At a workshop session, planning staff walked the Grand Junction Planning Commission through how to find and apply the review criteria in the zoning and development code and how staff presents those criteria in staff reports ahead of hearings.

Staff told commissioners that review criteria are embedded by application type and that each application must meet all applicable criteria except for code text amendments, which require meeting at least one specified reason. "We list the criteria in the report, and then we provide an analysis for you... Our findings address each standard, and then we provide a recommendation that's based on findings," Planning staff said.

Staff emphasized that the burden of proof rests with applicants: "It is the burden of proof to meet these is on the applicant. It is not on staff," the presenter said, and staff also said it encourages applicants to present at hearings rather than rely solely on the written materials. Commissioners asked how to treat public comment and the comprehensive plan when making decisions. Staff said public comment can supply "competent, substantial evidence" to the record if it is factual and tied to the code criteria, and that the comprehensive plan is often broad and can include both aspirational language and directive elements; staff recommended using the code's "logical and orderly development patterns" criterion when debates arise over character and density.

Commissioners discussed practical challenges: how to prioritize competing comprehensive‑plan guidance, how to make findings that will hold up on appeal, and how to request more explicit staff analysis where the plan both supports and conflicts with a proposal. One commissioner said the comprehensive plan can feel "broad" and difficult to prioritize; staff suggested that commissioners rely on the code's three new criteria—consistency with the comprehensive plan, logical and orderly development patterns, and community benefit—together rather than treating any single phrase in the plan as dispositive.

Staff also advised commissioners to ask applicants to clarify points that appear to be "shiny objects" — attractive concepts the applicant mentions that do not form part of the applicable code criteria — and to insist that public testimony be tied back to specific criteria where possible so the record is clear. Commissioners were reminded that if they decide contrary to a staff recommendation, they should make clear, legally defensible findings specifying which criteria do or do not meet the standards.

No formal action was taken; the meeting segment was presented as a workshop intended to improve the commission's access to code materials, the commission's deliberative practice, and the clarity of future findings.

Staff offered to circulate the recorded workshop and supporting links, and commissioners suggested periodic refreshers on criteria and a future presentation on navigating the comprehensive plan for new members.