[0:00] 
[5:09] We're just.
[5:09] 
[10:17] Council Member.
[10:17] Ballard, this is Celestino.
[10:19] Would you like to
do a sound check.
[10:20] 
[10:23] I'm here.
[10:23] Can you hear me.
[10:24] I can hear you.
[10:24] Thank you so much.
[10:26] Council Member stout, would
you like to do a sound check.
[10:30] Sound check check, check.
[10:31] 
[12:11] Just calling in and.
[12:12] 
[13:08] All right.
[13:09] It is 5:30 and we
will bring the May
[13:14] city council meeting to order.
[13:17] And with that, we will
go ahead and stand
[13:21] for the Pledge of Allegiance
in a moment of silence.
[13:24] 
[13:29] I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
[13:34] and to the Republic
for which it stands.
[13:37] One nation under
God, indivisible,
[13:41] with liberty and
justice for all.
[13:43] 
[13:55] You may be seated.
[13:56] 
[13:58] OK Mr. Up here.
[14:01] 
[14:05] OK we're just waiting for
the screens to finish.
[14:13] As we are going to kick off
our evening with a presentation
[14:18] from the business
incubator center,
[14:20] and we have chief executive
officer delita here to present.
[14:26] There she is.
[14:26] She just walked in.
[14:28] Walked right up.
[14:31] Yeah perfect timing.
[14:32] 
[14:49] Are you ready.
[14:50] All right.
[14:51] Good evening, everyone, and
thank you for having me here.
[14:53] It's hard to find parking today.
[14:57] I'm looking at everyone here,
but I'm really happy to be here
[15:01] and to do three things today.
[15:05] Start with a presentation
about the business incubator
[15:08] and what we have done
in this past year,
[15:12] and also celebrate
40 years together
[15:14] of partnership, and
then share with you
[15:18] a recognition that puts
the business incubator
[15:21] center in Grand Junction on the
global map of entrepreneurship.
[15:26] I'm the CEO of the
business incubator center.
[15:30] Thank you for having me.
[15:33] So this year, the big
turns 40 and our theme
[15:37] has been ever since
we started rooting.
[15:43] We want to talk about how we are
able to help through this vision
[15:47] that the Grand Junction, City
of Grand Junction and the people
[15:51] of Grand Junction set in place
40 years ago to help businesses
[15:55] root in our community and
transform this amazing place
[15:59] that we all call home.
[16:01] I want to acknowledge that
the business incubator center
[16:03] would not have existed
without the city
[16:07] of Grand Junction support.
[16:09] As a matter of fact, since
our founding in 1986,
[16:13] the city of Grand
Junction was with us
[16:16] as a founding board
member, and we're
[16:19] very proud of this partnership.
[16:21] 
[16:26] Another quick note on the
history the city of Grand
[16:29] Junction played a pivotal role.
[16:32] This partnership has run
uninterrupted over 40 years,
[16:36] and the mission has
always remained the same
[16:38] over these years, helping small
businesses take root, grow,
[16:43] scale and start
in our communities
[16:46] so they can stay here so
they can create opportunities
[16:50] and so they can transform
and grow our city together.
[16:53] So it's a chance for us to
come together in this year
[16:59] and celebrate what
that vision has meant
[17:01] and how it is transforming
our communities for many years
[17:05] to come.
[17:06] We believe that our
entrepreneurial infrastructure
[17:09] is strong in our
community, and this
[17:12] is built because the community
wanted to see a future here,
[17:16] and that we are able to
diversify the economy together
[17:20] because we want to
see sustainability
[17:22] happen at every level.
[17:24] So we're very happy to do
this work in partnership.
[17:28] So how do we do it.
[17:30] The book operates through these
five pillars that you see here.
[17:34] That's how we deliver
our programs and mission
[17:37] on a day to day basis.
[17:39] First with business development.
[17:41] That's where basically our SBDC
and business development team
[17:45] sits, as well as
our Camino Al éxito
[17:49] Spanish language
entrepreneurial support program.
[17:54] This is where the coaching and
mentorship and the training
[17:57] happens for all
the entrepreneurs.
[18:00] Second, our space and tools,
which is the facility itself,
[18:04] the spaces that incentivize
opportunities for entrepreneurs
[18:09] to start and launch and help
operate their businesses
[18:14] from specialized tools.
[18:17] Third, business
funding and loans.
[18:19] Getting the important
capital in entrepreneurs
[18:22] hands so that they can continue
investing in hiring people
[18:27] and building facilities
and making sure
[18:29] that their businesses can grow.
[18:32] For with the grants
and incentives,
[18:35] this is where mainly the
enterprise zone, the state tax
[18:39] incentive lives and other
incentives so we can help
[18:43] our community holistically
reinvest those taxes
[18:48] into our communities.
[18:51] And then innovation and
labs with the makerspace
[18:54] as a prototyping facility that
allows innovation to thrive
[18:59] and people to be able
to take their ideas
[19:02] from idea to commercialization.
[19:04] So these five pillars
is what makes BIC
[19:06] a true one stop shop,
where you can see the hub
[19:11] for Entrepreneurship thriving.
[19:13] By having our arms wrapped
around the entrepreneurs
[19:16] and their ideas to
make sure that they
[19:17] are able to sustain and
thrive beyond the Five Pillars
[19:23] that you just saw.
[19:25] We also advanced
targeted initiatives
[19:28] that address specific emerging
opportunities for our region.
[19:32] Sometimes these are gaps
in the regional economy,
[19:36] and sometimes these are areas
that we strategically approach
[19:40] in order to make sure that
we can see acceleration
[19:43] for business activity.
[19:45] And these efforts,
they can focus
[19:48] on sectors and
sometimes regional areas
[19:51] or specialized attention.
[19:53] And we do this work together
with public partners,
[19:57] stakeholders, federal and
local government partners,
[20:02] because the bics
mission is to strengthen
[20:06] the key economic pillars
in our communities
[20:10] in order to see that
diversification happen.
[20:15] So currently, three initiatives
at the BIC and the first one
[20:19] focusing on sustainability with
agro West and the future of AG
[20:24] in our communities.
[20:25] The second one, Camino Al
éxito, which means path
[20:27] to success in Spanish,
which delivers our resources
[20:31] to Spanish speaking founders.
[20:33] And then the third one is
circular economy Development
[20:36] Center, which is a
partnership with CDP
[20:40] in order to support markets
and systems, to reduce waste
[20:43] and to create new economic
value for small businesses.
[20:49] This is something I'm very,
very proud to show you here.
[20:52] Our partnership creates amazing
impact for our community
[20:56] and this is how it
translates on the ground.
[20:58] In 2025 alone, we have
served 647 entrepreneurs.
[21:04] We have helped 112 of them
launched through our campus,
[21:09] and we supported the
creation of 393 new jobs.
[21:14] We were able to deploy
directly $6.25 million
[21:18] in dollars to help entrepreneurs
buy tools and form assets.
[21:27] Together, these
entrepreneurs were
[21:28] able to generate 12.3 million
in New dollars to our community.
[21:34] And those are families that
are able to create paychecks
[21:40] and storefronts and generate the
tax base that we all appreciate.
[21:46] These numbers compound
year over year because
[21:48] of that infrastructure that
delivers these activities
[21:51] and these services
and the support
[21:53] that sustains year over year.
[21:56] Our overall time
impact figures show
[22:00] that BIC is the engine that
creates a lot of the support
[22:06] that our community needs.
[22:08] We have so far helped 35% of
all Mesa County businesses,
[22:13] and we have helped create
thousands of jobs year over year
[22:17] since our founding.
[22:20] Something I'm very proud of
is the number 3.29 billion.
[22:25] That's how much was
created in capital
[22:27] investments in our community.
[22:30] And these are direct effect.
[22:31] We are able to tell
you exactly where
[22:33] these investments happened.
[22:35] For each dollar invested in BC,
for each public dollars invested
[22:40] in BC, we have generated $346
in direct economic impact
[22:45] in return, which have
helped contribute
[22:47] to the growth of our
city and region together.
[22:50] 
[22:53] Now, one of the big
wins of this past year
[22:57] is one of the big projects
that is a state tax
[23:02] incentive, the enterprise zone,
and it was up for redesignation.
[23:07] So we led the
analysis application
[23:10] and the approval
process with the state's
[23:12] economic Development Office.
[23:15] And we worked
strategically to make sure
[23:17] that the majority of the zone
remains within Mesa County,
[23:22] allowing businesses to
generate a lot of those credits
[23:26] that they are able to
reinvest in our communities.
[23:30] However, initially, some
areas, including downtown,
[23:34] fell off the map.
[23:36] We were able to approve further
a grandfathering process
[23:43] to help these businesses
downtown to remain
[23:45] in the zone for 10 years.
[23:48] But this is where the work that
the BIC team has done diligently
[23:55] creates a ripple effect.
[23:57] We went back and looked at our
track data and generated a case,
[24:02] and we submitted that
request to our edit,
[24:04] and we were able to include
all of downtown of the city
[24:08] of Grand Junction into the map.
[24:11] I'm happy to share
that today we are
[24:13] successfully back in the zone.
[24:16] So majority of Mesa
County small businesses
[24:18] can continue enjoying
this amazing tax
[24:21] credit for the next 10 years.
[24:25] 
[24:28] In 2024 5, we were
honored to also receive
[24:31] two amazing visits from Senator
Hickenlooper and Governor Polis.
[24:37] At their request, they wanted
to come tour the back, meet
[24:41] with entrepreneurs, and
discuss pressing matters
[24:43] to small businesses that they
might be able to help solve,
[24:49] or they needed to
learn more about.
[24:52] And we're happy to
be able to facilitate
[24:55] these kind of direct lines
between entrepreneurs,
[24:58] small businesses and
emerging industry leaders
[25:00] and partners with
our policy makers.
[25:06] In 2025, we also
launched an ACT study.
[25:09] We partnered with CMU to create
an economic impact study for AG
[25:14] in our communities, and
we chose five counties
[25:17] to generate this study.
[25:20] The findings will help
us generate policies.
[25:24] It will give us a clearer
picture, a data driven picture
[25:27] of where we are today and
where are the pain points
[25:31] that we need to focus on.
[25:35] This is in hope
that this study will
[25:38] help create solutions to
help sustain an industry
[25:42] for generations to come.
[25:44] If anyone wants to
read the full study,
[25:46] it's on our website
incubator.org.
[25:49] Feel free to grab that study
or just walk into the incubator
[25:52] and we'll be happy
to hand you one.
[25:57] This is the QR code for our
most recent annual report
[26:00] that I hope you have with you.
[26:02] And there are some
amazing success
[26:05] stories we are not able to share
all 647 in our annual report,
[26:10] but.
[26:11] So we picked six of
them to share with you.
[26:16] Please find the annual
report on our website
[26:20] and read those amazing stories.
[26:22] Yes, that is the rec center
in picture number two.
[26:26] And yes, those are big clients
that are helping build it.
[26:30] So we're very happy and proud
to see this partnership create
[26:33] a compounding ripple effect.
[26:35] 
[26:40] And earlier this year,
BIC received the 2026 mbia
[26:45] Dinah Atkins Randall award.
[26:49] The International business
innovation association has won
[26:53] top recognition a year to give.
[26:55] And that recognition was given
to the business incubator center
[26:59] as the best incubator
in the world.
[27:02] It was selected out
of more than 1,200
[27:06] incubators from 33 countries.
[27:08] Reese and what this
means for our community,
[27:13] that we have entrepreneurs
that are worthy of our service,
[27:17] and we are extremely
proud to be here
[27:19] to help support our
community in a meaningful way
[27:22] that we are able to do.
[27:24] This also means that the world
is looking up to our communities
[27:27] for the creative
solutions that we're
[27:29] able to help, and the
partnership and the models
[27:31] that we can generate together.
[27:34] So we see this as a benchmark
and as a start for us
[27:37] to be able to continue growing
our community together.
[27:40] 
[27:43] If possible, to do a
plug and invite everyone
[27:46] to our 40th anniversary
kickoff at ramble
[27:50] bean on June four at 4:00 PM.
[27:55] We're hoping to toast
together this partnership
[27:58] and to celebrate
our entrepreneurs
[28:00] from our communities,
and to also
[28:03] continue this impactful,
meaningful work
[28:06] to help people root in
our communities further.
[28:10] I'm happy to field any questions
you have and I'd love to see you
[28:14] all there on June 4 and
to celebrate our 40th
[28:18] year together this year.
[28:20] Thank you so much for
40 years of partnership
[28:22] and looking forward to 40 more.
[28:25] Thank you so much.
[28:26] 
[28:33] I just want to say
thank you to Lita.
[28:35] The work that you and the
business incubator center do
[28:37] is amazing, and you can see it
throughout our entire community.
[28:41] And thank you so much.
[28:42] And I see a lot of
you are here today.
[28:45] So thank you for being here.
[28:46] And it's really exciting that
we have this partnership.
[28:50] And you look like
you were leaning in.
[28:53] I think we have some
other yeah, I just
[28:55] want to say thank
you as well to Lita,
[28:57] the board, all staff members.
[29:00] The effect that you have on our
community is truly incredible.
[29:04] The business incubator
is the American dream.
[29:06] It's that path forward,
that path to success,
[29:09] that opportunity that
we don't all have.
[29:12] And I think she's understated it
a little bit the best business
[29:16] incubator in the world.
[29:18] I mean, what an incredible
award to receive.
[29:21] That was also up
against business
[29:23] incubators that had
substantial funding
[29:26] within the tech industry.
[29:27] So this is it's really, truly a
pretty amazing accomplishment.
[29:31] So thank you so much to Dalida
and the team and the board.
[29:34] You guys are all
pretty incredible.
[29:37] And I just wanted to Ben and I
co sit on the board for the city
[29:47] and it's an amazing board.
[29:50] So if they're the
number one incubator
[29:52] they're the number
one board in the world
[29:54] to by my measure right.
[29:57] Kathy agrees.
[29:58] And number one staff I
mean I've known several
[30:02] of the staff for a long time.
[30:03] They're there.
[30:04] Awesome small, small segue
sat next to Diana Connor
[30:11] yesterday, who is the
owner of must love seniors,
[30:15] and she was at the Chamber
breakfast yesterday,
[30:17] and I don't know how we
got talking about this,
[30:20] but she said I
wouldn't be in business
[30:23] if it wasn't for the incubator.
[30:25] She goes to everything
the incubator puts on,
[30:29] and she now supplies
126 assisted
[30:33] living beds in our community,
mostly for Medicaid people.
[30:39] And, the value from that
is just unfathomable.
[30:43] So it was a great
story yesterday.
[30:45] Congratulations to all you guys.
[30:48] We really appreciate you a lot.
[30:50] 
[30:58] OK with that, we are going
to move into proclamations.
[31:03] And before we do
that, I did want
[31:05] to just note that we
have council member stout
[31:07] and Ballard are
attending remotely.
[31:10] Council Member stout will be
joining us in person shortly.
[31:13] She's on her way and
remote until then.
[31:16] And with that, we'll
move into proclamations.
[31:18] And our only one tonight
is proclaiming may 17th
[31:22] through the 23rd as
national EMS week
[31:25] in the city of Grand Junction.
[31:26] And it will be read by
Council Member Nguyen
[31:30] and received by EMS chief
division Chief Mark McIntyre.
[31:37] City of Grand Junction.
[31:38] State of Colorado.
[31:39] Proclamation whereas this
year, as we recognize the 52nd
[31:43] anniversary of the
first national EMS week,
[31:46] we honor those who
came before us,
[31:47] especially those who challenged
the status quo and raised
[31:50] the bar for all of us.
[31:52] And whereas the
member of the members
[31:55] of emergency medical
services teams
[31:58] are ready to go beyond
the call to provide
[32:00] life saving care to those in
need 24 hours a day, seven days
[32:03] a week.
[32:04] And whereas access to quality
emergency medical emergency care
[32:09] dramatically
improves the survival
[32:10] and recovery rate of
those who experience
[32:13] sudden illness or injury.
