Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Messick Dangler Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission forwards 27.2-acre Messick Dangler annexation after resident raises noise concerns
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended approval of annexation and P‑2 zoning (public, civic and institutional campus) for 27.2 acres at 37830 Road, forwarding the item to City Council. A nearby resident urged stricter enforcement of noise standards; the applicant said she is working with Mesa County.
The Grand Junction Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the annexation and rezoning of 27.2 acres at 37830 Road to Public, Civic and Institutional Campus (P‑2).
Tim Laerbock, principal planner with the Community Development Department, summarized the Messick Dangler petition and said staff found the requested P‑2 zoning consistent with the city’s 2020 comprehensive plan and appropriate for a site described as a fabricated lake on the site of a former mining operation. Laerbock said the property is in Tier 2 of the intensification map and that annexation would leverage existing infrastructure while implementing comprehensive plan policies for managed growth.
“You will recognize most of this presentation from the October 14 meeting,” Laerbock said, summarizing the staff analysis and concluding that each rezoning criterion had been met and staff recommended approval.
During public comment, William Winger, who said he lives two houses up from the property on 30 Road, urged commissioners to consider recurring loud events at the site. Winger referenced a county notice of violation and cited municipal performance standards he said limit noise to 65 decibels at the property line. “I can hear their events inside my house with the windows shut,” Winger said, and asked how noise would be enforced after annexation.
Applicant representative Kim Kirk of Kim Kirkland Consulting and Development responded that she has been working with Mesa County and that the county’s notice was a notice of violation rather than an order to shut down. “They had to prove that we were working through the process. And so I have kept them notified of dates and public hearings,” Kirk said. She added operators had made changes—removing fireworks and bands—to reduce noise and said she would follow up on allowable stopping times.
Commissioners acknowledged the resident’s concerns but said use-specific enforcement largely lies with code enforcement rather than an annexation decision. Commissioner (S4) moved that the commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council with the findings in the staff report; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote (tally not specified in the record).
The commission’s recommendation will be considered by City Council, which will make the final decision. Staff and the applicant indicated they will continue to coordinate with county and city enforcement staff about noise and permitted uses as the annexation and zoning process proceeds.
