Denied - Failed 2 to 4.

Volley’s Conditional Use Permit

Case: CUP-2020-147
Consider a request by Doria Herek for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Volley’s, an outdoor recreation facility, on 0.797 acres in a C 2 (General Commercial) zone district, located at 1130 N 3rd Street and 330 North Avenue.

Options for attending and submitting public comment for items on this agenda are listed here:


1. Provide a comment below by 6 p.m. on July 27. 

2. Leave a phone message at 970-244-1590 by 4 p.m. on July 28. This message will be public testimony and will be played for the Planning Commission to consider in review of each application. 

3. Attend the meeting virtually by clicking here

4. Attend the meeting at City Hall, 250 N 5th Street. As recommended by Mesa County Public Health, those attending in person will be asked to wear a face mask. Other social distancing measures will be in place.


To view meeting live stream click here. (Available 6 p.m. on July 28, 2020).

Videos

Staff Presentation

Files

Development Application ( 2.17 MB )
Staff Report ( 0.1 MB )
Maps & Locations ( 1.08 MB )
Decision Making Criteria

Per Section 21.02.110 of the Zoning and Development Code, the Planning Commission shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the following criteria have been met:

(1)    District Standards. The underlying zoning districts standards established in Chapter 21.03 GJMC, except density when the application is pursuant to GJMC 21.08.020(c);

(2)    Specific Standards. The use-specific standards established in Chapter 21.04 GJMC;

(3)    Availability of Complementary Uses. Other uses complementary to, and supportive of, the proposed project shall be available including, but not limited to: schools, parks, hospitals, business and commercial facilities, and transportation facilities;

(4)    Compatibility with Adjoining Properties. Compatibility with and protection of neighboring properties through measures such as:

(i)    Protection of Privacy. The proposed plan shall provide reasonable visual and auditory privacy for all dwelling units located within and adjacent to the site. Fences, walls, barriers and/or vegetation shall be arranged to protect and enhance the property and to enhance the privacy of on-site and neighboring occupants;

(ii)    Protection of Use and Enjoyment. All elements of the proposed plan shall be designed and arranged to have a minimal negative impact on the use and enjoyment of adjoining property;

(iii)    Compatible Design and Integration. All elements of a plan shall coexist in a harmonious manner with nearby existing and anticipated development. Elements to consider include: buildings, outdoor storage areas and equipment, utility structures, building and paving coverage, landscaping, lighting, glare, dust, signage, views, noise, and odors. The plan must ensure that noxious emissions and conditions not typical of land uses in the same zoning district will be effectively confined so as not to be injurious or detrimental to nearby properties.

Comments & Feedback

Comments
 
This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
The requirement for 79 parking spaces is not adequate. Reducing it to 60 would be a step in the wrong direction. When there are larger events at Volleys, every spot on the street and many in neighboring businesses are taken up. On 7-24 and 7-25 we had as many as 10 vehicles belonging to Volleys customers parked in out lot at times according to one of my employees. We are open during these hours and I want my parking to be available to my customers. It is enough of a problem that for 2-3 weeks, Dave from Volleys spent hours per day chasing his customers away from our parking lot for a while this year but during the last couple of weeks he has not been doing this. This has been an ongoing problem since they opened. At times almost our entire lot has been taken up. Getting people to move their vehicles is difficult and at times they have been verbally abusive. They can put up all the signs that they want but some customers will just ignore them. Have you seen the number of people who will not comply with Covid-19 rules? For several years we had our lot blocked of with flag tape and had signs in front of every spot. They were generally ignored. Having vehicles towed from our property is difficult at best. There are only two companies in Grand Junction that will tow from private property and more often than not, they are not able to come in a timely manner. If we can not get them towed on the same day or evening, it is a lost cause. With 48 people on the courts with another 48 coming in for the next round, plus employees, plus spectators, one could easily imagine a parking issue. That parking issue has been a regular problem for several years as is noted in the Executive Summary. It is apparent that Volleys has not been able to secure the 79 parking spaces and has been operating in violation for several years. Given this history, how are we to have any faith in any promises made at this point? They have shown a pattern violating the original CUP and I believe that they will continue to do so. I believe that there is a direct conflict of interest in asking the applicant to "conduct an analysis of their parking usage." This should have been conducted by a city employee or a third party. THERE IS A PROBLEM NOW! The idea that REDUCING the number of required spaces will improve things is laughable. In addition, several times during the season, there are events that bring in many more than has been represented in this analysis. There are two apartment buildings 1/2 block North of the Volleys location. I do not know if there are noise complaints now but if the hours of operation are extended to 2am, I suspect there will be. There should be some record of past noise complaints from the first couple of years that they operated.
July 27, 2020, 3:52 PM
Michael E Sitz
4 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment

Your Question has been submitted.