[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6051467,"mediaKeyId","3443983-33d0cc89d2799dbe09dd186d21ec21e9","parentId",3443983,"title","Staff presents batch of zoning and development code amendments; commissioners ask clarifying questions","audioSeconds",2029,"startMs",2642610,"endMs",4672130,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3443983-33d0cc89d2799dbe09dd186d21ec21e9&start=2642&end=4672","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3443983-33d0cc89d2799dbe09dd186d21ec21e9/thumbnail_2642610.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6051467/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Staff-presents-batch-of-zoning-and-development-code-amendments-commissioners-ask-clarifying-questions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6051467-5459bddd887f1ded9c837c2cc4818c2d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199433&Signature=d3Rh8NhpAPC7WrTaxyauCZ6FVz4c2SxkJ08~ytHXNIECIAntw65pK6R6C816efm6wwo2Nh7x4JLqbr1z535H-FL5m5cxI46y3T3HKGmPJ3-VgP~ZGAJvFT1a28imAGD18Gs3sJndBKZhy26xAzzBZ9rVQuW-vbpS~c80LPyUQdsD3ek~gH-C8HmylqfX20Ub0hlbXJIoLHGehOe5xXStzEIlz9-8AYvzydVDaI3Ieo8XN4wAlRMp4T51DgJGb34UrNjS3IeJvX~7Q0ly4OlSCvajYtQpZPXRIfkIw7U2PKq9uQtkhghQJ68BnyeILoqxSYorSXHl4g69YaRSJuaxsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Grand Junction CO","date","2025-04-17T00:00:00Z","article","Tim and Zenden (planning staff) presented a package of code amendments and clarifications intended to resolve inconsistencies between the 2010 and 2023 codes and to add targeted flexibility or clarifications in several subsections of the zoning and development code.

Key items described by staff included:

- Transitional provisions: Clarify which multi-step applications (outline or final development plans) are governed by the older 2010 code versus the 2023 code, and remove a redundant reference to \"site plan\" in the transition table.

- Assembly landscaping: A landscaping provision tied to multifamily (RM) zones was noted and staff proposed applying the front-yard-counting rule more broadly where appropriate.

- Minor site-plan notices: Correct an inconsistency so that mailed notice and sign notice are not required for minor site plans, aligning the noticing tables.

- Minor subdivision (formerly \"simple subdivision\"): Clarify that a minor subdivision plat may create up to three new lots (four total including the original parcel) and rename residual references from \"simple subdivision\" to \"minor subdivision.\" Also move the subsection for alphabetical order in administrative application sections.

- Zone of annexation: Correct an incorrect reference so the zone-of-annexation provision refers to rezoning criteria, not text-amendment criteria.

- Short-term rental shared-driveway language: Staff proposed striking a requirement that the city be provided a written instrument authorizing short-term rental use of a shared driveway — staff said the earlier language could create a de facto veto for shared-driveway co-owners and may be unnecessary if parking rules are enforced by other means.

- RV and boat storage: Propose allowing RV/boat storage on non-paved surfaces where the operation can be demonstrated to meet the definition of a low-traffic storage yard and not create significant dust; staff said this aligns with existing low-traffic yard provisions.

- Street-improvement responsibility and deferral: Amend conflicting provisions so the exception for deferred improvements applies to perimeter collectors or arterials (not local/unclassified perimeter streets) and remove an overly restrictive new-code limit that only allowed deferrals for properties developed pre-annexation in Mesa County.

- Bulk storage for multifamily: Reintroduce required bulk storage availability for multifamily and attached residential development but remove a rigid maximum-square-footage requirement to allow flexibility.

- Right-of-way landscaping counting and composition: Change a previous mandatory provision that required right-of-way landscaping to be counted toward on-site landscape requirements into a permissive one (“may be counted”) to provide flexibility; staff also proposed changing a strict requirement that 75% of unpaved adjacent right-of-way be covered by tree canopy, shrubs, and ground cover to language allowing any combination of those plant types so the requirement is practical.

- Light fixtures: Change the light fixture height exception to apply to \"outdoor recreational facility or outdoor amphitheater\" rather than only to sport fields or outdoor amphitheaters so lights for courts or skate parks can be accommodated.