[32:14] And whereas emergency medical
service providers have
[32:18] traditionally served as the
safety net of America's health
[32:21] systems, and whereas emergency
medical service teams consist
[32:26] of emergency medical
technicians, paramedics,
[32:29] firefighters, dispatchers,
Emergency Nurses, emergency
[32:33] physicians, and others.
[32:35] And whereas the members of
emergency medical service teams
[32:40] engage in thousands of
hours of specialized
[32:42] training and continuing
education to enhance
[32:44] their lifesaving skills.
[32:46] And whereas the community
of Grand Junction
[32:49] benefits daily from
the knowledge, skills,
[32:51] and selfless service of these
highly trained individuals,
[32:55] and whereas it is
appropriate to recognize
[32:57] the value and the
accomplishments of emergency
[33:00] medical service providers
by recognizing emergency
[33:03] medical Services Week.
[33:05] Now, therefore, on behalf of
the Grand Junction City council
[33:09] and community members
of Grand Junction,
[33:11] we recognize the week of
May 17 through May 23, 2026
[33:16] as emergency medical
Services week
[33:18] in the city of Grand Junction
and encourage the community
[33:22] to observe this week with
appropriate programs,
[33:25] ceremonies and activities.
[33:26] 
[33:30] Thank you.
[33:31] My name is Mark McIntyre.
[33:32] I'm the EMS Division Chief
here at the Department.
[33:34] With me tonight is
Deputy Chief Gus Hendrix.
[33:37] And we would like to
thank you for recognizing
[33:40] the efforts of our EMS crews.
[33:42] As you all EMS is by far the
busiest division on the fire
[33:45] department, accounting
for approximately 80%
[33:48] of our call volume.
[33:49] Despite the challenges
call volume creates,
[33:52] our crews respond to every call
with an extremely high level
[33:55] of skill and professionalism.
[33:58] This year, through your support,
the Department was able to move
[34:01] EMS staff to the 4896 schedule.
[34:04] We also started transitioning
our fleet to 4x4 diesel
[34:07] ambulances and were able to
send five additional providers
[34:10] to paramedic
school, which almost
[34:12] brings us up to our paramedic
goal of 60 for the Department.
[34:17] In addition, the Department
added a new community
[34:19] paramedic program in an
effort to start proactively
[34:22] addressing the call volume.
[34:24] I'm happy to report tonight that
even in the short time frame,
[34:27] the program has been in service.
[34:29] We have seen a decrease of 911
utilization of enrolled patients
[34:33] by between 60 and 100% and
an overall EMS call volume
[34:37] decrease of about 1% to date.
[34:41] Now, that doesn't sound
like a lot on paper,
[34:43] but considering our usual
EMS goes up by about 5.4%
[34:47] every year, decreasing is.
[34:49] One is a pretty big task for us.
[34:51] So we're very excited
about how it's
[34:53] been going for the short time.
[34:55] So all of these things
that we have accomplished
[34:57] were 100% possible due to the
support you have shown our EMS
[35:01] division over this last year.
[35:03] So thank you for your
support and thank you
[35:04] very much for this recognition.
[35:07] Thank you.
[35:07] 
[35:17] OK with that, we will be
moving into public comments.
[35:20] Individuals may
comment about any topic
[35:22] except those listed
on the regular agenda
[35:24] under the public
hearing section.
[35:25] Speakers will have three
minutes to make comments,
[35:27] and when seconds remain
will see the yellow light
[35:31] and hear a beep.
[35:32] Once your time is up, you
will see the red light
[35:34] and you will hear
continuous beeps.
[35:36] We do ask that
everyone be respectful.
[35:38] No laughing or
booing or cheering
[35:40] as people are making
their comments
[35:41] and that we're just being
respectful of one another.
[35:44] And to start off, we have
Tammy powers, crystal
[35:48] frost, and Kristen Seidel.
[35:50] 
[36:16] Where is it.
[36:17] This one.
[36:18] This one.
[36:18] OK Hi, my name is Tammy powers.
[36:25] I moved to Grand Junction
about seven months ago.
[36:27] I absolutely love it here.
[36:29] I'm a positive energy.
[36:31] Figure out solutions.
[36:32] Stop disagreeing about
problems type of person.
[36:35] I arrived here
from San Francisco,
[36:37] where I lived for 15 years.
[36:38] I owned a bicycle shop, was a
member of the San Francisco San
[36:41] Francisco bicycle coalition,
and due to my bike shop
[36:44] being on Treasure
Island, often attended
[36:47] meetings for the Transbay
Joint Powers authority.
[36:49] Before that, I lived in
Boulder, Colorado for 17 years.
[36:52] I owned a bicycle
shop, was involved
[36:54] in the Boulder
off-road alliance,
[36:56] and often attended
City council meetings.
[36:59] Before that, I bicycled by
myself around the entire United
[37:02] States.
[37:02] In 1992, I paddled
from California
[37:05] to Cape Cod, down to Key
West, then back to California.
[37:08] I'm active in any
community I live in.
[37:10] I have already attended a Grand
Junction City council workshop.
[37:14] It was about a month ago and
I was in my motorcycle gear,
[37:16] so I doubt you recognize me.
[37:18] Before that, I attended
an urban trails committee
[37:21] and by the end of that
meeting, I was compelled
[37:23] to volunteer for that group.
[37:24] I was convinced
that I should share
[37:27] with this slice of heaven
on the Western slope
[37:29] my years of knowledge
and experience.
[37:32] I believe it was
more than a week
[37:33] ago that I submitted my online
application for the UTC.
[37:37] I was acknowledged, received
with a positive reply
[37:41] that I would be considered
for the 2027 recruitment,
[37:43] which I had no problem with.
[37:45] But only a few days ago, I
read in the business times
[37:48] that the city council
and the UTC are,
[37:52] I guess, miscommunicating
about a subject
[37:56] to do with indoor parking.
[37:58] And with all my years
and miles of bicycling,
[38:01] I've never been to a
town that had readily
[38:03] available indoor parking.
[38:05] So I think there's other
ways to state that.
[38:08] There's bicycle lockers
and there's bicycle cages
[38:12] that can really do benefit.
[38:14] So why bicyclists in this town
are begging for indoor parking
[38:18] is beyond me.
[38:19] But if you have the
power to disband the UTC,
[38:22] you have the power to up
my application to the top
[38:26] and let me get in next month.
[38:27] And we could talk reasonably
about solutions, because that's
[38:30] what I believe in.
[38:31] When everybody can win in
the community and we're
[38:33] all getting along and we're
thinking about solutions
[38:35] and not talking about problems.
[38:37] So thank you for listening
and please put me on the UTC.
[38:40] Thank you.
[38:41] Thank you.
[38:43] Crystal hi, guys.
[38:49] I'm back.
[38:51] I'm still in the community,
sober and at Sunshine community.
[38:55] I just want to remind everybody,
in the last three weeks,
[38:58] someone has died
off the streets.
[39:00] I was at dollar store
and a homeless man
[39:03] collapsed right outside of it.
[39:05] And then I was at another
place today volunteering.
[39:09] And I want to say her name.
[39:11] She just recently
got out be in jail,
[39:13] and she had to go right
back to being homeless.
[39:15] She dug a hole and
she laid down in it.
[39:17] Now she's in the hospital.
[39:19] So please, I don't
know what to do.
[39:22] If you need me to
talk to anybody,
[39:23] I'm willing to sit down and have
a conversation with anybody.
[39:27] But we need to start to do
something with homeless.
[39:30] It's getting worse
every day, and
[39:32] no one around the state of the
United States is doing anything.
[39:35] So let's be the first.
[39:37] Let's put Grand
Junction on the map.
[39:39] Thanks Thank you.
[39:42] Kristen mayor, council members.
[39:48] My name is Kristen Seidel,
and I am the Vice Chair
[39:50] of the homeless
coalition and the program
[39:52] and outreach coordinator
for mutual aid partners.
[39:55] I understand that council
has received complaints
[39:57] from concerned citizens about
the state of our public spaces,
[40:00] especially near the river.
[40:03] As someone who loves recreating
on the river and the river
[40:05] trail, I understand
the importance
[40:06] of having clean public
spaces for everyone to enjoy.
[40:10] As you can imagine, the lack
of dumpsters and trash service
[40:13] along the river corridor makes
maintaining these spaces nearly
[40:16] impossible for folks who are
sleeping there, having been
[40:19] pushed down to the
margins of our society
[40:21] for a variety of reasons.
[40:23] Rather than changing
language in our ordinances
[40:25] that will have little impact on
addressing these valid concerns,
[40:28] I recommend that the city engage
in proactive strategy instead
[40:32] of doubling down on possible
punitive measures that push
[40:35] people further away from
engaging with services,
[40:38] further away from
attaining jobs and housing,
[40:40] and which break down
the relationships
[40:41] which service providers have
worked so hard to establish.
[40:46] We should be focusing
on solutions that
[40:47] will actually improve the
situation for our community
[40:50] as a whole.
[40:52] Let's provide our
houseless community members
[40:54] with tools that boost
autonomy, so that they
[40:56] can take responsibility and
be accountable for the spaces
[40:59] that they occupy.
[41:01] A change in language will
only alienate people further.
[41:03] I know this because I
engage with these folks
[41:05] on an almost daily basis, and
this is what they tell me.
[41:09] True preventative measures
would be access to housing
[41:12] or safe shelter, but
I acknowledge that is
[41:14] not a realistic short term ask.
[41:17] However, there are
some real solutions
[41:19] that can be implemented right
now solutions that will greatly
[41:21] improve the situation
for which you've
[41:23] been receiving complaints.
[41:25] As part of the basic needs
and outreach work group,
[41:27] we have been providing campers
with trash bags and sharps
[41:30] containers, and they
have been using them,
[41:34] but with no safe
disposal areas, these
[41:36] efforts cannot be successful.
[41:38] One man reported that
he would bag his trash
[41:40] and by the next
morning, raccoons
[41:42] had gotten into the
bags and the trash
[41:44] was again scattered everywhere.
[41:47] A tangible way that City council
can support the community right
[41:50] now is by providing support with
dumpsters at strategic locations
[41:53] along the river trail, and
by placing porta potties
[41:56] to decrease the human waste that
would end up in our waterways.
[41:59] Otherwise, these solutions
are a win for everyone.
[42:03] If you've ever gone
for a run on the river
[42:05] trail after drinking
your morning
[42:06] coffee that a porta potty along
the trail is a welcome sight.
[42:12] Infrastructure for
sanitation is much cheaper
[42:14] than the almost half a
million that the city
[42:17] spent on camp cleanup
over the last three years.
[42:19] I would rather see a
fraction of that money
[42:22] be used to hire a task force
of our unhoused neighbors
[42:25] to engage in regular
cleanups near the river.
[42:28] Giving someone in
our community a job
[42:30] instead of hiring
expensive contractors.
[42:33] Regular maintenance is simply a
smarter strategy until there are
[42:37] accessible, long term housing
solutions for the most
[42:39] vulnerable in our community.
[42:40] We have to grapple
with the reality
[42:42] that when people
have nowhere to go,
[42:44] that does not make
them disappear.
[42:47] Thank you.
[42:47] Thank you.
[42:49] Next, we have Shayla, and
then that will be followed
[42:54] by Madeline and Andy Hamilton.
[42:57] 
[43:06] Hi my name is Shayla.
[43:08] I know that you guys are going
to hear a lot of complaints
[43:13] about the concerns about the
river and the change of language
[43:19] regarding the river and policing
on the river and the camping
[43:24] along the river.
[43:25] So I'm hopefully
going to give you
[43:27] a little bit of a different
story, which is that my family
[43:33] moved here in 2010.
[43:35] I was 10 years old.
[43:36] I have five younger
siblings, but in 2010 it
[43:41] was just myself 10
years old and my three
[43:44] younger brothers 8, 6 and up.
[43:47] They would have been four
at the time, and my parents,
[43:51] and we were houseless
at the time,
[43:53] so we did not have
anywhere to stay.
[43:55] And we were not accessing
the homeless shelters.
[43:58] We were living out of our
car and we were camping.
[44:02] So for a while, we stayed
at campgrounds until we no
[44:06] longer had the funds to do so.
[44:08] And so when the school year
started for the 2010 2011 school
[44:11] year, my mother, who worked
for the D51 school district
[44:16] as a teacher, her principal
loves to tell a story about how
[44:21] she had a teacher who she would
regularly pick up from being
[44:24] camping along the river
with her four children,
[44:26] and she would pick
them up and pick
[44:28] them up for school every day
and drop them off at school.
[44:31] And so I just wanted to tell you
about this because I think when
[44:35] we think about the
houseless community,
[44:37] we have a picture in our mind
about who we're thinking about.
[44:41] And when we think about who.
[44:42] Staying in homeless
shelters, we have an idea
[44:44] of who we're thinking about.
[44:45] We think that families
are potentially staying
[44:48] in the shelters, or they
have somewhere to go,
[44:50] or that we have
programs for them,
[44:52] and that is not always the case.
[44:55] And so my family luckily,
was in an incredibly
[44:59] privileged position.
[45:00] We were only houseless for
probably six months or less,
[45:05] and at the time I was completely
unaware of the situation.
[45:08] It was just our longest
summer camping that I
[45:11] had ever experienced, right.
[45:12] It was one long,
glorious adventure,
[45:15] and it wasn't until I
was much, much older
[45:16] that I realized
that we simply did
[45:18] not have anywhere else to go.
[45:20] So we lived along the river.
[45:25] And so I do want
you guys to really,
[45:29] really consider
what you're doing.
[45:31] I have watched
Whitman park close.
[45:33] I have watched as I'm
an employee of Mesa
[45:38] County public libraries.
[45:39] I have watched as our
houseless population
[45:41] has had nowhere else to go,
as the shelters have closed.
[45:46] And as they have had, as
they have had slowly run out
[45:49] of places to continue to go.
[45:52] And so to continue
to police them
[45:54] when there's nowhere
no meaningful
[45:55] alternative is just
simply unacceptable.
[45:58] So that's all I wanted to say.
[46:00] Thank you.
[46:02] OK next.
[46:03] Madeleine hi, my name
is Madeleine Mejia.
[46:13] I have been living in Grand
Junction for since 2022,
[46:17] and while I am a
community member,
[46:20] I don't see I quite yet can
say I'm proud to be a community
[46:23] member, especially with
everything that's going on
[46:26] with our unhoused population.
[46:30] I'd like to say that I'm
terrified for the future
[46:32] that our city might be taking,
and the way that it's going
[46:37] to push our unhoused community.
[46:39] 
[46:44] Last year, when they
released the PIT Count,
[46:47] it showed that since 2019,
our unhoused population
[46:52] had gone up over 108%
That's not a kind number.
[46:57] That's not a number
that shows our city's
[46:59] really been trying to meet.
[47:00] 
[47:03] I don't think the
way that our city
[47:06] might be thinking to enforce and
interpret the municipal codes.
[47:12] 
[47:15] To me, they feel like.
[47:17] 
[47:20] It feels like putting a bucket
underneath a leak in my house.
[47:24] It may solve the water on the
floor, but I still have a leak.
[47:30] And leak here for us
is again our crisis
[47:35] with the unhoused community.
[47:37] It's not going to fix anything.
[47:39] Not really in the long run.
[47:42] Research shows I got
this from the Colorado
[47:45] State of homelessness
report from last year.
[47:47] And over and over and over
again, I keep seeing housing.
[47:52] Affordable housing,
permanent housing.
[47:55] This is what this is.
[47:57] What solves the issue is
getting those things back.
[48:01] As we've stated, we've
got a whole park that's
[48:03] city owned that is not being
used, not for the unhoused,
[48:07] not for the public.
[48:08] So I don't know.
[48:09] Instead of seeing an empty lot
every day when I drive home
[48:12] and to work.
[48:14] Maybe we could put up
some property there.
[48:16] I feel like we just
keep taking and taking
[48:20] from our unhoused community.
