lot required for the slope of the land – a requirement which is in place (at least in part) due to the speed at which fire spreads on an uphill slope, and access to those properties as well as surrounding land for the fire department to fight a fire. The developers of this property need to go back to the drawing board and comply with current codes rather than create a situation that could endanger the lives of all that live in that subdivision in the future. Traffic and Public Safety: The residential and construction traffic that Magnus Court will cause in the neighborhoods to the East and Northeast of their Proposed Development will change the nature of life in those rural Mesa County communities. The developer’s traffic studies show that theoretically the roads can handle the residential traffic at a projected 700 additional vehicles per day, but they don’t show that in reality the roads are not wide enough, nor do they have sidewalks for safety of the pedestrian traffic that will be impacted. During construction the developer has agreed to try and keep his equipment on site for phase 1/phase 2 if possible but that does not account for the builders who will be purchasing the lots and building the homes and bringing in their heavy equipment for that work. There’s no way for the developer to control the construction traffic of the Builders to whom he sells the land. It’s just going to be something that the surrounding neighborhoods are going to have to deal with for 10 years. We know there will be construction traffic impact, and we know there will be a residential traffic impact. Instead of passing the costs on to the county and city taxpayers, the developer should be made to pay 100% of the costs for the necessary infrastructure improvements in those neighboring areas that will be impacted by their development. This would include road widening, intersection improvements, and sidewalk installation on at least one side of the street on the routes from Magnus Court to the only two exits from this residential area: Reed Mesa Drive at SH 340 (Broadway), and S Broadway at Redlands Parkway. This would include the intersections at Mudgett Street & Reed Mesa Drive, Magnus Ct & 22 ¼ Road, and Mowry Drive & S Broadway, as well as the roadways between them. Additionally, the intersection at S Broadway and Redlands Parkway has a blind corner. Simply putting in a turn lane and trimming the trees to the Northwest of the intersection will not be a permanent solution to the problem that there will be at least 200 additional vehicles per day using that intersection as a result of this subdivision (per their own traffic study). Developments already approved for properties off of South Camp and S Broadway are already increasing traffic on S Broadway so it will make the intersection much busier even than today. For public safety, there is no doubt that a traffic signal will be needed at the intersection of S Broadway and Redlands Parkway by the time the Magnus Court subdivision is completed - and it should be paid for by the Developer. It should not be passed on to the taxpayers. Thank you for your consideration. Lori & Jay Thompson
May 26, 2020, 9:37 AM
Jay Thompson
5 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
On February 25, 2020 the Grand Junction Planning Commission, citizens, and developers spent 2.75 hours discussing the proposed Magnus Court. Neighborhood residents voiced their concerns about pedestrian safety, traffic, access, drainage issues, land unsuitability, and urban sprawl. The commissioners voted 4 to 3 to deny recommendation to the City Council. On May 15, 2020 we received another Notice of Public Hearing for Magnus Court. The resubmittal has minor revisions and does little or nothing to alleviate the concerns of the neighborhood residents. Below are the primary concerns regarding the proposal that were heard on February 25 with updates on the resubmittal where appropriate. 1. Pedestrian traffic isn’t safe due to existing narrow roads with no curbs, gutters or sidewalks Resident Lisa Lefebre of 22 1/4 Road said, “I have three small children, there are no sidewalks on these county roads. They are not wide enough. We have senior citizens who walk every day. Their agility to move out of a vehicle’s way is slower. I’m concerned about my children and their safety walking to school.” Commissioner Ken Scissors said, “There are just too many concerns. For me, the one that tips it over is the safety concern for the neighborhood. I understand that there are things that could be done but I’m not hearing definitively enough they will be done...” The resubmittal states the City and County deem the roads acceptable and will not improve them. A trail or sidewalk to Broadway is proposed. They don’t address residents who walk or bike on South Broadway for access to the pedestrian/bike trail on Redlands Parkway. 2. The two access points to this neighborhood will be strained by an increase in traffic. A traffic impact study said traffic generated from the subdivision will be 700 vehicles per day. The study stated a typical neighborhood street is comfortable at 1000 vehicles a day. The study based their findings on 28-foot wide, two lane neighborhood roads, not the 22-foot wide rural narrow roads in this area. The study said a right turn lane on southbound Redlands Parkway will be required. The study did not address the more difficult left-hand turn from South Broadway north onto Redlands Parkway. In the resubmittal the study stated 15% would use Broadway and 85% would use Redlands Parkway. 3. Increased runoff from this development threatens neighboring properties. Mike Mahoney, Mowry Dr. & 22 1/4 Road said, “There are existing issues not addressed in their plan. One is the draining of Magness where it meets 22 1/4. It drains straight into my front yard. That is a dirt road that absorbs part of that water. If they double the width and pave it, it will become a raceway for water.” Ted Ciavonne, development representative said, “Additional drainage coming down Magness Road — we are already aware of that. It’s not just about water getting to a detention pond. There has to be other interceptions that happen. It’s created its own watershed and made matters worse. Those things get resolved. Do they get totally fixed? No, I don’t think so. Are we aware of them and need to address them? Yes.” The resubmittal claims the development reduces existing drainage to the surrounding areas by intercepting the vast majority of water at the top of the watershed and directing it towards proposed storm water facilities, which directs it to Goat Wash on South Broadway. They do not explain how they will safely pipe the water across an unstable hillside without endangering homes below. Nor do they explain how they will physically get the water across South Broadway to Goat Wash without easements from landowners. The proposal fails to address the impact of the added runoff to Goat Wash which could flood Redlands Parkway or homes along the wash and if existing culverts can handle the increased runoff. 4. Individual proposals are considered without accounting for their collective impact on infrastructure. Richard Swingle, a Renaissance resident said, “There is a huge amount of development and population growth in this area of South Broadway, Redlands Parkway, South Camp. We don’t understand the constraints to our system of what will happen. We are looking at them as individual elements instead of a broader perspective. We need to consider the broader perspective of what will happen to our community.” Commissioner William Wade stated, “… one of our citizen speakers asked us to look at this from 50,000 feet and see the other projects that are coming around it and what that does to our infrastructure. Unfortunately, you counter that by saying we’re not responsible for taking a long-term view, well we have to take a long-term view of planning and that’s our responsibility. We have to look at each project that is brought before us on it’s own merits.” 5. Unsuitability of land for development Commissioner Kathy Deppe said, “Less than two months ago we had a property on the Redlands very similar to this with similar kinds of conditions. We had people get up from the audience and tell us they built houses there, spent $500,000 and after they moved in had to spend another $100,000 to fix the foundation.” “... we have a responsibility to not create any kind of financial burden or harm to the citizens of Grand Junction. So looking at this one … it does cause a burden.” 6. Unfettered suburban development paired with a lack of community centers is leading to urban sprawl. Resident Naomi Rintoul of 515 22 1/4 Road, said, “Since I’ve moved in we’ve lost the hardware store, Safeway, Wells Fargo, the greenhouse and Loki.” “I’m just asking if these growth plans shouldn’t include infrastructure before planning this large subdivision. This is quite literally the definition of urban sprawl if we have this many houses and no services.” The developer’s resubmittal doesn’t resolve pedestrian safety, increased traffic volume, drainage impacts, the unsuitability of the land and the entire area’s infrastructure. Therefore, I urge the County Commissioners to again vote nay on this project.
May 25, 2020, 11:19 PM
Lisa Smith
5 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Your Question has been submitted.