Planning Commission recommends rezoning 40525 Road to RM‑8 over neighbor objections

The Grand Junction Planning Commission voted 5–2 on April 22 to forward a recommendation of approval to city council for a rezone of 1.03 acres at 40525 Road from RL‑4 (Residential Low 4) to RM‑8 (Residential Medium 8).

Thomas Lloyd, senior planner with the Community Development Department, told commissioners the site is designated residential medium on the 2020 comprehensive plan and that RM‑8 is the least‑intensive zone district that implements that designation. "Staff does find that the request has met the criteria as identified in section 21.02.005 of the zoning and development code," Lloyd said during the staff presentation.

The applicant, owner Ty Johnson, told the commission his intent is to subdivide and sell the rear portion of the lot rather than immediately develop a multi‑unit project. "I don't have any intention on putting 8 units on this lot," Johnson said in his rebuttal, and he reiterated that development would be subject to the city's detailed subdivision and engineering review.

Neighbors speaking during the public comment period strongly opposed the rezone. Jared Taylor, who lives across the street, said infrastructure and access constraints make higher density infeasible: "There's no way you're going to be able to put 6 to 8 units in there." Several residents cited a narrow, partly single‑lane 25 Road with two blind corners, old irrigation lines that leak, utility easements that cross the parcel and the risk of increased traffic and on‑street parking. Denise Okeisen, who lives immediately north of the subject property, said the proposed driveway would be "neck and neck" with her driveway and called safety a "huge issue."

Commissioners asked staff whether the owner could develop under the existing RL‑4 zoning. Staff replied that development is possible under current zoning and that subdivision (a development action) must demonstrate compliance with the comprehensive plan; any new zoning would need to implement the plan's land‑use designation. Staff also said a fire‑department limit on private‑drive access that currently caps the number of units may be removed pending an update this summer.

Deliberations split the commission. Commissioner Ken Scissors argued the matter before them was whether the rezone conforms to the 2020 comprehensive plan and said staff had demonstrated the criteria were met. Other commissioners cited compatibility, infrastructure capacity and the parcel's flag‑lot configuration as reasons for concern. "While the proposed RM‑8 zoning may align with the comprehensive plan's goals, it significantly alters the character and fabric of the existing neighborhood," one commissioner said during deliberations.

A motion that the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to city council "with the finding of fact as listed in the staff report" was made and seconded. The motion carried 5 in favor, 2 opposed. The recommendation now moves to Grand Junction City Council for final action.

The commission closed the hearing after the vote. Staff and the applicant said subdivision‑level engineering review — including fire, traffic, stormwater and utility approvals — would be required before any development could proceed, and that such reviews could identify constraints that prevent a proposed project from moving forward.

The Planning Commission also recognized Commissioner Barrack for her service before adjourning.