[48:22] We had again,
Whitman taken away.
[48:24] We've had the Resource Center
shut down early without really
[48:28] a real effort being given.
[48:30] I was here for that
meeting as well.
[48:32] Standing in opposition
to close that early.
[48:35] I don't feel there was a real
reason to shut that down.
[48:37] I still feel very
strongly about that.
[48:40] There was also Royce
Hurst did a hounds.
[48:46] Sorry homeward
hounds initiative.
[48:52] And that did actually
set over five years.
[48:54] It helped over about 300
unhoused individuals stay
[48:58] with pets.
[48:58] And we've unfortunately
lost that too once
[49:00] that shelter was closed down.
[49:03] We've lost homeward
bound on North Ave,
[49:06] and now you are attempting
or possibly attempting to cut
[49:10] away the only lifeline left.
[49:12] Please don't do that.
[49:13] Thank you.
[49:14] Be kind for us.
[49:15] Care about your community.
[49:17] OK Andy Hamilton.
[49:19] 
[49:22] Followed by Andrea Hamilton.
[49:24] And then Stefania.
[49:27] Hi there.
[49:28] My name is Andy
Hamilton and I live
[49:29] at 2021 Capitol Avenue in city
council District C. I believe.
[49:33] I don't usually come to
these meetings in large part
[49:36] because I feel powerless.
[49:37] I feel like most of the time
you've already decided what
[49:39] you're going to do, and me
sharing my viewpoint about it
[49:42] won't change your mind.
[49:43] Tonight, though, I decided I
couldn't succumb to the feeling
[49:45] of powerlessness
and that I needed
[49:47] to come support my neighbors,
both housed and unhoused.
[49:50] We'll see how that goes.
[49:51] I'm referring to city ordinances
number 12.04.080 and 12.08.140,
[49:58] which speak to quote,
camping on public property
[50:01] and on the riverfront trail.
[50:02] These ordinances
prohibit camping when
[50:04] shelter is available elsewhere.
[50:06] But let's be clear
that here camping
[50:07] is describing the
day to day living
[50:09] of our unhoused neighbors.
[50:10] I'm here to urge you not to
remove the language surrounding
[50:13] shelter in these ordinances.
[50:15] Doing so further
criminalizes and penalizes
[50:18] homelessness and poverty,
and is especially
[50:20] cruel in light of the lack
of shelter in our community.
[50:23] My primary objection to
changing these ordinances
[50:25] is a moral argument,
and wish I thought
[50:28] that would be sufficient
to change your minds.
[50:30] But I don't trust
that will work.
[50:32] So let me present a fiscal
argument for my moral position.
[50:35] According to data from the
United States Interagency
[50:37] Council on homelessness in 2017,
when things were much cheaper,
[50:42] each homeless person,
each chronically
[50:44] homeless person cost taxpayers
between 30,000 and $50,000.
[50:48] Each person and
each of these costs
[50:50] was primarily from interaction
with the criminal justice
[50:52] and health systems.
[50:54] It seems to me that
further criminalizing
[50:56] the day to day living
of people with literally
[50:58] nowhere else to go will only
increase the amount of time
[51:01] and money spent by EMS
and law enforcement,
[51:04] and thus the taxpayer cost.
[51:06] Due to this council's decision,
the further criminalizing
[51:09] and punishing
homelessness and poverty
[51:10] will waste more money,
time and resources
[51:13] heartlessly punishing a symptom
of a much deeper core issue.
[51:17] I would respectfully
remind you and all of us
[51:20] that statistically, we are
all about one bad month
[51:23] away from experiencing
catastrophic poverty
[51:25] and homelessness ourselves.
[51:27] The increased precarity of our
own survival in these times
[51:30] should open our faculties
of empathy, compassion,
[51:33] and solidarity, and therefore
we should reject further changes
[51:36] to these ordinances.
[51:37] And since I worry that won't
cut it, it's cheaper too.
[51:41] Please do not modify
these ordinances.
[51:43] I understand that there's an
argument that modifying them
[51:45] will bring them into alignment
with Supreme Court case law,
[51:48] but I would argue that just
because something is legal
[51:50] right now doesn't mean
it's right or the direction
[51:53] that we should go.
[51:54] Let's resist our culture
of anger and division.
[51:57] Open your humanity and
engage your physical senses
[51:59] to realize that further
criminalizing homelessness
[52:01] and poverty is wrong from
a human point of view,
[52:04] and an unwise use of
our tax money as well.
[52:06] Thank you.
[52:07] Thank you.
[52:10] Thanks Andrea.
[52:14] 
[52:18] Hi my name is Andrea Hamilton.
[52:20] This is my first time speaking
at City council meeting,
[52:23] so forgive me if I'm
a little nervous,
[52:26] but I am here to encourage you
not to change the ordinance
[52:31] language at this time.
[52:33] I really liked the
earlier comments
[52:35] about providing
services to people,
[52:37] rather than further
limiting the spaces in which
[52:40] they are allowed to exist.
[52:42] I think the further cutting
of services in our community
[52:47] is incredibly demoralizing.
[52:49] I have lived here
my entire life.
[52:51] I went away to
school, and I wanted
[52:53] to come back to my community
and serve my community,
[52:56] and my sister was
like, why would you
[52:58] want to stay in Grand Junction.
[52:59] I'm like because I love it here.
[53:00] I love our community.
[53:01] And it's breaking
my heart to see
[53:03] what's happening to my unhoused
neighbors in my community.
[53:07] And I think further
saying, you're not
[53:11] allowed to exist
in our community,
[53:13] you're not allowed to
exist in this space.
[53:15] And shrinking and shrinking the
spaces that people are allowed
[53:19] to be is horrifying to me.
[53:21] So I really like to
urge you to consider
[53:24] that providing services,
rather than saying people
[53:29] are not allowed to
exist when there is
[53:31] no other place for them to go.
[53:34] But yeah, so I think
that covers it.
[53:38] Thank you.
[53:38] Thank you.
[53:40] Stephanie I'll take
her extra minute.
[53:46] Mayor Council members, my
name is Stephanie vasconez.
[53:50] I am the executive director
of mutually partners,
[53:52] as well as part of the
leadership team of the Mesa
[53:55] County collaborative
for the unhoused
[53:57] and a co-facilitator of
the people experiencing
[54:00] homelessness advisory board.
[54:02] This is one of the five
work groups that make up
[54:05] the unhoused strategy
and implementation
[54:07] plan, a multi-year investment.
[54:10] The city of Grand Junction,
funded and adopted in 2024,
[54:14] which has brought together city,
County for profit and nonprofit
[54:18] partners to tackle a
community wide challenge
[54:21] that we know cannot
be addressed through
[54:23] shelter or outreach alone.
[54:25] It underscores that long
term progress depends deeply
[54:29] on coordinated commitment to
supporting affordable housing,
[54:33] behavioral health outreach
and prevention, together
[54:37] with strong partnerships,
ongoing public engagement,
[54:41] and leadership that recognizes
houselessness is a shared
[54:44] community responsibility.
[54:47] I'd like to thank council
staff and our city manager
[54:49] for supporting the neighbor to
neighbor team led by Shari price
[54:53] and Ashley chambers,
which is doing outreach
[54:55] at least twice a week,
and who we've partnered
[54:58] with consistently since 2023.
[55:01] It has resulted in individuals
accessing detox services,
[55:04] choosing in-patient
treatment for substance use,
[55:07] moving into assisted facilities
and supportive housing,
[55:10] even reuniting with loved ones.
[55:13] A major highlight to share
is the unhoused community
[55:15] river camp cleanup, which
took place last month.
[55:19] 6,700 pounds or three tons of
trash removed from encampments
[55:23] by our unhoused neighbors
living along the river
[55:26] corridor in one week,
per the data provided
[55:29] during Monday's workshop.
[55:31] The city.
[55:31] The city paid $460,000 for
contractors to remove 119
[55:36] tons of trash over three years.
[55:39] By my calculations, and
I'm not great at math,
[55:41] our efforts could
lead to the removal
[55:44] of roughly 174 tons of trash
in one year versus the 119
[55:50] over the three years.
[55:52] Now, let me switch gears.
[55:54] When you have 37 million people
in the US living in poverty,
[55:58] how can that be a
personal failing.
[56:00] There's a system
that perpetuates
[56:02] poverty and the greatest
country in the world.
[56:04] And here in Mesa County,
less than 53,000% sorry,
[56:08] less than 53% of households
can afford current rent prices
[56:12] in GJ, and less than 71%
of households can afford
[56:15] current home prices in 2020.
[56:17] The US Government
Accountability Office
[56:19] found that for every
$100 increase in rent,
[56:22] homelessness rises
about 9% nationwide.
[56:25] In Grand Junction, the rate is
significantly higher at almost
[56:28] 15% I am running out of time.
[56:31] You rely on our expertise
of service providers.
[56:33] You partner with us to
amplify your community impact.
[56:36] So much so that the
state of Colorado
[56:38] has asked us to
present on the success
[56:40] of the homelessness
response system
[56:41] we've built over the
last three years.
[56:43] So today, I ask you to take
a step back to truly consider
[56:46] the implications of
changing this language
[56:48] versus the real application.
[56:50] Thank you.
[56:52] OK we're going to hold
our applause, please.
[56:56] As we discussed, if
there's any last comments
[56:59] that were not signed up, you
can make your way to the podium.
[57:01] I see Mr. Kopp on his way.
[57:03] 
[57:11] Good evening, Madam Mayor.
[57:14] Council at the risk of
repeating what others have said,
[57:21] tonight's discussion about
the camping ordinance
[57:23] highlights a reality
many in this community
[57:26] already understand.
[57:28] Grand junction is
caught in a policy gap.
[57:32] For years, the city has
operated under an ordinance tied
[57:35] to the available shelter beds.
[57:38] Now, the North Avenue
emergency shelter has closed.
[57:41] And according to
the city attorney,
[57:42] the ordinance has become
effectively unenforceable
[57:46] for most of the time.
[57:48] At the same time, residents
are seeing growing
[57:50] camps along the river corridor.
[57:53] Increased
environmental concerns.
[57:56] Wildfire risks.
[58:00] Public safety issues and
repeated cleanup operations,
[58:03] again costing taxpayers
nearly half a million
[58:06] over the last three years.
[58:10] So the question
becomes, what exactly
[58:13] is the long term strategy.
[58:15] Not today, not
tomorrow, long term.
[58:19] Because simply moving camps
from one location to another
[58:22] every few weeks is not
solving homelessness.
[58:27] Pretending that
there are no impacts
[58:28] on neighborhoods, businesses,
parks and public spaces
[58:32] is equally unrealistic.
[58:36] The issue requires balance.
[58:39] Compassion matters.
[58:42] Public safety matters,
Environmental Protection
[58:47] matters, and
accountability matters.
[58:53] Frankly, Grand Junction deserves
a policy built around all four.
[58:59] I believe council should
consider a middle of the road
[59:01] a middle ground approach.
[59:05] Let's update the ordinance so
it is indeed legally enforceable
[59:08] while simultaneously exploring
temporary, structured
[59:12] alternatives that include
sanitation oversight, security,
[59:19] and behavioral standards.
[59:23] Not permanent encampments.
[59:25] Not lawless camping zones,
but transitional solutions
[59:30] that recognize
reality while still
[59:32] protecting our public spaces.
[59:36] Because enforcement without
alternatives creates an endless
[59:39] churn.
[59:41] Alternatives without
accountability
[59:43] fail just as quickly.
[59:45] There are individuals in these
camps who are elderly, disabled,
[59:48] struggling with addiction, or
dealing with mental illness.
[59:51] There are also legitimate
concerns from residents who
[59:54] expect safe parks, clean
riverfronts and responsible use
[59:57] of taxpayer resources.
[1:00:00] What residents are
asking is not cruelty,
[1:00:03] and what struggling
individual need is not chaos.
[1:00:08] What Grand Junction needs
is an actual strategy.
[1:00:11] Thank you.
[1:00:13] Thank you.
[1:00:14] I appreciate that,
and moving on.
[1:00:16] I'm not seeing anyone
else over at the podium.
[1:00:20] So we will go ahead and
close public comment and move
[1:00:24] on to the city manager report.
[1:00:27] Thank you.
[1:00:27] Mayor members of council,
just one item tonight.
[1:00:30] Tomorrow we will release the
next month's revenue report.
[1:00:33] And for the 12th
consecutive month,
[1:00:35] sales tax collections exceeded
the same month in the prior
[1:00:38] year, with April collections
increasing 6.8% Year to date,
[1:00:43] collections are up
5.7% compared to 2025.
[1:00:48] Lodging tax collections
for April increased 24.2%
[1:00:52] and are up 10.7% year to date.
[1:00:55] And just note that April
tax collections reflect
[1:00:58] sales activity that
occurred in March,
[1:01:00] and will post this report
on the city's website,
[1:01:04] at GJ city.org tomorrow.
[1:01:06] Thank you.
[1:01:07] 
[1:01:10] And then we will be
moving on to boards
[1:01:13] and commission liaison reports.
[1:01:15] And we will start with
council member beilfuss.
[1:01:17] 
[1:01:20] You guys are leaving
for my report.
[1:01:22] What's going on.
[1:01:23] Hey, get back here.
[1:01:27] All right.
[1:01:28] You have to go.
[1:01:30] I no, no offense taken.
[1:01:36] I worked, I had a lot going on
the last two weeks, most of it
[1:01:40] having to do with
crisis management
[1:01:44] and planning for the
homeless, which we'll talk
[1:01:47] a little bit more on tonight.
[1:01:49] I also covered urban
trails committee meeting.
[1:01:53] Great report from
Trent about all
[1:01:55] the projects going on in the
city, which is very expansive.
[1:01:59] It's hard to imagine
that people can
[1:02:00] keep track of all this stuff.
[1:02:02] I will say I think there's
one, maybe two people
[1:02:06] moving on that committee.
[1:02:07] So you might keep your
application up to date.
[1:02:15] The other cool thing I did
was attend the enterprise zone
[1:02:20] class that was put on at CMU.
[1:02:23] And enterprise zone
ties very closely
[1:02:26] with economic
development in the area.
[1:02:28] And the state is redoing
the enterprise zones.
[1:02:32] And so we actually
got to weigh in
[1:02:34] on making the case for Mesa
County and Grand Junction
[1:02:39] continuing to have six zones.
[1:02:42] I think we have the most in
the state for a city our size.
[1:02:45] And it was very interesting.
[1:02:47] It's not only business, but
it's also residential zoning to.
[1:02:51] So there's a lot of incentives
that go with this designation
[1:02:55] and it really helps us a lot.
[1:02:57] So it was a great
event and hopefully
[1:02:59] we'll get something out of it.
[1:03:01] They're going to
act fairly quickly.
[1:03:03] Thank you.
[1:03:06] Council Member Kennedy.
[1:03:07] Yeah, I have a few reports.
[1:03:09] And council member beilfuss
mentioned the meeting,
[1:03:14] the enterprise zones, and we
did have Governor Polis in town
[1:03:17] to speak with us on that.
[1:03:18] And it was really great
to be able to have
[1:03:21] input into where those
best opportunities are
[1:03:25] within our community.
[1:03:26] And we had a lot of
conversation with that.
[1:03:28] And we revisited some
of that conversation
[1:03:29] this morning at our meeting.
[1:03:33] So, so one of the things to
understand about opportunity
[1:03:36] zones is it really
incentivizes not just
[1:03:40] housing, but also businesses.
[1:03:42] And really what it
encourages somebody
[1:03:45] to invest in a very particular
area based on demographics,
[1:03:49] based on economics.
[1:03:51] And for those that are
making that investment,
[1:03:54] let's say they're building
an apartment complex.
[1:03:56] It allows them to
sell it after 10 years
[1:03:59] without paying capital
gains taxes and recapturing
[1:04:02] depreciation, which
is a great incentive
[1:04:05] to get us important
infrastructure in areas
[1:04:07] where we really need
it and create jobs
[1:04:09] in areas where we need them.