Commissioners asked multiple clarification questions. Krishna asked whether changing \"may be counted\" shifts discretion to applicants or staff; Tim replied the intent is flexibility but staff will return with clearer language that establishes the administrative implementation procedure. Commissioners also probed the proposed right-of-way landscaping language: several commissioners and staff discussed whether the city wants to preserve strong incentives to plant trees (which provide long-term public value) versus giving developers flexibility to use shrubs or ground cover in constrained spaces. Staff said landscaping plans will continue to be reviewed for suitability and that right-of-way plantings must use approved street-tree species and meet planting standards.

Staff said they will revisit some proposed wording (for example the \"may be counted\" phrasing and the 75% composition clause) and supply clearer, implementable language in a future draft. The presentation concluded with staff noting the changes were intended to resolve inconsistencies and provide reasonable flexibility; commissioners asked staff to return with refined language for sections where questions remain. There were no formal votes recorded during the presentation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Grand Junction City Planning Commission - Workshop - April 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Tim and Zenden (planning staff) presented a package of zoning and development code amendments and clarifications to resolve inconsistencies between older and newer code provisions and to add targeted flexibility in multiple sections.","taxTitle","Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado","taxId",5495,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6051473,"Commission discusses state occupancy law, proposes moratorium on implementing group-living standards",1941,734410,2676280,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3443983-33d0cc89d2799dbe09dd186d21ec21e9&start=734&end=2676","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3443983-33d0cc89d2799dbe09dd186d21ec21e9/thumbnail_734410.jpg","/articles/6051473/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Commission-discusses-state-occupancy-law-proposes-moratorium-on-implementing-group-living-standards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6051473-36bf09d45529cec7f60766b0aac1b18f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199433&Signature=ekhDU6yOmkgyfpvw-5DjHf6bk7iy-mup~YXjx6o2urkK5uKiHAC9~jz0d~kbbS-JWlEkATs-WJhk~GC2XVH0SXWupPIBe0vUay9kwF4vpLQGDSolvYObWRKQkLKmC7YOWS0cJWIL59eUYZcOnhx4WdRjxC5xqSOfhR~~CYdi2M8ku7TpOAIIeABmMcPokbRJC2Q5dlWCnbNPrs5ZH0jhww3hcM~zgkGM5~REqtG~MOWR1tkCcDjGGF3AmDjlstYg2Xdwyqrd-gqu3bg5wWfNmRb7fa6Im~Nv0CFzHiO4RoDkC8CRD0JeL5KTcgQWKHMX3wulKQvKYZMVi9m0nauJIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Nikki (planning department staff) told the Planning Commission the city must bring its zoning code into compliance with a new Colorado state law that says “local government shall not limit the number of people who may live together in a single dwelling based on familial relationships.” She said the city will remove the local definition of “family” and change references to rely on “household,” and will delete language that currently limits unrelated occupants to “not more than 4.”

Nikki said the revised household definition will instead link allowable occupants to “the maximum allowed by health and safety codes” or “applicable state or federal law, regulation, or affordable housing standards,” language that mirrors the state law’s exceptions. She told commissioners the code edits will also include a find-and-replace pass to make terminology consistent across sections.

As a second step, staff proposed a moratorium on implementing the city’s group-living use standards while the city waits for state-level clarification. Nikki said the moratorium would pause enforcement of group-living review procedures, notice requirements, use-specific standards for boarding or rooming houses, density calculations in certain zones, and other provisions tied to group-living classifications. She recommended pausing enforcement for “a year or so” to allow time for guidance from the state, DOLA (Colorado Department of Local Affairs), or an attorney-general opinion.

Jamie (building/code staff) and Nikki explained the practical problem behind the proposal: the city historically set occupancy limits based on numerical categories (for example, small, large, unlimited or specific ranges such as 5–9, 10–16 occupants). The new state law bans limits that differentiate people based on familial relationship; only limits tied to demonstrable health-and-safety standards or applicable affordable housing rules remain permitted. Jamie said the municipal code currently lacks a clear, defensible health-and-safety metric tied to occupancy that would hold up in court or in a dispute with a developer.

Commissioners asked whether the moratorium would leave providers subject to state licensing requirements; Nikki and Jamie said state licensing and health-and-safety regulations remain in effect and local licensing or state licensing would still apply where appropriate. They cautioned that if the city later enforces a stricter interpretation, existing group-living arrangements established during the moratorium could become nonconforming uses subject to the city’s nonconforming-use rules.

