Grand Junction council hears plan to study affordable housing on Matching Park land

Grand Junction city staff and the Grand Junction Housing Authority presented a conceptual plan on the potential to site affordable housing on about 14 acres inside Matching Park, and council members directed staff to pursue due diligence, a draft lease and public outreach before any final decision.

City housing manager Ashley Chambers outlined how the proposal fits the city’s recently updated housing strategy and ballot changes that allow long-term leases of city land. “Housing strategy 3 is to leverage city owned land and or strategically acquire land for affordable and mixed income housing,” Chambers said, noting the city’s recent housing goals and the 99‑year lease authority that voters approved via Ballot Measure 2B.

The proposal would use a portion of the 14 acres that the city identified in the park master plan to combine a multifamily housing development with park amenities. Jody Cole, chief executive officer of the Grand Junction Housing Authority, told the council the authority is “very excited about the opportunity to partner with the City” and described an early target of “somewhere between, we hope, 80 to a hundred, maybe even 120 residential units” aimed at working households, elderly and disabled residents.

City design staff presented a conceptual site plan that places housing on the flatter eastern portion and park amenities on the western 10‑acre portion. “Most of this area is flat. However, there is a portion of the diagram which has quite a bit of topography … about a 20 foot drop,” the project lead said while explaining siting decisions and why the housing was located where the soils/topography reduced construction costs.

Why this matters: the city has a persistent shortage of lower‑income housing. Chambers cited a 2021 housing needs assessment that identified a roughly 2,200‑unit shortage for households under 60% AMI and said the city has committed to a state target to increase affordable housing. The site’s proximity to transit, health services and schools makes it more competitive for financing and grants, staff said.

Key project details and constraints presented to council: - Site: the 14 acres identified in the 2014 Matching Park master plan, described at the hearing as roughly 10 acres on the west side of Matching Parkway and 4 acres on the east side. (Staff said those school‑district uses shown on the 2014 plan are no longer active.) - Proposed scale: early conceptual work shows roughly 100 housing units and about 100 parking spaces, with a development range discussed between about 80 and 120 units. - Topography: an approximately 20‑foot elevation drop bisects portions of the site; staff and the housing authority said building on the flatter east side is materially less expensive and more financeable than building on steeper slopes. - Park amenities: staff said retaining or adding two full‑size softball fields and other recreation amenities on the west side is a priority; that need influenced where housing was placed. - Timeline/status: proponents repeatedly described the plan as very preliminary; staff said they need a lease agreement to allow predevelopment work (soils testing, design and financing steps) and that public hearings and required land‑use approvals would follow.

Council questions focused on neighborhood outreach, legal authority to lease parkland, and the site’s history. Staff clarified the property was acquired through the Trust for Public Lands and that, according to city records presented at the meeting, there are no legal deed restrictions that would prevent leasing the site for housing. Staff and the housing authority emphasized a commitment to neighborhood engagement if the project advances.

Several next steps were identified at the meeting: staff will draft lease language and scope predevelopment work (soils testing and design), schedule required public hearings and continue coordinated outreach with neighbors and the housing authority. Council members and staff emphasized the conceptual plan does not commit the city to construction and that all approvals and funding must be resolved before the project could proceed.

The council did not take a formal vote on a lease; rather, members indicated support for staff to continue due diligence and return with formal lease and ordinance language for council consideration and public hearing.