[1:04:10] So that was fantastic.
[1:04:12] One of the other things, or
a couple of other things.
[1:04:14] With GEP, we always get an
economic report or the director,
[1:04:18] Curtis Englehart is here.
[1:04:20] Thank you for being
here tonight, Curtis.
[1:04:22] But it's always exciting to hear
about the wins that gap has.
[1:04:27] One of the things that
they do is encourage
[1:04:29] businesses to come
to the Grand Valley,
[1:04:32] creating that economic growth.
[1:04:34] This is the fifth.
[1:04:35] The fifth business win for
the year was fought in home,
[1:04:39] which is a local manufacturing.
[1:04:40] It is not with necessarily
expanded within the city limits
[1:04:43] of Grand Junction, but it
is on the old Haliburton
[1:04:45] campus, which is where
our regional materials
[1:04:47] recycling areas are.
[1:04:49] So that's pretty exciting
to see that happen.
[1:04:53] They're bringing 97 new
jobs to Grand Valley,
[1:04:56] average wage of around
77,000, supported
[1:05:00] by over $1 million in job
growth incentive credits.
[1:05:02] So a couple other things.
[1:05:04] New prospect.
[1:05:04] There was a new prospect with a
company called avatar off roads,
[1:05:09] which is an outdoor recreation
manufacturer out of Salt Lake,
[1:05:12] and they had been looking to
build or to move to delta,
[1:05:16] but had a site fall through and
our office cold called them.
[1:05:20] And we have a great prospect in
them now, so that's exciting.
[1:05:24] Two other things that I
think that are exciting,
[1:05:27] that are happening at gap
is there is another one
[1:05:31] that's a health care technology
company that they're looking at.
[1:05:34] And then this is what I want to
learn a little bit more about.
[1:05:36] And I think it's really
exciting now considering
[1:05:40] our water situation.
[1:05:41] But there's a company
called canal sense, which
[1:05:43] is a startup with
a prototype device
[1:05:46] for managing irrigation
water flows more efficiently.
[1:05:48] So these are all great
things that your Grand
[1:05:52] Junction economic partnership
is doing right here.
[1:05:54] And that's why the
city partners with them
[1:05:57] and has that
relationship with them.
[1:05:58] Because it is important
to us, thriving as a city.
[1:06:02] One another committee
I have, and I'll
[1:06:04] try to keep this
one short since I
[1:06:05] went a little long on that one.
[1:06:07] And not just because
Curtis is here,
[1:06:09] but I'm on the Grand
Junction Regional Airport.
[1:06:13] Airport commissioner with them.
[1:06:16] One part of our meeting
recently, or this week,
[1:06:20] was talking about all of
the additional grants.
[1:06:24] We've really been
successful in grants so far.
[1:06:30] We just received a
grant for $5 million,
[1:06:32] which covers 100% of the costs
for updating our airport tower,
[1:06:36] which is in really
rough condition,
[1:06:38] like those controllers up there.
[1:06:40] And it gets so hot
and so cold, and it
[1:06:43] looks like the one you walk
in there, it's like the 1970s.
[1:06:46] It is like an avocado colored
couch and the whole thing.
[1:06:50] The airport improvement
program grant
[1:06:53] has totaled $12.2 million so
far for the runway program,
[1:06:58] so that's also exciting.
[1:07:00] Anyway, lots of good things
happening at the airport
[1:07:02] as well.
[1:07:02] Thank you, thank you.
[1:07:04] Mayor Pro Tem, the DDA
will be meeting next week,
[1:07:08] so I currently have no report.
[1:07:10] OK council member
Nguyen no report.
[1:07:12] OK great.
[1:07:13] So with that, I have a
couple quick updates.
[1:07:19] So part of when Governor Polis
was in town for the enterprise
[1:07:26] zone conversation, he
also made a special visit
[1:07:31] to the Grand Junction
housing authority's project,
[1:07:33] which is called the current.
[1:07:36] And this was a celebration
because of all the hard work
[1:07:39] that we have put in as a
community to hit our prop 1,
[1:07:43] 2, three goals, which
is very impressive.
[1:07:46] And it was a very
daunting number
[1:07:48] that we were able to reach.
[1:07:50] And so we were the
first city of our size
[1:07:53] to meet that goal in the state.
[1:07:55] And for that reason,
he was able to come.
[1:07:58] He came out to celebrate that
with us for a quick few minutes
[1:08:00] before he went on to speak
at the enterprise event.
[1:08:05] And I just think that's very
telling of all the hard work
[1:08:09] that we've been putting in
as a city and our housing
[1:08:11] division and staff.
[1:08:13] So I just wanted to acknowledge
that and make sure that everyone
[1:08:16] else is aware of it as well.
[1:08:18] And then one last thing that
I would like to address is.
[1:08:26] Just a quick thank you for our
former mayor, Cody Kennedy,
[1:08:30] for his year of
service with us and all
[1:08:33] he did for our community.
[1:08:34] And personally,
as Mayor Pro TEM,
[1:08:36] I got to work very
closely with Cody,
[1:08:38] and I feel just that he really
helped prepare me for my turn
[1:08:44] now.
[1:08:44] And I appreciate all
of the advice and long,
[1:08:48] many hours of phone calls
and all the hundreds
[1:08:51] and hundreds of hours that
you've put into connecting
[1:08:53] with our community.
[1:08:54] So thank you.
[1:08:56] Thank you.
[1:08:56] 
[1:09:02] OK, now we will move on
to our consent agenda.
[1:09:06] The consent agenda
includes items
[1:09:07] that are considered
routine and will
[1:09:09] be approved by a single motion.
[1:09:11] Items on the consent agenda will
not be discussed by City council
[1:09:13] unless an item is removed
for individual consideration.
[1:09:19] Do I have a motion.
[1:09:21] I'd like to remove
a couple things.
[1:09:24] A couple things.
[1:09:25] Yeah OK.
[1:09:27] Two 2ai, I and
three and three a.
[1:09:38] So just to clarify for.
[1:09:45] 2ai I and we are
discussing the scheduling
[1:09:52] of these events because
this is that's what
[1:09:54] this is on the agenda for.
[1:09:56] Is that what you
would like to discuss.
[1:09:57] OK Just wanted to make sure.
[1:09:59] So you remove them.
[1:10:03] Did you make a motion
to approve consent.
[1:10:06] Except for those.
[1:10:09] I make a motion to approve
all the consent agenda
[1:10:15] items except and three a.
[1:10:21] Is there a second.
[1:10:22] Second we have a
motion on the floor
[1:10:26] from council member
beilfuss and a second
[1:10:28] from council member Nguyen.
[1:10:32] All in favor.
[1:10:34] Aye Aye.
[1:10:36] OK, that sounded all opposed.
[1:10:41] That motion passes 7 to 0.
[1:10:45] So with that, we would move
into addressing to a which is
[1:10:54] legislative, and it's an
introduction of an ordinance
[1:10:57] amending GM, GGJ Mc 12.0,
4.060 and 12.04 0.08 regarding
[1:11:06] the prohibition of enforcement
of camping on public property
[1:11:08] when no overnight shelter is
available, and setting a public
[1:11:12] hearing for June three.
[1:11:13] So we are discussing the setting
of the hearing for June three.
[1:11:17] Great yeah, well,
like everybody else,
[1:11:21] we received a lot of
emails about the issue,
[1:11:24] and the homeless
provider community
[1:11:28] has asked me to ask for a
continuance for at least
[1:11:33] one meeting, maybe
two, to prepare
[1:11:36] more response to the
whole thing and to talk
[1:11:39] to some of the people.
[1:11:40] I mean, some of it was
exceptionally strong.
[1:11:45] How the public defenders
spoke about the implications
[1:11:50] of the camping
thing, and I think
[1:11:51] we should have a
chance to talk to them
[1:11:54] and get ready for
the second reading.
[1:12:00] And 2, I also has
the camping with it.
[1:12:05] So I just so we're
discussing two I first
[1:12:08] and then we can discuss
well they go together
[1:12:11] because they both
have the camping
[1:12:12] but they're separate
agenda items right.
[1:12:14] Yeah so so just to clarify.
[1:12:17] So setting the public
hearing for June 3,
[1:12:21] there would still
be at least a 30
[1:12:24] day time frame before and
before it could be implemented.
[1:12:29] So right.
[1:12:29] Yeah I understand that.
[1:12:30] But it would
already be approved.
[1:12:33] So we want to prepare
for preparing to contest.
[1:12:38] Well to discuss it.
[1:12:40] Yeah discuss it in the
legal implications and
[1:12:44] the personal and socioeconomic.
[1:12:48] So before we get
too far into this,
[1:12:51] I know regarding
legal implications,
[1:12:53] we have looked at
that many times
[1:12:56] and our interim city attorney
has addressed those as well.
[1:12:59] I know we are discussing just
the scheduling of the item,
[1:13:02] not getting into the
discussion of the item.
[1:13:04] So do you.
[1:13:06] Do you have a suggestion.
[1:13:09] Well, I mean, if we
can put it out a month,
[1:13:12] that would be great.
[1:13:13] That would help a lot.
[1:13:15] Is there any other
thoughts from council on.
[1:13:18] Yeah I have some thoughts.
[1:13:20] One thing that I think
people are missing here
[1:13:23] is that there is
available shelter space
[1:13:25] right now, according
to our recent update
[1:13:27] that we got from pathways.
[1:13:28] I mean, they emailed us and
they said they had is it 69.
[1:13:32] What I think they said they were
at 62 bed, 62 beds in their 112.
[1:13:37] So I think that's
a consideration.
[1:13:41] Because with that, then
it makes it a moot point
[1:13:44] as far as that goes.
[1:13:47] It's and it doesn't
change anything.
[1:13:51] We heard from the chief as far
as 17 TICAs in three years.
[1:13:54] So it's not like they're out
there writing a bunch of tickets
[1:13:57] as has been.
[1:13:59] And I don't mean
to get into that.
[1:14:01] Other than to speak specifically
to this three or to this item,
[1:14:07] rather, that is to
the postponement.
[1:14:11] So for the June
three public hearing,
[1:14:14] any other discussion
on the matter.
[1:14:18] 
[1:14:22] I don't have a strong feeling
either way as far as timing.
[1:14:27] Yeah I mean, with the middle
of June 1 be enough time,
[1:14:32] we can live with that.
[1:14:35] But I mean, I just want
to say there's hundreds
[1:14:39] of people homeless out there.
[1:14:40] It's not just about having
12 beds available for them,
[1:14:43] it's for they don't have
lines of communication.
[1:14:47] The people that
are the providers
[1:14:49] are there communication,
and they need time
[1:14:52] to talk and work with them.
[1:14:55] So really quick before.
[1:14:57] Again, we're not getting into
the discussion of the item.
[1:14:59] We're just talking about
the scheduling of the item.
[1:15:01] And we do have I believe
it's council member
[1:15:04] Ballard with something to say.
[1:15:08] Yes thank you, Madam Mayor.
[1:15:10] I guess the scheduling I'm
willing to entertain it
[1:15:17] if I understand fully what needs
to be accomplished between us
[1:15:22] now and the second reading.
[1:15:25] Now, all I'm hearing is that
this needs to be extended longer
[1:15:29] for preparation purposes.
[1:15:31] But I'm confused.
[1:15:33] What preparation tasks
need to be done between now
[1:15:38] and the second reading.
[1:15:40] So maybe some clarification
on that from the motion.
[1:15:47] I would just say that the
people, many of the people
[1:15:49] that we want to talk to
that reached out to us
[1:15:51] are professional people
with regular jobs,
[1:15:55] and it's hard to schedule
them a lot of time.
[1:15:57] So we're just giving ourselves a
little buffer to be able to have
[1:16:01] meetings and talk to them.
[1:16:03] Likewise, the providers
are working 24/7.
[1:16:07] So really quick to clarify, are
you saying that the preparation
[1:16:12] is to inform the providers that
this is happening so that they
[1:16:16] can work to accommodate that.
[1:16:19] Or are you saying
that you need time
[1:16:20] to meet with them so
that they can prepare
[1:16:22] for how to contest this.
[1:16:25] Those are two
different preparations.
[1:16:27] We're not building up a
big reason to contest it.
[1:16:30] I think that we
want to be realistic
[1:16:33] about the being humanistic to
the people that it's affecting.
[1:16:38] And because of the
amount of input
[1:16:41] that we had from very high level
legal people and providers,
[1:16:47] we want some time to talk to
them about the implications
[1:16:50] and what might be
some ways to work
[1:16:54] with the homeless population.
[1:16:58] Council Ballard,
Mayor Pro TEM, sorry.
[1:17:01] Yeah, I'm in support in moving
forward with the second reading
[1:17:04] on the fourth just
purely for the reason
[1:17:08] that I don't see
this necessarily
[1:17:11] as an anti homeless move,
an anti unhoused move,
[1:17:14] because before
the shelter closed
[1:17:17] we had many river camps, lots of
people camping along the river.
[1:17:21] Our police recognized that
if they go down by the river
[1:17:24] and they stir things up down
there, it moves people downtown.
[1:17:28] They stir people up downtown and
moves them back to the river.
[1:17:32] So we recognize that
there's truly an issue here.
[1:17:35] So this isn't a matter
of trying to be inhumane
[1:17:38] or a sweep to clear
the riverfront
[1:17:40] or trails of everything.
[1:17:42] All this really does is
give our police the ability
[1:17:45] to enforce laws with the truly
problem camps that need to be
[1:17:51] addressed, that are both
a public health issue as
[1:17:55] well as a safety issue.
[1:17:57] So I do we might be
getting into the.
[1:18:00] Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[1:18:01] So we're just talking about
the scheduling of the item.
[1:18:04] So it sounds like you're
in favor of scheduling it
[1:18:06] for June three.
[1:18:07] Yeah that's why I'm in favor.
[1:18:09] Yes OK.
[1:18:10] I'm sorry.
[1:18:10] Go ahead.
[1:18:11] Council Member Nguyen, are
you in favor of the third or.
[1:18:15] I would be open to
pushing it if before.
[1:18:19] Yeah I'm sorry.
[1:18:20] Before we vote.
[1:18:21] I did have one other thing.
[1:18:22] Just a point of correction.
[1:18:24] We had two deputy state
public defenders email us
[1:18:31] one by the name of deer and
one by the name of hare street,
[1:18:35] and then a advocate.
[1:18:37] So we had two that I
think we could email back.
[1:18:40] I've already emailed them back.
[1:18:41] And then there was a total
of I think, 20 emails, maybe
[1:18:45] one or two more or less so.
[1:18:47] And not that matters.
[1:18:48] It is important that
we get the engagement.
[1:18:50] But of that number,
about half of those
[1:18:52] were the exact same email
or maybe a third of those
[1:18:55] were the exact same
email, just a form letter.
[1:18:57] So does not mean that I
don't take it seriously.
[1:18:59] And I didn't believe
every word I emailed.
[1:19:02] But I just for the
sake of that, I just
[1:19:04] want to put context around how
many emails we actually got
[1:19:07] and that it is just a couple.
[1:19:09] It is not to diminish that
we need to talk to those
[1:19:12] or we should email them,
return their emails.
[1:19:15] But I don't see that
two emails should have
[1:19:19] us putting this off any further
than we've already scheduled it.
[1:19:22] And then I just I think
you had mentioned something
[1:19:26] about four beds or something,
but they can go up to 112,
[1:19:30] I believe it is.
[1:19:31] So that's a lot of
beds if they're only
[1:19:33] at 60, some odd at pathways.
[1:19:35] So there's 40 some odd
beds available there.
[1:19:39] They're only for certain groups.
[1:19:41] Yeah so and I'm not saying that
we have that that's a solution.
[1:19:46] I'm just saying just to
clarify the number of beds.
[1:19:48] So we're not talking about that.
[1:19:52] So do we have a suggestion and a
motion to try to schedule this.
