Approved - 5 to 0

Mallard View Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Case: RZN-2020-288; CPA-2020-289
Consider a request by Mallard View LLC, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Residential High Mixed Use (16 – 24 du/ac) to Residential Medium (4 – 8 du/ac) and Village Center and a rezone from R-E (Residential – Estate) to R-8 (Residential – 8 du/ac) and C-1 (Light Commercial) on a total of 17.84-acres, located at 785 24 Road. - Item information will be available by 5 p.m. on August 5, 2020.

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 August 10.

2. Attend the meeting at City Hall, 250 N 5th Street. Per the Governor's Executive Order, those attending in person will be required 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 August 11, 2020).

Videos

Public Meeting Video

Applicant Presentation

Staff Presentation

Files

Development Application ( 4.5 MB )
Staff Report ( 0.11 MB )
Maps & Locations ( 0.63 MB )
Draft Ordinance ( 0.16 MB )
Decision Making Criteria

Per Section 21.02.130, the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the following criteria have been met:

(1)    The City may amend the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, corridor plans and area plans if the proposed change is consistent with the vision (intent), goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and:

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

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

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

(iv)    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

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


Per Section 21.02.140 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

Comments
 
This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
CPA-2020-289; RZN-2020-288 Mallard Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment I am opposed to the above proposed rezone and amendment for a C1 Village Center on 24 Rd. & H Road. I am against urban sprawl, high density housing, and strip malls North of I-70 on 24 and H Road when there is land available to infill South of I-70. Grand Junction is known for Nature's beauty. Appleton is known for its rural character. Grand Junction will grow, however, with Covid19 affecting us all, we have yet to see how many housing foreclosures there will be and how many businesses will close, for example Mesa Street Cafe Downtown on Main St., Dillards at Mesa Mall halted production, and many other businesses are struggling. This proposal is premature in this current economy. We are still wearing masks due to Covid19. Can we please slow this process down until we see the damage? H Rd. and 24 Rd. are narrow two-lane rural roads with no sidewalks or bicycle lanes for adults walking dogs or children walking to school. Accidents will likely increase. Even with the 4-way blinking stop signs, Safety at the 24 & H Rd. Intersection continues to be a grave concern. According to Saen Yates, P.E., Mesa County Traffic Engineer, analysis software program collects data for safety analysis to compare 24 & H Rd. intersection and 24 ½ Rd. and H Rd. intersection safety concerns. Theses intersections are also referred to as “rural 4-legged intersections” and were given a grade of a “D’ and “F” (prior to the 4-way blinking stop signs) because they have more crash incidences than any other 4-legged rural intersection “ACROSS THE COUNTRY”. Again prior to the blinking 4-way stop signs, Mesa County’s analytical data reported between 2007-2017 that 24 Road & H Road had 28 crashes; 20 occurred at the intersection of 24 & H Road; 21 were broadsided; 11 people were injured and needed medical treatment; 19 crashes involved 2 vehicles; 22 occurred during daylight hours; 23 accidents occurred during dry road conditions; alcohol was suspected for one driver out of the 28 accidents (Mesa County Public Works Department DIExSys Roadway Safety Systems Detailed Summery of Crashes Report Job# 20190320111854). In addition, between 2007-2017, further down on 24 ½ Road & H Rd., Mesa County’s analytical data reported 18 accidents occurred, 15 of these accidents were at 24 ½ & H Road intersection, 14 of those were in daylight, 14 involved 2 vehicles, 14 were broadsided, 22 people were injured and needed medical treatment, 16 accidents occurred during dry road conditions, none involved alcohol (Mesa County Public Works Department DIExSys Roadway Safety Systems Detailed Summery of Crashes Report Job# 20190318094533). I, personally, am one of these statistics, when my Taxi was broadsided at the intersection sending me to the hospital. I am visually impaired and cannot drive. What is the data now with the 4-way blinking stop signs? I see people running these 4-way stop signs. It's scary. I spoke with CDOT who said there is talk with the City of Grand Junction about possibly building a pedestrian-only bridge on 24 Rd. going over I-70. Fantastic! Does the city have the money for this? Have you ever tried to navigate the 24 Rd. double round-a-bout by foot or bicycle heading to the Mall? It's terrifying. The proposed high density housing and Village Center will most likely increase this safety and economic problem. High density housing would likely push Appleton Elementary into overcrowding. Families and children are currently struggling with Covid19 and school re-opening or closures, sports, and they are unable to resume normal daily activities, I feel this proposal is premature. Even after Covid19 is behind us all- How will Appleton be funded? How will you get enough teachers? How will you pay the teachers? Will families be allowed to participate in school of choice? Do you have the funding for sidewalks and bike lanes so children can get to school safely. It is presently a difficult time in our valley and in the world emotionally and economically. I do feel this proposed project is premature until we know the harm our neighbors in the Grand Valley have endured and Covid19 is behind us. This is not the time to race forward because maybe the city can say "yes" to developers. What is public input from the Appleton area telling the city? Our voice counts too. Sadly many people do not use the internet. Can there be more design public collaboration with Appleton citizens? Does the 2020 Comprehensive Plan focus strongly on Appleton? Again, can a compromise be established with ordinances to keep the rural character and history of Appleton? Can you put this proposed project on hold until we see the 2020 Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan and have the opportunity to see the greater design and respond to that? This seems reasonable. The Lavender farm and the Beehive Home are subtle changes. A proposed three story apartment building and Village Center is not. Thank you for your kind considerations. Sincerely, Cynthia Komlo
