The Grand Junction Planning Commission on July 8 voted 6–0 (one commissioner recused) to forward a recommendation to City Council to rezone approximately 4.33 acres at 2426 G Road from RL‑4 (residential low 4) to RM‑12 (residential medium 12), a change staff said aligns with the comprehensive plan and planned growth patterns in the 24‑Road corridor.

Daniella Agusta Stein, principal planner, presented maps showing the property’s context: the site lies north of G Road adjoining Canyon View Park, with nearby mixed-use commercial and recent medium‑density residential projects. Stein said staff found the rezone consistent with the comprehensive plan and the 24‑Road overlay design guidance and that RM‑12 is compatible with surrounding uses because bulk and landscaping standards require neighborhood‑sensitive transitions.

Applicant Brooks Coles, representing Ninth Path Realty and Western Slope Property Management, said his company plans attached townhome-style, rental product and argued RM‑12 is needed to make redevelopment financially feasible. "If we could make single family detached housing work in a place like this, we would do it all day," Coles said. He described the developer’s track record in Grand Junction and said the intent is for higher‑quality, for‑rent townhomes rather than high‑rise apartments.

Neighbors voiced strong opposition. Casey Watts, a Spanish Trails resident, told commissioners: "People in Spanish Trail can't make a left during high traffic times... People that go to Canyon View already park in our neighborhood and take up our parking." Kaye Yeager and other residents cited parking overflow from Canyon View Park, obstructed views from higher buildings, noise and a belief that the developer purchased property knowing existing RL‑4 zoning.

Staff and the developer said traffic and stormwater will be addressed during the later site‑plan and engineering review. Transportation director Trent Prahl told commissioners that G Road currently carries about 8,000–10,000 vehicles per day, and that a full build‑out under RM‑12 at the developer’s likely size would add roughly 400 daily trips (about 4–5% of existing volume). Prahl noted planned regional improvements (including roundabout and collector‑road work) and that developer impact fees contribute toward such improvements.

Commissioners debated the land‑use policy question versus project‑level concerns. Several commissioners acknowledged the neighbors’ frustrations but pointed to the comprehensive plan’s intent to increase medium‑density housing near parks, jobs and services and to rely on subsequent site‑plan review to address traffic, drainage, parking and design. A motion to forward a recommendation of approval (city file RZN‑2025‑1138) carried 6–0.

Because of the recusal, City Council will receive the commission’s recommendation along with the public record and staff analysis. Any future site plan or subdivision will require additional reviews, including traffic studies, stormwater control and detailed design standards under the 24‑Road overlay.