[1:19:58] 
[1:20:00] Oh yeah.
[1:20:01] Make a motion that
we move it up to two
[1:20:06] weeks from the next meeting.
[1:20:08] So four weeks June 17 17th.
[1:20:11] Yeah if that would
be very helpful.
[1:20:15] Second OK.
[1:20:16] We have a motion on the floor
from council member beilfuss
[1:20:19] and a second from
council member Nguyen.
[1:20:22] All in favor say Aye.
[1:20:25] Aye all opposed.
[1:20:29] Nay, nay.
[1:20:30] Nay nay.
[1:20:32] So was Robert.
[1:20:33] Did I hear you.
[1:20:34] Nay was Anna.
[1:20:35] It was a nay.
[1:20:36] OK OK.
[1:20:40] So that's four to 2.
[1:20:44] The motion fails.
[1:20:48] So does anyone have a motion
for a different schedule.
[1:20:55] Point point.
[1:20:57] Point of order.
[1:20:58] Are you just to be
clear, you're asking
[1:21:01] for another motion on
item, A2, a 1 because we
[1:21:07] have not scheduled it yet.
[1:21:08] OK I would move to adopt
consent agenda item two.
[1:21:13] OK, we have a motion on the
floor from council member Stout.
[1:21:18] Is there a second.
[1:21:19] Second point of order.
[1:21:21] She said she did.
[1:21:22] Oh I. So council members,
we're still on two.
[1:21:28] Can you that's my correction.
[1:21:31] Is the second corrected as well.
[1:21:33] Second OK.
[1:21:35] So all in favor to AI being
scheduled for June three.
[1:21:43] I know all opposed.
[1:21:46] No, no.
[1:21:47] So that passes 5 to 2.
[1:21:53] OK I'm sorry, Madam Mayor.
[1:21:55] Who was the second on that.
[1:21:56] It was counselor.
[1:21:57] Sorry council member,
Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
[1:22:01] Sorry I'm still working on now.
[1:22:04] I'm used to not saying
that, so I'm working on it.
[1:22:08] And then could we
get a motion to a 2.
[1:22:13] Is there any other
additional discussion.
[1:22:15] I know that these are related.
[1:22:16] As council member
beilfuss pointed out.
[1:22:19] Do we have additional
discussion or is there anyone
[1:22:23] willing to make a motion.
[1:22:27] Yes, I can make a motion.
[1:22:29] I move to accept item two.
[1:22:31] A Roman two or I. As produced
for introduction of an ordinance
[1:22:39] amending and
reviewing code related
[1:22:41] to the rules for the riverfront
trail and adjacent areas,
[1:22:43] and setting a public
hearing for June 3, 2026.
[1:22:50] Is there a second.
[1:22:52] Second so we have a
motion on the floor
[1:22:54] from council member
Kennedy and a second
[1:22:56] from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
[1:22:59] And then all in favor, say Aye.
[1:23:02] Aye All opposed.
[1:23:06] No OK, so that passes 6 to 1.
[1:23:10] OK moving on to the next one
that council member beilfuss has
[1:23:15] pulled, which is
procurement three a
[1:23:19] would you like to
discuss this one.
[1:23:21] So is this just about
scheduling or can I
[1:23:23] ask a question about the
actual purchasing process.
[1:23:26] One is not setting
the public hearing.
[1:23:28] So yeah.
[1:23:29] No yeah.
[1:23:29] So I was just curious
because it was
[1:23:33] kind of general the description
of what we were purchasing
[1:23:36] and that the end loaders,
would they be American made.
[1:23:43] Is there any kind of purchasing.
[1:23:45] 
[1:23:48] Preference for American
made goods that they are
[1:23:55] American made heavy equipment.
[1:23:59] The ones that we're purchasing.
[1:24:00] Yes OK.
[1:24:03] That's all I wanted to know.
[1:24:04] All right.
[1:24:05] That was your only question.
[1:24:07] What was it.
[1:24:08] Thank you.
[1:24:09] Awesome Is there any other
discussion on this item.
[1:24:13] OK hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion.
[1:24:16] I move.
[1:24:17] I'll have a motion.
[1:24:18] I move that we pass or I move
that we purchase for item three
[1:24:24] that we purchase for the
purchase of rolling stock
[1:24:27] and equipment,
front end loaders,
[1:24:29] skid steers and forklift C
as in Charles three grant
[1:24:34] funded move that for approval.
[1:24:36] Is there a second.
[1:24:40] We have a motion on the floor
from council member Kennedy
[1:24:43] and a second by Mayor
Pro Tem Van Dyke.
[1:24:46] All in favor.
[1:24:49] Aye Any opposed.
[1:24:53] The motion passes 7 to 0,
and we will move on now
[1:24:59] to our public hearing section.
[1:25:02] And our first is 5 a legislative
and it's an ordinance
[1:25:07] for supplemental appropriation.
[1:25:10] And we have chief financial
officer Jay Valentine
[1:25:14] to briefly present to us.
[1:25:17] Thank you.
[1:25:18] Mayor members of council,
before you tonight
[1:25:21] is the supplemental
appropriation
[1:25:22] ordinance for the 2026 budget.
[1:25:25] This ordinance
primarily consists
[1:25:27] of carryforward appropriations
for projects and initiatives
[1:25:31] that were previously authorized,
but not completed in 2025,
[1:25:35] along with several
new appropriations
[1:25:37] tied to grant
funding, donations,
[1:25:40] and other outside revenues.
[1:25:43] Major items for
this supplemental
[1:25:45] include affordable housing
initiatives, transportation
[1:25:47] and utility infrastructure
projects, the community rec
[1:25:51] center, the materials recovery
facility, and the wastewater
[1:25:55] treatment plant.
[1:25:55] Improvements the directors
that oversee these projects
[1:26:01] are here tonight.
[1:26:02] If you have any questions
about any of these.
[1:26:06] OK thank you.
[1:26:07] With that, we will
come back to council
[1:26:10] for comments or questions.
[1:26:11] 
[1:26:18] Council Member when you
looked like you were thinking.
[1:26:20] OK OK.
[1:26:21] So it does not look like we
have any council questions
[1:26:24] or comments at this time.
[1:26:25] And because this is
a public hearing,
[1:26:27] we will now open
the public hearing.
[1:26:30] If you'd like to
speak on this item,
[1:26:32] please make your
way to the podium.
[1:26:35] Seeing no one making
a move for the podium,
[1:26:38] we will close the public
hearing and return
[1:26:40] to council for additional
comments or questions.
[1:26:45] Hearing none, I would ask for a
motion to adopt the ordinance.
[1:26:50] I move to adopt ordinance
number 5318, an ordinance making
[1:26:54] supplemental appropriations
to the 2026 budget of the city
[1:26:58] of Grand Junction, Colorado, for
the year beginning January 1,
[1:27:02] 2026 and ending December 31,
2026, and on final passage,
[1:27:07] in order.
[1:27:08] Final publication
in pamphlet form.
[1:27:10] We have a motion on the floor
from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
[1:27:13] Is there a second.
[1:27:14] Second a second from council
member Kennedy and Celestino.
[1:27:20] Could you do a roll call for
us, council member Ballard
[1:27:24] Yes council member beilfuss.
[1:27:27] Yes council member.
[1:27:29] Kennedy yes.
[1:27:32] Council Member.
[1:27:32] Nguyen yes.
[1:27:34] Council Member.
[1:27:35] Stoute council member.
[1:27:42] Stoute you're muted if
you're trying to say yes.
[1:27:50] 
[1:27:54] Council Member van Dijk.
[1:27:56] Yes mayor Lutz.
[1:28:00] Yes with the.
[1:28:04] Let's try with Anna, not.
[1:28:05] Council Member.
[1:28:06] Stout council member.
[1:28:09] Yes OK.
[1:28:10] So the motion
passes 7 to 0 0 OK.
[1:28:14] And then we will move on
to our next item, which
[1:28:17] is an ordinance amending
sections of the zoning
[1:28:19] and development code, title
21 of the Grand Junction
[1:28:22] municipal code regarding
final plat recordation
[1:28:26] accessory dwelling units.
[1:28:27] Design standards for multi
unit residential redevelopment,
[1:28:31] landscape substitution,
subdivision, natural hazards
[1:28:33] and significant natural
features, signs and public parks
[1:28:37] and open space districts
and outdoor lighting.
[1:28:40] And we have a staff presentation
from principal planner Tim
[1:28:44] Larock.
[1:28:46] Thank you, Mayor, and good
evening, members of council.
[1:28:50] As mentioned, Tim, principal
planner and this item
[1:28:53] concerns a package of
staff proposed amendments
[1:28:55] to the zoning and
development code.
[1:28:58] I will briefly describe
the proposed changes
[1:29:00] before providing
staff's analysis
[1:29:02] and recommendation of staff
and the planning commission.
[1:29:07] The first change concerns the
recording of subdivision plats.
[1:29:10] Platts the code
presently requires
[1:29:12] submission of a signed mylar
copy of the approved plat
[1:29:15] for recording.
[1:29:16] However, the state of
Colorado and Mesa County
[1:29:19] have updated statutes
and procedures
[1:29:21] to allow for other forms
of final plat submittals.
[1:29:26] Accordingly, the Amendment
will allow the final plat
[1:29:28] to be submitted for
recording in any form
[1:29:31] acceptable to the Mesa County
clerk and recorder's office.
[1:29:36] The second change
is a clarification
[1:29:37] regarding maximum number of
accessory dwelling units,
[1:29:40] or ADUs.
[1:29:42] The code that allows two
accessory dwelling units
[1:29:44] on a lot, with one single
unit detached or single unit
[1:29:48] attached dwelling with two
units in the structure.
[1:29:52] At least one of those
ADUs must be attached
[1:29:54] to the principal dwelling unit.
[1:29:57] There's some.
[1:30:00] There's been some confusion over
what constitutes an attached
[1:30:03] ADU versus a detached ADU.
[1:30:05] There was an administrative
regulation adopted in order
[1:30:09] to make that clarification.
[1:30:11] But this Amendment
will codify that
[1:30:13] by clarifying that
attached means connected
[1:30:16] by a common wall,
floor or ceiling
[1:30:19] with the principal structure.
[1:30:21] And that would include
such attachment
[1:30:23] by garage or accessory dwelling
unit when those are themselves
[1:30:28] attached to the
dwelling or any unit
[1:30:32] which is otherwise an integral
part of the principal structure.
[1:30:36] In contrast, connections made
by breezeway, deck, porch,
[1:30:40] stairwell, or other
similar features
[1:30:43] shall not be considered attached
whether or not such features are
[1:30:46] enclosed, those being merely
superficial connections
[1:30:51] to the primary dwelling.
[1:30:54] The third change affects
multi-unit design standards.
[1:30:57] Design standards presently
apply to redevelopment,
[1:31:01] including replacement or
addition of dwelling units
[1:31:04] to the maximum extent
practicable for
[1:31:06] the new or replacement units.
[1:31:09] The requirement is
impractical for conversion
[1:31:11] of non-residential
buildings to residences,
[1:31:14] and when only a modest
expansion is proposed
[1:31:17] to an existing building.
[1:31:19] So this Amendment would make
the design standards apply only
[1:31:22] when expansions are greater
than the existing floor
[1:31:25] area of the existing
building, or when
[1:31:28] exterior changes are already
being proposed to the structure.
[1:31:35] The fourth change
expands flexibility
[1:31:37] for meeting landscape
requirements
[1:31:39] with existing plants.
[1:31:41] Presently, regulations
incentivize preservation
[1:31:43] of trees through
substitution allowances,
[1:31:46] but not existing
shrubs, perennials,
[1:31:49] or other groundcover.
[1:31:50] And we do have a
lot of instances
[1:31:53] where there is healthy,
mature landscape already
[1:31:56] on a site that would not
presently qualify for meeting
[1:32:00] landscape requirements
because it's
[1:32:02] not on the suitable plant list.
[1:32:04] But this Amendment would
allow existing landscape that
[1:32:07] is healthy and not
a prohibited plant
[1:32:11] to substitute for
required new plantings
[1:32:13] of shrubs, perennials
or other ground cover
[1:32:16] at specified ratios.
[1:32:19] The fifth change
regards the requirement
[1:32:21] to identify and
address natural hazards
[1:32:23] and significant natural
features on a subdivision plot.
[1:32:28] The provisions in the
subdivision regulations
[1:32:31] do not specify the extent of
the protections that are being
[1:32:34] provided for natural hazards and
significant natural features,
[1:32:37] nor how they are to be
maintained waterways, wetlands,
[1:32:43] floodplains, ridgelines,
steep slopes, geologic hazards
[1:32:47] and wildfire prevention, as
well as detention and retention
[1:32:51] ponds and trees are already
regulated by other local, state,
[1:32:55] and federal codes which
provide for their mapping
[1:32:58] and hazard mitigation.
[1:33:00] As a result, the
provisions in this section
[1:33:03] do not really add
meaningful protections
[1:33:05] and are therefore superfluous.
[1:33:08] And they also result
in additional line work
[1:33:10] and notes being on a plat
that are neither necessary,
[1:33:14] nor arguably appropriate for
inclusion on a subdivision plat.
[1:33:18] So the Amendment for
this is to remove
[1:33:21] that section in its entirety.
[1:33:25] The sixth change addresses
a conflict and ambiguity
[1:33:27] in the sign regulations
applicable to public parks
[1:33:31] and open space zone districts.
[1:33:33] There's a conflict insofar as
the code provides that signage
[1:33:37] on a property zoned
P1 or P2 shall be
[1:33:40] limited to the signage
allowed in the surrounding
[1:33:42] zoned districts.
[1:33:44] It's unclear what
surrounding zoned districts
[1:33:46] are to govern when there
is more than one adjacent.
[1:33:50] And further, the
provision creates
[1:33:52] uneven standards that
vary by park location
[1:33:54] or other public land location.
[1:33:57] And then finally, the
conflict consists in the fact
[1:34:00] that P2 zoned zone.
[1:34:01] District is already
addressed by the standards
[1:34:04] applicable to signs and mixed
use and industrial districts.
[1:34:08] So this Amendment would
delete this provision.
[1:34:13] Finally, the seventh
change resolves a conflict
[1:34:16] in outdoor lighting standards.
[1:34:18] The existing code restricts
light output levels at property
[1:34:22] lines to 0.2 feet candles.
[1:34:25] And that's irrespective
of the adjacent use
[1:34:27] or right of way that's
across that property line.
[1:34:30] This is difficult or in some
cases impossible to meet,
[1:34:34] while also satisfying
the minimum illumination
[1:34:36] standards in the code and
indicated on the slide.
[1:34:41] For example, when a pedestrian
walkway between a building
[1:34:44] and the public sidewalk
sidewalk is present,
[1:34:47] it must be illuminated
to 0.6 feet candles,
[1:34:51] but that cannot be
achieved at the same
[1:34:53] time as limiting
the foot candles
[1:34:56] at the property line to 0.2.
[1:34:59] So this Amendment would preserve
the 0.2 feet candle maximum
[1:35:03] at property lines only
when adjacent to property
[1:35:06] zoned for single unit
detached or duplex dwellings
[1:35:10] to protect the
intended light trespass
[1:35:14] restriction in the code, while
increasing the maximum to 0.6
[1:35:20] when adjacent to all other
properties, and then light
[1:35:24] levels abutting the right of way
would be relieved of a hard cap,
[1:35:28] but would be made to
not exceed the minimum
[1:35:31] necessary to meet those other
illumination requirements.
[1:35:36] The criteria for review are
set forth in Section 21.02
[1:35:40] 0.05, subsection D, of
the zoning and development
[1:35:43] code, which provides that the
city may approve an Amendment
[1:35:47] to the text of the
code if the applicant
[1:35:49] can demonstrate evidence
proving each of the criteria.
[1:35:52] The complete analysis
is provided in the staff
[1:35:54] report, which was provided with
the meeting packet to summarize.
[1:35:59] Criterion a is consistency
with the comprehensive plan.
