Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission forwards 27.2-acre Messick–Dangler annexation to council amid neighbor complaints about event noise
Summary
The commission forwarded the Messick–Dangler zone-of-annexation request (27.2 acres at 37830 Road to P2) to city council after staff recommended approval; a nearby resident testified about repeated loud events and cited a county notice of violation and municipal performance standards, and 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 Messick–Dangler zone-of-annexation request, a petition to annex 27.2 acres at 37830 Road and apply the P2 (public, civic and institutional campus) zone. Staff recommended approval, and the commission supported forwarding the recommendation to council.
Tim Laerbock, principal planner with community development, reviewed the file and told commissioners the subject site is partially developed — notably a fabricated lake on a former mining operation — and that the proposed P2 zoning implements the residential medium comprehensive-plan designation by allowing a range of civic, educational, recreational and compatible uses. Laerbock summarized the three rezoning/annexation criteria (consistency, development patterns, community benefit) and said staff found each criterion met; staff entered exhibits including the annexation plat and zone ordinance into the record.
During public comment, William Winger, a neighbor who lives two houses up on 30 Road, said the site has hosted multiple events (he estimated eight to 12) with loud music and fireworks that ran into the evening and that Mesa County issued a notice of violation. Winger cited a municipal performance standard he referenced as section "21 0 4 0 3 0" and said the code limits noise to 65 decibels at the property line; he said he can hear events inside his house with windows closed and asked how noise would be enforced.
Applicant representative Kim Kirk of Kim Kirkland Consulting and Development responded that the county action was a notice of violation and that she has been working with Mesa County, notifying them of hearings and dates. Kirk said the operator was not ordered to shut down and that the operator had made changes after early events (removing fireworks and bands) and that she would follow up to confirm whether the applicable curfew is 8:00 or 10:00 p.m.
Commission discussion emphasized that annexation review is limited to whether the zone of annexation meets code criteria; enforcement of use and noise is handled through code enforcement processes. Commissioner 6 and others acknowledged Winger’s concerns but noted they are outside the commission’s purview for the annexation decision. Commissioner 4 moved to forward a recommendation of approval to city council with the staff findings; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Next steps: the annexation and zone ordinance recommendation will go to city council. Questions about noise enforcement and any required changes to operations would be addressed separately through code enforcement and permitting processes if council approves annexation.