August 10, 2020, 5:21 PM
Cynthia W. Komlo
3 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Once again we have received a rezone request for Mallard View. There has yet to be a plan presented to the public as to the specific intentions of the developer. We are losing our rural way of life if high density housing and/or large commercial projects are approved here. I believe the Appleton Elementary school cannot handle the additional influx of children if the land is developed at the rate of 24 units per acre over the 17 acre parcel. I do believe the developer has stated that only 3 acres would be commercially used with the remaining 14 being developed for housing? 14 acres with density of 24 units would be 336 homes or even at low end of 4 homes per acre would be 56 homes...this in a rural setting where the vast majority of homes are on at least one acre. We strongly believe this area's rural integrity should be maintained with homes limited to no more than1 or 2 per acre. We have purchased our properties in Appleton due to the rural feel that we feel now is under attack with the city having absolutely no regard for the current residents that have worked hard for our lifestyle here. As for commercial development we would like to see the development fall in line with what has already been developed on this stretch commercially. Beehive Assisted Living and the Lavender Farm are excellent commercial ventures for this location as they do not destroy the still rural feel of this area nor do they contribute greatly to noise and/or light pollution. The city states that it's objective is to maintain the rural feel yet how is that possible with large commercial development allowed or massive home subdivisions going up? The intersection at 24 and H is already a dangerous one and H Road leading to/from Appleton Elementary has no sidewalks for the children to walk to or from school from homes on 24 road. Seeing as how the city foresees 24 Road as a main arterial road for future development surely they can see that having elementary age children walking to school does not fit into this scenario. Also I feel the city and developer should have some moral obligation to actually present a firm plan to the residents before asking us to approve something unknown. Sort of like me presenting you with a blank piece of paper asking for your signature but stating I will write the letter later. Regardless of what gets developed here I would like to propose my feelings in regard to the irrigation ditch that runs along this property. We have had a small grassroots group of volunteers that have spent many years and much of our own money to make improvements and maintain the ditches for piping irrigation water to our properties. We would like the developer to pipe the exposed section of the irrigation ditch South along 24 Road and West to the drainage ditch. We would also like the developer to be held to xeriscaping as we feel there is insufficient water to support a lush landscape that is not consistent with our natural habitat. If these developed properties are gaining access to the Grand Valley Irrigation canal we ask that the developer upgrade the pipe from the headgate to all properties currently on the canal to ensure adequate water access. This is imperative as some of these properties are agricultural and rely on the availability of water for their livelihood. Please take these matters into consideration as you approve developments....many people have worked all their lives to enjoy this rural area of town and it would be devastating to suddenly be surrounded by urban sprawl. I would also like to note that due to the aging population that lives in this area we feel that during the Covid 19 pandemic this was not the time to insist that replies to the public hearing be allowed only by internet or attendance of the meeting. Many elderly are not computer savvy and struggle with communicating in this manner and the pandemic has many of us not wishing to congregate regardless if masks are required. More information on your hearing notices would be greatly appreciated and would make more people feel knowledgable in regard to the zoning requests. What exactly does C-1 include? What is the city's definition of Village Center? Again we are left having to do a lot of research in the hopes of finding out what these zonings require and permit...this burden should be on the city to provide all necessary information to residents in a manner that is easily and readily understood by all involved,,,not just the city and the developers.
August 9, 2020, 12:33 PM
RICHARD A PENNINGTON