[1:36:02] The proposed Amendment
responds to plan principle two.
[1:36:05] Goal 3 strategy f, which calls
for reducing barriers to entry
[1:36:09] for new business to plan.
[1:36:11] Principle five.
[1:36:12] Goal 1 strategy C, which
calls for the promotion
[1:36:14] of housing variety and to plan.
[1:36:17] Principle 11 goal
three strategy C
[1:36:19] which calls for continuous
evaluation of existing practices
[1:36:23] and systems to improve outcomes
and provide excellent, equitable
[1:36:26] service to the public.
[1:36:28] Staff finds this
criterion has been met.
[1:36:31] Criterion B is consistency with
the zoning and development code.
[1:36:34] The proposed Amendment
removes conflicts
[1:36:37] and creates no new
inconsistencies or conflicts.
[1:36:40] Staff staff finds that this
criterion has been met,
[1:36:44] and criterion C is
specific reasons.
[1:36:47] The proposed Amendment
shall meet at least one
[1:36:49] of the specific reasons.
[1:36:51] Specific reason a is to
address trends in development
[1:36:54] or regulatory practices.
[1:36:56] The Amendment addresses trends
in city policy and practices
[1:36:59] to promote housing
production and affordability.
[1:37:02] Specific reason be is to expand,
modify, or add requirements
[1:37:06] for development in
general, or to address
[1:37:08] specific development issues.
[1:37:10] The Amendment modifies
requirements for development
[1:37:12] in general by removing
conflicting provisions promoting
[1:37:16] redevelopment, especially
the addition of dwelling
[1:37:19] units in existing buildings,
and facilitating compliance
[1:37:22] with landscape requirements.
[1:37:24] Specific reason see
is to add, modify,
[1:37:27] or expand zoning districts.
[1:37:28] The specific reason
does not apply,
[1:37:31] and specific reason
D is to clarify
[1:37:33] or modify procedures
for processing
[1:37:35] development applications.
[1:37:37] Plat recording
procedures are modified
[1:37:39] and accessory dwelling unit
provisions are clarified
[1:37:42] because reasons A, B,
and D are satisfied,
[1:37:45] staff finds this
criterion has been met.
[1:37:49] So after reviewing the
proposed Amendment,
[1:37:51] the following finding of fact
has been made in accordance
[1:37:55] with section 21.02
.050, subsection D,
[1:37:59] of the Grand Junction
zoning and development code.
[1:38:01] The proposed text
amendments are consistent
[1:38:03] with the comprehensive plan and
zoning and development code,
[1:38:06] and meet at least one of the
specific reasons outlined.
[1:38:09] Therefore, staff
recommends approval
[1:38:11] and at the April 28, 2026
planning commission meeting,
[1:38:16] the planning
commission voted 7 to 0
[1:38:18] to recommend approval with the
findings in the staff report.
[1:38:21] And that concludes
the presentation.
[1:38:23] And I welcome any
questions from the council.
[1:38:25] 
[1:38:29] OK with that, we will.
[1:38:32] Does anyone on council
have questions or comments
[1:38:35] at this time.
[1:38:37] Thanks for your work on this.
[1:38:39] Does clean up a lot of items.
[1:38:42] Yeah, I was just
going to add that.
[1:38:44] Yeah I think that
this type of stuff
[1:38:45] can be kind of boring or unsexy.
[1:38:51] Maybe, but it's really important
just in terms of good governance
[1:38:55] and continuous
improvement, that we
[1:38:57] address these types of things.
[1:38:59] Thanks OK with that.
[1:39:04] Any other questions
or comments before we
[1:39:06] move to public hearing.
[1:39:10] Seeing none we would
open public hearing.
[1:39:12] Is there anyone present who
would like to make a comment.
[1:39:18] Seeing none, we will
close the public hearing
[1:39:20] and return to council
for additional comments
[1:39:22] or questions.
[1:39:24] 
[1:39:26] Seeing none, I would ask
for a motion and a second
[1:39:29] to adopt the ordinance.
[1:39:31] I move to adopt ordinance number
5319, an ordinance amending
[1:39:35] sections of the zoning
and development code,
[1:39:37] title 21 of the Grand
Junction municipal code
[1:39:40] regarding final plat recordation
accessory dwelling units.
[1:39:44] Multi standard site
design standards for multi
[1:39:46] unit residential development.
[1:39:48] Landscape substitutions.
[1:39:50] Institutions, subdivision,
natural hazards and
[1:39:52] significant natural features.
[1:39:54] Signs in public parks
and open space districts
[1:39:58] and outdoor lighting on
final passage and order.
[1:40:01] Final publication
in pamphlet form.
[1:40:04] Second, we have a motion on the
floor from council member Nguyen
[1:40:09] and a second from
council member Kennedy.
[1:40:13] And if you could do
a roll call for us.
[1:40:19] Council Member beilfuss.
[1:40:21] Yes council member.
[1:40:23] Kennedy yes.
[1:40:25] Council Member.
[1:40:26] Nguyen yes.
[1:40:28] Council Member.
[1:40:28] Stoute yes.
[1:40:32] Council Member.
[1:40:33] Van Dyke.
[1:40:34] Yes council member.
[1:40:36] Ballard yes.
[1:40:38] Mayor Lutz.
[1:40:40] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.
[1:40:44] Just check in.
[1:40:48] Are Are you good with the.
[1:40:51] So we're going to
take a 10 minute break
[1:40:56] and we will see you then.
[1:40:57] 
[1:50:38] All right.
[1:50:39] We will go ahead and
come back to order.
[1:50:42] And that.
[1:50:44] 
[1:50:47] Just wait.
[1:50:49] I mean, you don't have to.
[1:50:51] Shut up.
[1:50:53] I went to Catholic school.
[1:50:55] I didn't, so you
can take your time.
[1:50:59] So our next one is.
[1:51:02] And ordinance amending sections
of the zoning and development
[1:51:05] code, title 21 of the Grand
Junction municipal code
[1:51:08] regarding drive-through
facilities.
[1:51:10] And we have a staff
presentation from planning
[1:51:12] manager Thomas Lloyd.
[1:51:13] 
[1:51:27] All right.
[1:51:27] Thank you.
[1:51:28] City council.
[1:51:30] Give me one moment.
[1:51:32] 
[1:51:43] So my most recent saved version
apparently did not save.
[1:51:59] So I apologize for that.
[1:52:01] 
[1:52:10] All right.
[1:52:13] So I'm good to go.
[1:52:14] Now All right.
[1:52:16] So this is an Amendment for
drive-through facilities
[1:52:19] and the accessory use
specific standards
[1:52:21] that are associated with those.
[1:52:24] Just for a little
background and some feedback
[1:52:26] on how we got here.
[1:52:28] This has been a kind of ongoing
conversation that we've had,
[1:52:33] with members of our
development community,
[1:52:36] probably a little
over the past year,
[1:52:39] we've had several
workshops with the planning
[1:52:43] commission about it.
[1:52:45] So both at the January 22
workshop, as well as the March 5
[1:52:50] workshop, and the revisions
that we are proposing
[1:52:53] are based on feedback from
the planning commission
[1:52:57] to resolve these issues that
these specific standards
[1:53:03] have presented in terms of the
actual development process.
[1:53:08] So just a really
quick overview of it.
[1:53:12] This would remove
the requirement
[1:53:14] that the drive-through
facilities shall be designed
[1:53:16] and located to avoiding
impairing to avoid impairing
[1:53:21] pedestrian mobility to or
from the principal structure
[1:53:23] or creating risks to
pedestrian safety.
[1:53:26] So the reason that it's being
recommended to remove this
[1:53:29] and when we workshop this
with the planning commission
[1:53:31] as well, it's just
that it's kind
[1:53:33] of an objective requirement.
[1:53:35] And we also have other standards
in our zoning and development
[1:53:39] code that address
this, be it some
[1:53:43] of our standards,
our access standards
[1:53:45] or our pedestrian
connection requirement.
[1:53:48] So just the thinking
behind that was
[1:53:50] to reformat this and get this
more subjective requirement out
[1:53:56] of it.
[1:53:57] I mean, I think I said objective
earlier, but I meant subjective.
[1:54:00] So to get the subjective
requirement out,
[1:54:01] just because that
means different things
[1:54:03] to different people
and to regulate
[1:54:06] that particular portion
of it in our regulations
[1:54:11] and not have that
language there.
[1:54:14] There's also some
minor reformatting.
[1:54:17] And really, the big thing
that's changing here
[1:54:20] is the removal of
the requirement
[1:54:23] that drive-thru lanes
shall not be located
[1:54:25] between the designated front
of the building and the
[1:54:28] adjacent public right of way.
[1:54:31] We've received a lot
of talk and feedback,
[1:54:34] just that this is making site
design pretty challenging,
[1:54:38] especially on more
challenging lots that
[1:54:42] have triple frontage or double
frontage multiple access points.
[1:54:49] So our reasoning for removing
that language is just that it'll
[1:54:55] provide more site flexibility
and that building orientation
[1:55:00] and where it's
located can also be
[1:55:02] from an urban forum standpoint,
just encouraged in other ways.
[1:55:08] Just as an example, we
have greatly reduced
[1:55:12] our setback requirements.
[1:55:14] So just from an urban design
and building form standpoint,
[1:55:17] that gives people a lot of
additional options as well.
[1:55:21] Lastly, the last thing
that we're changing
[1:55:24] is that adjacent is it's also
that the I guess the facilities
[1:55:31] may not be between the
front of the building
[1:55:34] and the adjacent
public right of way.
[1:55:36] So we're changing it to read
abutting because adjacent
[1:55:42] is defined as a radius of feet.
[1:55:45] So that could get
kind of confusing
[1:55:47] and challenging when we're
actually doing site design.
[1:55:50] So we're changing it to read
abutting instead, just so it's
[1:55:54] pretty clear that it's
the abutting public right
[1:55:57] of way, not right away
that's feet away from it.
[1:56:02] 
[1:56:04] So in terms of our
review criteria,
[1:56:07] you guys just did
this on the last one.
[1:56:10] But the first one
is that it needs
[1:56:11] to be consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
[1:56:14] Staff believes that it's
generally consistent
[1:56:16] with the comprehensive plan.
[1:56:18] In subsection a
above establishes
[1:56:22] an important policy objective.
[1:56:25] Objective but we are removing
it because the current language
[1:56:29] is broad and not specific as
to how those standards are met.
[1:56:34] The intent of providing
pedestrian safety
[1:56:36] is met by other specific
and more objective,
[1:56:39] measurable standards
elsewhere in the zoning code.
[1:56:43] With one example being
the pedestrian connection
[1:56:45] requirement and then other
examples being our other site
[1:56:49] design requirements such as
frontage orientation engineering
[1:56:54] and access standards that
are found in Ted's that
[1:56:57] address circulation,
queuing and conflict points.
[1:57:02] So we feel like this
change in language,
[1:57:08] advances the
comprehensive plans,
[1:57:10] goals of providing more
predictable and transparent
[1:57:13] development processes
instead of relying
[1:57:17] on more subjective standards.
[1:57:22] So, like I said before,
the existing prescription
[1:57:25] or the existing
provision the lane
[1:57:29] being in front of the
facade or the front
[1:57:32] of the building and the
adjacent public right of way.
[1:57:35] We also feel like
it's consistent
[1:57:36] with the comprehensive plan.
[1:57:38] It was prescriptive
and site design,
[1:57:40] and when combined with the
rest of the city's regulations,
[1:57:43] created some unintended
design consequences,
[1:57:46] especially on constrained or
irregularly shaped parcels.
[1:57:51] Its removal supports flexible
and context sensitive site
[1:57:54] development, allowing site
layouts to further respond
[1:57:59] to more unique conditions.
[1:58:02] And it's also important to note
that the code still promotes
[1:58:05] pedestrian oriented development
and high quality streetscapes
[1:58:09] in other ways, such
as other spacing
[1:58:14] standards and our standards.
[1:58:16] And Ted's along
with, our reductions
[1:58:21] and other requirements like
front setback requirements
[1:58:24] to encourage more
urban form of building.
[1:58:28] Planned principal 2
goal three strategy
[1:58:30] f calls for reducing barriers
to entry for new businesses.
[1:58:35] So this certainly would increase
flexibility for site design
[1:58:39] standards for new
businesses that
[1:58:41] are trying to come into town.
[1:58:43] Plan principle 11 goal three.
[1:58:45] Strategy C calls for continuous
evaluation of existing practices
[1:58:49] and systems to improve
outcomes and provide
[1:58:52] excellent and equitable
service to the public,
[1:58:55] so this Amendment improves
development outcomes
[1:58:57] and service to the public
by bringing consistency
[1:59:00] to the design standards
for commercial properties
[1:59:04] so staff finds that this
criterion has been met.
[1:59:06] Next, we have consistency
with the zoning
[1:59:09] and development code standards.
[1:59:11] This is consistent
with and does not
[1:59:13] conflict or contradict with any
other provisions of the code.
[1:59:18] So it creates no
inconsistencies,
[1:59:20] conflicts or contradictions.
[1:59:23] So staff finds that this
criterion has been met.
[1:59:26] And then the next one is the
specific reasons criterion.
[1:59:30] And that.
[1:59:31] At least one of the following
reasons have to be met.
[1:59:35] So, the first one
to address trends
[1:59:38] in development or
regulatory practices
[1:59:40] isn't really applicable.
[1:59:42] So I'll move on to the next one.
[1:59:43] The next one is to expand,
modify, or add requirements
[1:59:48] for development in
general or address
[1:59:50] specific development issues.
[1:59:52] So we received a lot of feedback
that these accessory use
[1:59:56] specific standards have made it
difficult to develop commercial
[1:59:59] uses on more challenging sites.
[2:00:02] So this text Amendment addresses
the specific development
[2:00:05] issue by allowing more options
when it comes to designing.
[2:00:09] How these types of
facilities and an accessory.
[2:00:12] Uses of these
facilities are designed.
[2:00:16] Next is to add modifier
expand zone districts
[2:00:19] which is also not applicable.
[2:00:21] And then lastly to clarify or
modify procedures for processing
[2:00:25] development applications.
[2:00:27] So the design standards
for drive-through
[2:00:29] as an accessory use is modified
to allow for additional options
[2:00:32] on how an applicant designs a
drive-through on their site.
[2:00:35] This allows it to be designed
in a way that makes sense
[2:00:37] for context specific
conditions on the site,
[2:00:40] rather than having a more
prescriptive regulation
[2:00:43] that all sites are subject to.
[2:00:45] So staff finds that
this criterion is met.
[2:00:49] And then lastly, in accordance
with section 21.020 50d
[2:00:54] of the Grand Junction
zoning and development code,
[2:00:56] the proposed text Amendment
to Title 21 is consistent with
[2:00:59] the comprehensive plan and the
zoning and development code
[2:01:01] standards, and meet at
least one of the specific
[2:01:04] reasons outlined at the
planning Commission's meeting
[2:01:07] on April 28.
[2:01:08] They voted to recommend
this request as well.
[2:01:13] 
[2:01:16] That's all I have.
[2:01:17] Happy to answer questions.
[2:01:18] OK thank you very much.
[2:01:20] We will return to council
for comments or questions.
[2:01:26] Yeah I had a question.
[2:01:28] So it looks like this was passed
for 3 from planning commission.
[2:01:33] And looking through
the notes here.
[2:01:36] Could you clarify what
the alternative proposal
[2:01:41] that was presented during
planning commission was.
[2:01:44] And if you remember I'll
be honest I don't remember.
[2:01:48] OK yeah.
[2:01:50] I'm trying to remember
because I did watch it,
[2:01:53] but I don't remember
off the top of my head
[2:01:55] what was proposed there
as an alternative.
[2:01:57] But I guess in any
case that yeah,
[2:01:59] the fact that it was for
three maybe means there's
[2:02:03] something to consider here.
[2:02:07] So I see Tamara's
talking to you.