Commissioners discussed alternative approaches. Andrew (chair/commissioner) and others asked whether the city could adopt numerosity limits tied to objective measures such as number of bedrooms or square footage; staff replied those approaches may be defensible only if tied to demonstrable health-and-safety standards and clarified by state guidance. Commissioners also referenced other municipalities’ approaches: Nikki noted Fort Collins eliminated group-living provisions and re-labeled dwelling categories; other communities are handling the law differently.

Nikki said staff’s recommendation at this stage is to remove “family” references from the code, revise “household” language, and place a temporary moratorium on enforcing group-living specific provisions while the statutory interpretation is clarified at the state level. No formal vote was recorded during the discussion; staff indicated they will return with drafted code language and a proposed moratorium ordinance or resolution for formal consideration.","Nikki (planning department staff) told the Planning Commission the city must bring its zoning code into compliance with a new Colorado state law that says “local government shall not limit the number of people who may live together in a single dwelling based on familial relationships.”",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6051476,"Planning commissioners discuss chair transition, schedule nominations for next meeting",622,3600,626480,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3443983-33d0cc89d2799dbe09dd186d21ec21e9&start=3&end=626","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3443983-33d0cc89d2799dbe09dd186d21ec21e9/thumbnail_3600.jpg","/articles/6051476/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Planning-commissioners-discuss-chair-transition-schedule-nominations-for-next-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6051476-f5b44797ece5fb702d19a2320f7d7541/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199433&Signature=kU0llFc9S9d-QGSq-3~kPhOwhKfJ7mzB0MzRM1vN6s5pMZ2D9UJFiDjHRTp-iTvoEco47rJa90Fz9s~IWV3MWTn5K0e0o007fCAbE5humAU8c1ovIHwzsGnc9N6GEaAvTbf3LBBduElcd-yrzpCVdN25mF8BrxKu-5ZFQJQYg66QG2oPuDLPwm7rYOumOOD7WN5P31Q~zyoj4pEcoZUu5Z3ViMR~fxCZWIfJVZTOPsMizo1R-PD0IO~SbT33Kn7H~23L90ZwhYp2eQqILxdCGrxihUlCzoNEw9r~ZCMY0kLfpGQmAGK2dXYPaiU-fh0lFVM7D8KdhnDY1QsbDvywSA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Andrew (chair/commissioner) told the Planning Commission he will be leaving in October and suggested beginning a transition for the chair role so the commission can “pass that baton well.”

The commission discussed timing and procedure for electing a replacement. Nikki (staff member) noted bylaws allow the commission to hold officer elections any time but also said the commission is traditionally expected to vote on officers at the first meeting in May. Commissioners agreed to put nominations on the agenda for the next Tuesday meeting so nominees can be identified and a vote taken at that meeting.

Andrea (commissioner) said she would accept a nomination but prefers to remain a regular commissioner because she believes she can contribute more when not presiding. Several commissioners emphasized that the chair’s role is primarily to keep meetings on track and maintain decorum rather than to lead substantive debate. Nikki summarized additional chair responsibilities: moderating workshops, ensuring public procedures are followed, assisting with orientation of new planning commissioners and, on occasion, working with staff when a commissioner is not participating.

Commissioners discussed logistics if the chair steps down before October. Nikki noted that if the chair’s designated replacement is leaving in October, the commission would address officer elections then; commissioners also noted the vice chair would need to be filled if the chair position changes.

The commission agreed that nominations will be accepted at the next meeting and that nominees should be people willing to serve. Nikki said she will place “election of chair/vice chair” on the agenda. There was no formal vote recorded during this discussion.

Looking ahead, commissioners said the officeholders should have adequate transition time and orientation to avoid disruption in meeting administration.","Commissioners discussed the upcoming departure of Chair Andrew and the process for selecting a new chair and vice chair; nominations will be taken at the next meeting and members were asked to indicate interest.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Staff presents batch of zoning and development code amendments; commissioners ask clarifying questions

Commission discusses state occupancy law, proposes moratorium on implementing group-living standards

Planning commissioners discuss chair transition, schedule nominations for next meeting