Planning commission narrowly backs Camelback Gardens PD after marathon hearing, 6–1

The Grand Junction Planning Commission voted 6–1 on Feb. 10 to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Camelback Gardens planned development and outline development plan, a proposal that would allow up to 90 dwelling units on 10.29 acres of privately developable land within a 25‑acre PD boundary that includes approximately 15 acres of city‑owned open space.

Staff presented the PD/ODP as consistent with the city’s 2020 comprehensive plan and as an opportunity for clustered, low‑maintenance homes with preserved open space and new trail connections. “This will improve neighborhood connectivity and formalize trail access,” planner Daniella Costa Stein told commissioners during the presentation.

Developers said the proposal is designed to protect natural features while providing housing sized for one‑ and two‑person households. “We’re requesting 90 as a maximum; our concept will likely produce fewer homes,” said property owner Mike Stubbs, who described clustered footprints, preserved views and pocket parks intended to be maintained by an HOA.

Residents who live adjacent to the saddle that would be developed urged the commission to deny the PD. “This project is too dense for the neighborhood,” said Chris McAnany, who submitted a detailed written memo to commissioners. Neighbors highlighted safety and traffic concerns tied to the proposed connection between High Desert Road and Rana Road, stormwater and drainage risks for an area that already experiences runoff and mudflow, and the use of city‑owned open space to boost the project’s allowable density.

Multiple speakers recommended limiting access to cul‑de‑sac connections rather than a through street, and several urged the commission to treat the project as incompatible with adjacent single‑family lots unless setbacks, buffering and height transitions are strengthened. Bill Larson, who lives next to the proposed site, said recent rainstorms already produce heavy runoff and asked the city to require a robust drainage plan before approval.

Staff, the applicant and the city attorney responded: staff said traffic impacts would be evaluated and mitigated at the subdivision/site‑plan stage and that the city could require a traffic‑impact study and engineering mitigation if necessary; the assistant city attorney, Jamie Beard, explained that City Council previously adopted a resolution authorizing inclusion of adjacent city open space within the ODP boundary (the resolution does not transfer ownership) and that the council’s discretionary actions and the PD application are separate processes.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about how density was calculated, what land counts toward net developable acreage, whether sidewalks could be required on both sides of internal streets, drainage mitigation, and the range of allowed building heights. Several commissioners noted that, even without the PD, the property would likely be rezoned under current provisions and retain similar baseline design maxima (including a 40‑foot maximum height under default residential standards). The commission emphasized that many technical issues (drainage, parking, precise traffic mitigation and final street sections) would be resolved during the final development and subdivision review process.

Commissioner [speaker 2] moved to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council with an ODP expiration date of Dec. 31, 2043; the motion passed 6–1. Staff said the item will appear for a first reading at City Council on Feb. 18 and that the public hearing is scheduled for March 4.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation does not itself authorize construction; final approvals, technical engineering reviews and any required traffic or drainage mitigation must be completed at later administrative review or by council action. City Council will make the final decision on the Camelback Gardens PD/ODP at its scheduled hearing.