[2:02:11] 
[2:02:18] So Tamara was bringing up kind
of discussion that happened
[2:02:21] during workshop, which isn't
necessarily applicable here,
[2:02:24] but the discussion was maybe
having different areas where
[2:02:29] it's not, I guess, a
requirement and then
[2:02:32] keeping it in other areas.
[2:02:34] But that is not what ended up
moving forward to the planning
[2:02:36] commission, because it was
decided in workshop that that's
[2:02:40] really more something that
we should probably be talking
[2:02:42] about, the comprehensive
plan process and not
[2:02:45] necessarily there.
[2:02:47] I do remember one of our
commissioners, Ian Thomas,
[2:02:52] did have a different
idea, but I'll be honest,
[2:02:55] I do not remember
the specifics of it
[2:02:57] just because it
didn't move forward.
[2:02:59] And then maybe more
towards the substance
[2:03:02] of what is being proposed here.
[2:03:05] I'm curious.
[2:03:07] As it's written now.
[2:03:09] So if we didn't
adopt the change,
[2:03:11] I'm curious how different
what we have in our code
[2:03:15] is to other communities.
[2:03:17] Do we know.
[2:03:18] Because like I hear the concern
that it makes it hard to develop
[2:03:23] on specific lots.
[2:03:24] But I do think that
some of these things
[2:03:28] are probably being implemented
in other communities, too.
[2:03:30] And given that drive-through
facilities are often
[2:03:34] these big national
chains, I'd be surprised
[2:03:36] if they don't have some ways to
still get their projects built
[2:03:43] that meet their needs, and
in the variety of constraints
[2:03:47] that exist in all the
municipalities across the US.
[2:03:51] Yeah so I mean, yeah,
that's a great question.
[2:03:54] I obviously don't have data
off the top of my head,
[2:03:57] but it is a fairly
it's a regulation
[2:04:00] you see in other communities.
[2:04:01] The previous community I was in
before here had that regulation.
[2:04:06] So, I mean, I don't want
to shoot from the hip
[2:04:08] and say what the percentage
is, but it is one that you
[2:04:11] see around the country.
[2:04:14] Yeah, I would add to that,
I don't data off the top
[2:04:18] of my head either,
but I think there's
[2:04:20] a mix of how this is applied
in many different communities.
[2:04:24] I think one of the reasons we
brought it forward is staff
[2:04:27] was if you picture like a
drive-through on North Avenue
[2:04:32] currently and you're
walking or riding down
[2:04:35] or you're walking down
the sidewalk per se
[2:04:37] in front of that
storefront, if right now you
[2:04:41] have to cross as a pedestrian,
the entry and the exit
[2:04:44] off the main road
where this would allow
[2:04:47] if it came around the front.
[2:04:49] But that there's different
ways to orient that on the site
[2:04:53] where a pedestrian may then be
crossing a drive-through lane,
[2:04:57] but they're not
crossing the entry
[2:04:59] and exit off of a main road.
[2:05:02] And so it provides
more flexibility.
[2:05:03] It doesn't dictate that you have
to bring it around the front
[2:05:07] of the building.
[2:05:10] And then there's other
unique properties
[2:05:11] where if you think
of a shopping center,
[2:05:14] where there's multiple
businesses that
[2:05:16] are because there's not
multiple entries and exits,
[2:05:20] it gives more flexibility for
coming around and crossing.
[2:05:25] The other was we were
seeing some unique parking
[2:05:28] to try and get to try and avoid
or try to get orient with this.
[2:05:33] That wasn't necessarily
the desired effect either.
[2:05:35] And so when we put
all that together,
[2:05:39] it helped us get to a place
of this recommendation.
[2:05:43] And what the staff brought
it forward versus it
[2:05:46] while it was brought up.
[2:05:47] And we've heard a lot
of feedback on it.
[2:05:49] There's some challenges
in the orientation,
[2:05:52] and doesn't mean it just
opens up more opportunity
[2:05:56] to meet that flexibility.
[2:05:59] Council Kennedy.
[2:06:00] Yeah, just a few things on this.
[2:06:02] I'm supportive of the changes
in looking at the testimony
[2:06:05] from the planning commission.
[2:06:06] One of the things
that was challenged
[2:06:09] was to ask staff if
there was any documented
[2:06:12] pedestrian injuries
in drive-thru lanes
[2:06:14] that would justify it.
[2:06:16] And there weren't.
[2:06:18] But obviously, we're not
saying that we know of
[2:06:21] every drive-through everywhere.
[2:06:23] Importantly, I think that
in our staff presentation,
[2:06:27] we covered that
the transportation
[2:06:30] engineering design
standards or TEDs are
[2:06:32] they still govern circulation.
[2:06:35] Queuing and conflict
points is what we heard.
[2:06:38] And that's important.
[2:06:39] And I will say that I have
heard directly, actually, I
[2:06:42] was in those chambers when after
right at the end of a meeting,
[2:06:45] after a meeting that I'd gotten
a information that a very
[2:06:50] large investment wasn't going
to happen specifically because
[2:06:53] of that in our community
and the developer,
[2:06:57] just with that frustration,
this has been probably
[2:07:00] more than a year ago, but it's
that type of while there maybe
[2:07:06] are some other ways to do it,
you're making this you make
[2:07:09] you're making it much,
much more expensive
[2:07:11] with these types of designs for
a business to come in there.
[2:07:16] And while we're not just all
business in Grand Junction,
[2:07:20] it is an important consideration
for us as council members
[2:07:25] and as a city to try
to support businesses
[2:07:28] for jobs and tax revenues
and all that type of thing.
[2:07:30] So I'm supportive of the motion.
[2:07:34] Any other comments.
[2:07:37] Was there.
[2:07:41] Were there any clear concerns
about pedestrian safety
[2:07:45] that came out of the planning
commission discussion.
[2:07:48] I don't know if
you have any but I
[2:07:51] would guess that was
3 against this was
[2:07:54] because of pedestrian safety.
[2:07:57] Certainly we want to make things
work for the commercial side
[2:08:01] of stuff.
[2:08:03] Yeah I don't think
it was strictly
[2:08:06] about pedestrian safety.
[2:08:07] I think it was also
about just kind of
[2:08:10] and obviously I'm just
paraphrasing from what
[2:08:13] my memory of the minutes were
and what they talked about,
[2:08:16] but it was just also
about urban design,
[2:08:20] building a community that,
one would want to live in,
[2:08:23] raise a family and all
that kind of stuff.
[2:08:25] And people there were
certainly conversations
[2:08:27] on both sides of that.
[2:08:29] But just from what I
recall, there was some
[2:08:32] about pedestrian connections.
[2:08:34] And if it is closer to the road
and there's not a drive-through
[2:08:38] the middle like it's
one less conflict point.
[2:08:41] But, I mean, I think it
was a mixture of that
[2:08:43] and more so kind of
urban design principles.
[2:08:47] Yeah thanks.
[2:08:49] One more thing.
[2:08:50] I can address that directly.
[2:08:53] The opposition in particular.
[2:08:56] Commissioner Moore commented
that with every opposition
[2:09:02] against pedestrian
access, it makes it harder
[2:09:03] for alternate modes of travel.
[2:09:06] So that was my takeaway, that it
wasn't necessarily about safety,
[2:09:09] but about making
it more convenient.
[2:09:12] And for multimodal
transportation,
[2:09:14] which is also an
important consideration.
[2:09:16] But just to segregate
that from the safety
[2:09:18] part of the conversation.
[2:09:20] And so did you want
to respond to that or.
[2:09:23] Yeah, I was just going to say he
kind of Commissioner Moore kind
[2:09:27] brought up some of
our bicycle, bicycle
[2:09:29] and pedestrian plan
and stuff like that as
[2:09:30] well in his comment.
[2:09:32] So I think you're
right, Councilman.
[2:09:34] That's kind of where he was
coming from specifically.
[2:09:37] So in the example that
city manager Bennett just
[2:09:42] shared with us, if
you're looking at North
[2:09:45] and you have the
entrance and the exit
[2:09:48] that are coming through
the sidewalk right there.
[2:09:52] So that's two major points
of where a car is coming,
[2:09:59] where a pedestrian is going.
[2:10:00] And so I mean, and then
if you had the ability
[2:10:04] to make the drive-through
go around the business
[2:10:06] where it's not
doing that, you're
[2:10:08] reducing the chances
of an accident
[2:10:10] and you're increasing
the connectivity.
[2:10:13] Am I misunderstanding that.
[2:10:16] Well, I would say in
some cases, but I mean,
[2:10:18] it depends on if
it's alley loaded.
[2:10:20] It depends on if we
would even allow two
[2:10:22] accesses in the first place.
[2:10:25] North's a little bit unique
because it is alley loaded.
[2:10:29] A lot of it is.
[2:10:30] And then there's also a lot
of access points on North
[2:10:34] and a lot of our more
newer development.
[2:10:36] We have, spacing requirements
where we don't allow those many
[2:10:41] that amount of access points.
[2:10:43] So it really kind of
does depend on the site
[2:10:46] and what makes the most sense.
[2:10:48] But there is stuff on North
where there are two access
[2:10:51] points and they're able to
design it in a way that works,
[2:10:55] but it just kind of depends
on the size of the lot
[2:10:57] where it's located,
if it's alley loaded,
[2:11:00] all that kind of stuff.
[2:11:01] And so this Amendment
is really allowing
[2:11:04] for that flexibility based
on the lot and the property
[2:11:07] and the surrounding roads.
[2:11:08] That's correct.
[2:11:09] And whatever the
separation requirements
[2:11:11] might be on that road, with
our different circulation
[2:11:16] plans and stuff like that.
[2:11:17] OK thank you.
[2:11:18] Is there any additional
council comments or questions.
[2:11:24] I'd make a motion if you'd like.
[2:11:25] I think we have to go
through hearing first.
[2:11:27] Oh, yeah.
[2:11:27] Sorry so with seeing no
additional questions or comments
[2:11:33] we will open this
for public hearing.
[2:11:35] Is there anyone present.
[2:11:37] And I see several.
[2:11:39] Go ahead and line up and
we'll hear from the public.
[2:11:42] 
[2:11:55] I just.
[2:11:55] I'm sorry about that.
[2:11:58] I don't know.
[2:11:58] It's OK.
[2:11:59] We're here all night Tonight
we're here all night.
[2:12:03] It's that seat.
[2:12:05] It's the jump.
[2:12:07] The gun scene.
[2:12:08] Hello so, will you start
with stating your name.
[2:12:13] Yeah I'm Shayla.
[2:12:15] Obviously not a city
planning expert by any means.
[2:12:18] This is also the first time
I've heard of this thing today.
[2:12:21] But I did have a concern
regarding the removal.
[2:12:27] I understand that
it's subjective,
[2:12:28] but the removal of
the idea that it needs
[2:12:31] to be safe for pedestrians,
specifically that first line
[2:12:36] item for because specifically,
it seems to me that we're
[2:12:43] removing that idea that it needs
to be safe for pedestrians,
[2:12:46] that all drivers need
to consider that.
[2:12:49] And then later on, we're
removing a couple things
[2:12:52] that actually make it safer.
[2:12:54] You said that we're removing
it because it's redundant,
[2:12:56] because there's already
things that clarify
[2:12:58] or guarantee that safety.
[2:13:00] And then later on we're removing
a few things that then guarantee
[2:13:05] that safety, such as not
putting a drive-through
[2:13:09] in between the building
and the pedestrian way,
[2:13:12] or this conversation about
the language about abutting
[2:13:18] versus adjacent the feet.
[2:13:20] I do think that is worth
further conversation.
[2:13:24] My suggestion to
the council would
[2:13:29] be that if you do pass
this, that you would pass it
[2:13:31] with the removal of
that language about that
[2:13:38] the language stay adjacent, not
abutting because allowing drive
[2:13:42] throughs to not that feet away.
[2:13:45] It just seems like it's an
excuse for us to not follow
[2:13:48] existing regulations around.
[2:13:52] Pedestrian safety.
[2:13:54] And every time that we
like hedge those things,
[2:13:58] then it becomes a
way for developers
[2:14:00] to continue to make
pedestrian safety
[2:14:03] even a little more dangerous.
[2:14:05] And North Avenue is already one
of the most dangerous places
[2:14:09] to walk in this town.
[2:14:10] It doesn't need to become worse.
[2:14:12] Drive throughs are already
kind of a pedestrian hellscape.
[2:14:15] A biker hellscape.
[2:14:16] So that's just my
comment on that.
[2:14:20] So thank you.
[2:14:21] 
[2:14:26] Is it this person.
[2:14:29] Presentation that's
it right there.
[2:14:32] 
[2:14:45] Good evening, city
council members.
[2:14:47] My name is Mark Austin.
[2:14:48] I'm a civil engineer
with Austin civil group
[2:14:51] here in Grand Junction.
[2:14:53] I've been designing
drive-through facilities here
[2:14:56] in Grand Junction for
over 25 plus years,
[2:14:59] and just wanted to run through
some practical examples
[2:15:04] of drive-through facilities
and why we're here tonight
[2:15:09] to ask for some changes.
[2:15:11] I've only got three minutes,
so I'm going to have to go
[2:15:13] through this extremely quickly.
[2:15:16] We talked about the two
access points on North Avenue
[2:15:19] and North Avenue is a little
bit of an exception for that.
[2:15:22] And the problem is that the
city code only allows one
[2:15:26] access for these facilities.
[2:15:29] North Avenue
sometimes you can get
[2:15:31] away with two access locations.
[2:15:33] But in order to
do it, you've got
[2:15:35] to violate three
different Ted's provisions
[2:15:38] to be able to make it work.
[2:15:40] North Avenue it works
because there's a medium
[2:15:42] that allows it to happen.
[2:15:44] But most of the other
streets at Grand Junction
[2:15:46] don't have that opportunity.
[2:15:48] This is a typical example of
Burger King drive-thru facility,
[2:15:52] which wraps around the
front of the building
[2:15:55] and has the one access point.
[2:15:57] That's a pretty
typical requirement.
[2:15:59] We see where we are only
allowed to have one access
[2:16:01] point onto a project site.
[2:16:03] But you can see what it does is
it tends to push the building
[2:16:06] back on the back side of the
lot so that you can't get
[2:16:09] it up on the street frontage.
[2:16:11] I was part of the
code committee that
[2:16:14] looked at drive-thru facilities,
and that code committee
[2:16:17] was 2 plus years long.
[2:16:19] We spent a couple
of months looking
[2:16:21] at drive-thru
facilities, and the one
[2:16:23] that was selected that everybody
on the committee was happy with
[2:16:26] was the North Avenue
Taco Bell at 29 road.
[2:16:30] And you can see that
drive-thru facility has
[2:16:32] a landscape buffer
between sidewalks
[2:16:35] and the drive-thru facilities.
[2:16:37] You've got two
pedestrian crossings.
[2:16:40] You've got three
street frontages
[2:16:42] and that was an option everybody
on the committee was happy with,
[2:16:46] and that's what we literally
thought was going to be adopted
[2:16:49] with the new code language.
[2:16:50] But unfortunately it wasn't.
[2:16:52] And so that's why
we're here tonight
[2:16:53] to try to get that fixed.
[2:16:55] And as far as pedestrian safety
goes and bicycle or anybody else
[2:17:00] I want you to point out
to Chick fil A, I mean,
[2:17:04] that place is pretty
intense that this is a plan
[2:17:08] that you allow the
businesses to come
[2:17:10] up with their own solutions.
[2:17:11] This is what they can do.
[2:17:13] But I can tell you, if
pedestrian safety and people
[2:17:16] getting hit was a concern,
these corporations
[2:17:20] would not be doing that because
they would have lawsuits.
[2:17:22] And they would not be
having pedestrians crossing
[2:17:25] these drive-thru lanes.
[2:17:27] But I just wanted to point
out this would not be allowed
[2:17:30] under the current code, and we
need to leave that flexibility
[2:17:35] and options for these
businesses to come
[2:17:38] up with creative solutions to
meet our code requirements.