4 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Yet again our rural way of living is coming under attack under the guise of "development". Those of us that live in the Appleton community chose this setting due to the rural lifestyle that it affords. We understand that development is necessary but some of us object to the type of development being proposed. Your site states part of the objective is to maintain the rural feel of the area....this proposed plan does not promote that objective. I understood that 24 Road was primarily going to be developed commercially...imagine my surprise when I found out that commercial 1 zoning actually allows for high density housing which judging from the last City Council meeting I watched online the city is strongly pushing for. I have a feeling none of your City Council members live in this area. Looking at the surrounding neighborhood you will be hard pressed to find a residential property that sits on under one acre..this is the appeal of this area for most of us that live here. We would not object to housing development that would put no more than 2 houses per acre but putting anywhere from 4-24 units on an acre completely decimates any rural feel. This developer keeps asking for a rezone yet not submitting any firm plan for us to consider..so a rezone gives them a blank slate to do as they please. High density housing will put a massive strain on the local roads that are already heavily congested at times..especially during church services and then before and after school at Appleton Elementary. The roundabouts at 24 and I-70 are backed up before and after church services. The school will only provide bus transportation to students living 2 miles or more from the school. None of these students in this subdivision would qualify therefore more private cars would be clogging the roads OR those parents that are unable to drive their children would have to trust their children to walk along H Road...heavily trafficked with NO sidewalks. I used to ride my bike along this road and no longer do due to feeling unsafe with so many cars on a narrow road not to mention the dangerous intersection of 24 and H Road. We have watched 24 Road develop commercially....the church, lavender farm and the assisted living facility... except for the appearance of the church they are small and not massive commercial developments therefor they actually do fit in with the rural setting of this neighborhood. This is what I believe most of us were hoping for in terms of future development..not some massive subdivision to further strain our resources and ruin our country way of life. 24 Road corridor south of I-70 is open and available for development with no surrounding homes on acreage...where is your urgency to develop that area? You could put thousands of homes out there without bothering ANY homeowners as there are hardly any residential sites along the vast majority of that stretch of 24 Road and residents would have easier access to Canyon View Park. Now lets discuss transparency.I feel like the city does not promote their true intentions in a transparent manner . The city mails out cards to property owners within 500 ft but given that most homes are on acreage that really minimizes how many people get notified. No definition of zoning uses is provided. We are required to dig thru the internet hoping to get a clearly defined definition...I have researched and am still unaware of what all some of these zones actually allow. I have been unable to find out what Village Center allows for. Almost all of our surrounding neighbors and ourselves are over 60 years old..some are not computer literate and cannot decipher your zones. Your notice of public hearing cards indicate that the only way to submit comments is via online..requiring people to be computer literate and have access to online OR attend a meeting during Covid-19 which many of us are unwilling to risk our health for! Also the developer MUST have a plan as to what they actually want to construct here but none has been provided. How can we be expected to okay a plan when there really is no plan? The developer obviously wants to build something....build what??? Again...we are not opposed to future development as we recognize that it is a necessity. What we are opposed to is development that shows absolutely no regard to preserving our way of life and the feel of our neighborhood.
August 9, 2020, 9:09 AM
Melanie Jane Jackson
4 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
I agree with Mr. Carlson in everything he said about this proposed "plan". It's very obvious that the city of Grand Junction only has dollar signs in their eyes when it comes to planning what's to be done with the Grand Valley for our future. How come the 24 Road Corridor that is south of I-70 isn't being developed first before slapping up a hotel and/or retail stores here in our rural area? If the "need" for C1 zoning is so critical you would think 24 Road would now be buzzing with construction. Once again it's all about the money, the greed of the city is horribly amazing. People who live here in the Appleton area have bought property around here in order to live in a rural setting, not downtown or next to the mall.
August 6, 2020, 4:57 PM
Sandra Holloway
4 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
CPA-2020-289; RZN-2020-288 Mallard Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. The NGJN initial goal was to help save the rural character of the North area. We also discussed discouraging urban sprawl. On the link provided above, you’ll hear and see Mallard View, LLC’s proposed re-zone map, including the proposed Village Center on 24 & H Road. - Did you know the applicant’s request for C-1 zoning can allow for hotels North of I-70? That would create too much traffic for roads provided. - Is it premature to amend the NEW Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan (gj.org) before the city has released the Plan to the public yet? - How can the public make an informed decision to “amend” the GJ Comprehensive Plan when we have not had an opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan? In addition Covid19 is still active, is expanding C-1 (hotels, retail, businesses) North of I-70 premature while established local businesses are struggling and going out of business in town and on Main Street? How many established businesses will go out of business through this difficult time? Again, is Mallard View, LLC’s requests premature?
August 6, 2020, 10:20 AM
Robert W Carlson
4 / 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.