Planning commission unanimously recommends three minor subdivisions for county commissioners' review

The Montrose County Planning Commission on an April evening voted unanimously to recommend approval of three minor subdivisions and will forward those recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for a May 7 hearing.

The three items were presented by planning staff and approved after brief questions from commissioners. Staff described the JJ Minor Subdivision as an application that will create multiple vacant lots with water supplied “by Minogan” and wastewater served by septic systems; the transcript records Lot 1 and Lot 2 as zoned general residential and Lot 3 as general business. Commissioners asked about Lot 3’s business zoning, shared access between Lot 2 and Lot 3 and a canal/right‑of‑way at the rear of the parcels; staff and a meeting participant noted the canal parcel is federal property. The record shows the recommendation to approve was entered as a motion identified in the minutes as moved by David Seymour and seconded by Rocky Gabriel; the motion passed unanimously (5‑0).

The commission then considered the Gherkin Minor Subdivision. An applicant for that item identified themselves for the record as Ally and Ryan Kirkin (address as stated in the record). Staff described the proposal as a straightforward minor subdivision with shared‑access limitations; the commission recorded a motion to recommend approval that was seconded (Lana Kinsey is named in the record as a second) and carried unanimously (5‑0).

For Mountain View Estates, staff said the proposal would divide three lots from a 79‑acre parcel along Myrtle Road, with water service provided by Tri County (as stated in the record) and wastewater noted in the presentation. Applicant Jason Byer provided his name and address for the record. Commissioners questioned highway access and whether CDOT access controls or a frontage road would affect future lots; planning staff and the applicant said a frontage road exists that could be used. The commission recorded a motion to recommend approval and voted unanimously (5‑0).

Chair (identified in the transcript by meeting role) reminded the room that Planning Commission recommendations are advisory and do not represent final county action. The three recommended approvals will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, with a hearing on May 7 listed in the meeting record.

Minutes and motions were recorded in the meeting record as described above; the transcript contains a few transcribed terms that appear garbled (see audit), and applicants, staff and commissioners may provide corrected details in the official mailed/online packet for the Board of County Commissioners.