[2:17:41] Thank you.
[2:17:42] Thank you.
[2:17:43] 
[2:17:59] Hi sorry for my voice.
[2:18:01] I'm Kelsey Heath with
CBC prime properties.
[2:18:04] I'm a commercial
real estate agent.
[2:18:06] I'm here on behalf of the
owner of 2658 Tracy Anne road
[2:18:09] on Highway 50, in Orchard mesa.
[2:18:12] His site plan was terminated
in February of 2025 due
[2:18:16] to the continued difficulties
presented by the New zoning
[2:18:21] code, and the requirement that
drive-thru lanes cannot be
[2:18:25] located between the facade of
the building and the adjacent
[2:18:28] public road makes it impossible
of the application to design
[2:18:32] and build a properly stacked
restaurant drive-through
[2:18:35] on the property,
despite the fact
[2:18:38] that it is allowed to have this
because of the accessory use.
[2:18:43] Table 21.04 zoning codes.
[2:18:47] As Mark stated, we have.
[2:18:50] There's several buildings that
would not be here if it wasn't
[2:18:54] for the codes that we had, that
would be Chick fil A. There's
[2:18:57] a couple Taco Bell's,
Starbucks, Dutch brothers,
[2:19:00] McDonald's, and we ask, what
are these annual city sales tax
[2:19:05] receipts from the 10
locations cited above
[2:19:08] and others like them that
were foregone future receipts
[2:19:13] from the multiple
of future locations
[2:19:16] that have been rendered
undeveloped by this facade
[2:19:20] requirement as well.
[2:19:22] We propose that Amendment
of the zoning code
[2:19:25] to exclude the
drive-through lanes
[2:19:28] from the facade requirement
has been attached below.
[2:19:32] Sorry, I'm reading the letter,
but as the city has shown
[2:19:37] these requirements, that there.
[2:19:40] You were talking
about would help
[2:19:42] with more of this development.
[2:19:45] And bring more money and
taxes into our economy.
[2:19:49] So we really hope that you
guys move forward with this.
[2:19:54] Thank you.
[2:19:56] Any other public comment.
[2:19:59] Seeing none, we will go ahead
and close public hearing
[2:20:02] and we will return to council
for additional comments
[2:20:05] or questions.
[2:20:06] 
[2:20:10] Hearing none I would ask for.
[2:20:13] Go ahead.
[2:20:13] Yeah, I maybe would be
curious to hear from Thomas
[2:20:17] about this adjacent and
abutting kind of thing that
[2:20:21] came up during public comment.
[2:20:22] 
[2:20:25] Yeah, maybe I'm not
fully tracking the yeah.
[2:20:29] Why that makes a difference
and why that's helpful.
[2:20:35] Sure so with adjacent, it would
just be measured feet away
[2:20:42] from where the facility is.
[2:20:46] So if we're talking the
menu board or whatever else,
[2:20:48] it would be feet from that
where a budding is just
[2:20:52] like where the right of
way property line is,
[2:20:54] if that makes sense.
[2:20:55] Our legal team, I guess, kind of
recommended that we change that.
[2:21:00] Just to clarify it,
just because it could
[2:21:03] be kind of difficult to
regulate if it's a 100 foot
[2:21:07] radius, as opposed
to directly adjacent
[2:21:11] to the public right of way.
[2:21:13] OK thank you.
[2:21:14] 
[2:21:18] Anything else.
[2:21:19] Yeah I just like to
state, over the last year,
[2:21:21] we've received
multiple emails on this
[2:21:23] from different developers
and site planners
[2:21:26] that we're trying to
get a project through.
[2:21:28] And we're really seeing a hang
up as we look for Grand Junction
[2:21:32] to grow, to develop, to have
the services that we all hope
[2:21:36] and want to have, especially
a property up in Orchard mesa,
[2:21:40] I think we really
we've got to get
[2:21:42] behind these businesses and
really incentivize development.
[2:21:45] And that's why I'm in favor
and passing this tonight.
[2:21:48] If there's no additional
comments or questions
[2:21:52] I would ask for a motion.
[2:21:54] All right.
[2:21:55] Now, now is the time.
[2:21:57] OK I move to adopt ordinance
number 5320, an ordinance
[2:22:02] amending sections of
the zoning code title
[2:22:05] 21 and Grand Junction
municipal code regarding
[2:22:10] drive-through facilities
on final passage
[2:22:12] and order final publication
in pamphlet form.
[2:22:15] We have a motion on the floor
from council member Kennedy.
[2:22:17] Do I have a second.
[2:22:20] Second OK, we have a second
from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
[2:22:25] And with that, salicina
could you call the roll.
[2:22:32] Council Member Kennedy.
[2:22:34] Yes council member.
[2:22:36] Nguyen yes.
[2:22:39] Council Member Stout sent a
message that she was a yes.
[2:22:42] She cannot say it verbally.
[2:22:45] OK council member van Dijk.
[2:22:47] Yes council member.
[2:22:49] Ballard yes.
[2:22:53] Council Member.
[2:22:53] Beilfuss yes.
[2:22:55] Mayor Lutz.
[2:22:56] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.
[2:23:01] OK next we will be reviewing
an ordinance amending ordinance
[2:23:08] 4991 concerning the city,
Los colonias Development
[2:23:12] Corporation, master lease
and the Third Amendment
[2:23:15] there to for purposes of
amending the description
[2:23:18] of lease parcel 2 for the
purpose of facilitating
[2:23:22] the development of monument
business park on site de
[2:23:27] at the Las colonias
business park,
[2:23:29] and we have a staff
presentation from engineering
[2:23:31] and transportation
director Trent
[2:23:34] Powell, as well as interim
city attorney Jeremiah Boyce.
[2:23:39] Good evening, Mayor
and members of council.
[2:23:42] This evening, or back
in November of 2017,
[2:23:46] the city council authorized
the development of 15 acres
[2:23:50] down at the Las colonias Las
colonias park, known as the Las
[2:23:53] colonias business park.
[2:23:55] There was a master lease that
we put together there on four
[2:23:59] different areas that we then
executed that lease with the Las
[2:24:06] colonias Development
Corporation, who has then since
[2:24:09] subleased some
portions of those areas
[2:24:12] to Rocky Mountain and bonsai
and more recently, oak star.
[2:24:21] And so the area that we're
talking about here this evening
[2:24:23] is up here on the very,
very North end of the park.
[2:24:30] And it has we've got a proposal
in running through planning
[2:24:34] and through the LCDC called
the monument business park,
[2:24:37] and their layout
is such that they
[2:24:40] need to modify the Southern
boundary of this lease.
[2:24:47] Area number two.
[2:24:49] Lease area number two
encompasses all of the area here
[2:24:54] North of the main entrance road
lease area one was this area
[2:24:59] here, including
the butterfly park
[2:25:02] lease Area 3 is where
oakstar ended up
[2:25:06] taking a portion of that lease.
[2:25:08] Area 4 is where the bonsai
warehouse is proposed.
[2:25:13] So anyway, you can see from
the proposed business park,
[2:25:17] the monument business park
here where the parking lot does
[2:25:22] protrude over the leased area.
[2:25:25] And so all this
does is clean that
[2:25:29] up and be able to accommodate
that expanded parking lot there.
[2:25:36] Other than that, I
would have to defer
[2:25:40] to our city attorney
in regards to why
[2:25:43] this requires an ordinance.
[2:25:45] But anyway,
nonetheless, it does.
[2:25:49] And this is our Third
Amendment to the lease.
[2:25:52] The first one was amending
25 years to 99 years
[2:25:56] after we had a positive
vote from voters on that.
[2:26:01] And then the second one was
amending the lease for oak star.
[2:26:05] So this is the third one
that we're needing to amend.
[2:26:08] So with that, I'd be happy
to entertain any questions.
[2:26:10] It is an ordinance.
[2:26:11] So we will need to have a public
hearing to make that official.
[2:26:15] Do you have anything to add.
[2:26:19] I don't.
[2:26:20] Trent did a great job.
[2:26:21] Up OK.
[2:26:22] Any council questions or
comments at this time.
[2:26:27] OK with that, we will
open public hearing.
[2:26:31] If anyone would like to
have public comment on this,
[2:26:35] please approach the podium.
[2:26:38] Seeing none, we will
close the public hearing
[2:26:42] and return to council for
comments or questions.
[2:26:47] Just quickly, thanks for
handling this, Trent.
[2:26:49] I said because I'm on the
board, I also am on the LCDC
[2:26:54] and this is just another
great development
[2:26:57] along the Riverside Parkway
and a great development
[2:27:00] in Las colonias.
[2:27:01] So excited for this.
[2:27:02] It sounds like there's some
great innovative concepts
[2:27:05] that are moving forward here.
[2:27:07] So thank you.
[2:27:10] Any other questions or comments.
[2:27:13] Seeing none, I would
ask for a motion.
[2:27:17] I can do that.
[2:27:19] Go for it.
[2:27:20] OK I moved to adopt
ordinance number 5321,
[2:27:26] an ordinance to amend ordinance
4991 concerning the city, Las
[2:27:32] colonias Development
Corporation, master lease
[2:27:34] and the Third Amendment thereto
for the purpose of amending
[2:27:38] the description of the lease.
[2:27:40] Parcel two for the purpose of
facilitating the development
[2:27:43] of the monument
business park on site
[2:27:46] D at the Las colonias business
park on final passage, in order.
[2:27:52] Final publication
in pamphlet form.
[2:27:54] OK, we have a
motion on the floor
[2:27:55] from council member Kennedy.
[2:27:57] Do we have a second.
[2:27:58] Second we have a
second from council
[2:28:00] member Wynn and celestina,
if you could call roll.
[2:28:05] Council Member.
[2:28:06] Nguyen yes.
[2:28:08] Council Member.
[2:28:09] Stoute yes.
[2:28:13] Council Member van Dijk.
[2:28:15] Yes council member.
[2:28:17] Ballard yes.
[2:28:19] Council Member.
[2:28:21] Yes council member.
[2:28:22] Kennedy yes.
[2:28:23] Mayor Lutz.
[2:28:24] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0 and
we will move to our next item,
[2:28:31] which is an ordinance amending
the comprehensive plan
[2:28:33] for approximately 19.83
acres from industrial
[2:28:37] to residential low.
[2:28:38] Located on lot two
of monument vista
[2:28:40] subdivision at eight 6021 road.
[2:28:43] And we have a staff
presentation from planning
[2:28:45] manager Thomas Lloyd.
[2:28:46] 
[2:29:02] All right.
[2:29:04] The mic is on now.
[2:29:06] All right.
[2:29:07] Good evening again.
[2:29:08] City council as well as
members of the public.
[2:29:11] I'm Thomas Lloyd,
I'm the planning
[2:29:12] manager with the Community
Development Department.
[2:29:15] And this is for a CPA that we
have on the Northwestern side
[2:29:21] of the city.
[2:29:22] But it is located
at eight 6021 road.
[2:29:26] And more specifically,
it's lot two
[2:29:27] of monument vistas filing one.
[2:29:31] So just it may have been
a while since you guys
[2:29:34] have done a CPA and a rezone.
[2:29:36] So just to remind
everybody, the first step
[2:29:39] is a comprehensive
plan Amendment,
[2:29:41] and the CPA has to be done
prior to the rezone itself,
[2:29:45] and the rezone will
move forward assuming
[2:29:48] that the CPA is approved.
[2:29:50] 
[2:29:53] All right.
[2:29:55] So the property owner,
Brookfield mixed use 65,
[2:29:58] is requesting this CPA from the
industrial land use designation
[2:30:02] to the residential land use
designation on 19.83 acres.
[2:30:09] I'm not sure some of you may
have been on the council,
[2:30:12] but previously there was another
CPA done here a few years back
[2:30:20] where this was.
[2:30:21] It was the same CPA type of
Amendment residential Industrial
[2:30:25] Light to residential
low or excuse me
[2:30:28] industrial to residential low.
[2:30:30] So really the request
here from the applicant
[2:30:33] is to do a continuation of what
they've done to the East here.
[2:30:38] That is residential low.
[2:30:41] So yeah, I'll just
go into the vicinity.
[2:30:45] The properties outlined
here in yellow.
[2:30:48] You got 21 road over here.
[2:30:51] You got the Brookfield
residential development here.
[2:30:55] This is really close to this
is the last corporate limits
[2:31:00] area of town.
[2:31:02] This is where we're kind of
getting to the end of our udb
[2:31:06] on the Western
Northwestern area of town,
[2:31:09] and where we're a lot closer
to our fruita buffer area.
[2:31:16] So here's the land use map.
[2:31:17] You have industrial
low or excuse me.
[2:31:20] Industrial everywhere here.
[2:31:21] And then residential
low to the North.
[2:31:25] As well as the Middle East.
[2:31:27] And, it kind of
crosses this area here.
[2:31:31] So yeah.
[2:31:33] In residential low
in terms of what
[2:31:37] that land use means it is lower
density, larger lot residential.
[2:31:45] But if you just look to
the surrounding area,
[2:31:49] you have more residential
agricultural uses to the West.
[2:31:54] You have light industrial uses
to the South, as well as more
[2:32:00] residential lower density
uses anywhere from 2 to 5.5
[2:32:06] units there to the Middle East.
[2:32:09] 
[2:32:12] In terms of implementing land
use designations or excuse
[2:32:17] me, implementing zoning
districts of land of that land
[2:32:19] use designation of
residential low RL 4, RL 5,
[2:32:23] P1, P2, and PD
would all be zoned
[2:32:27] districts that implement that.
[2:32:29] That's not really important
for this part of the item,
[2:32:32] but we'll revisit that if
and when we do the rezoning.
[2:32:38] So if you look at
the current zoning,
[2:32:41] you can see it's
RL 5 to the East
[2:32:45] and then some RL 4 to
the North Northeast
[2:32:48] and then Industrial Light.
[2:32:50] Also this is more important
to next portion of this.
[2:32:54] If this does move forward
here are site photos.
[2:32:59] As you can see,
it's largely vacant
[2:33:01] agricultural land right now.
[2:33:05] So we'll get into the meat
of the analysis of this now.
[2:33:10] So to amend the
comprehensive plan,
[2:33:13] here's the criterion
that has to be met.
[2:33:16] The existing comprehensive plan,
or any related element thereof,
[2:33:20] requires the proposed Amendment,
and the community or area
[2:33:23] will derive benefits from
the proposed Amendment,
[2:33:25] and/or the Amendment will be
consistent with the vision,
[2:33:28] goals, principles, and policies
of the comprehensive plan
[2:33:30] and elements thereof.
[2:33:32] So it's kind of similar
to our rezoning criteria,
[2:33:34] but slightly different.
[2:33:36] But we'll go through
this in more detail.
[2:33:38] And just to start,
staff has found
[2:33:40] that the criteria has been met.
[2:33:43] But we'll discuss it more here.
[2:33:47] All right.
[2:33:47] So for the first criterion,
the current industrial land use
[2:33:51] designation, just
so you're aware,
[2:33:53] is implemented by zoning
districts of kg, I1 and I2.
[2:33:58] But, with the residential low
designation that they're asking
[2:34:03] for, it would be consistent
with multiple portions
[2:34:07] of the comprehensive
plan, specifically
[2:34:10] plan principle 3.1 be
responsible and manage growth.
[2:34:15] This principle calls on the city
to support the efficient use
[2:34:18] of existing public
facilities and services,
[2:34:21] by directing
development to locations
[2:34:22] where it can meet and maintain
level of services targets.
[2:34:26] This is a tier 2
property, but the reason
[2:34:28] I'm mentioning that principle
is just because there is already
[2:34:32] sewer and services
available to that site,
[2:34:34] with the residential areas
that are directly to the East,
[2:34:38] and they would really just
be continuing that on.
[2:34:42] It also, the
comprehensive plan also
[2:34:44] acknowledges the growing
demand for housing
[2:34:46] and a limited supply of
housing that we're kind
[2:34:49] of struggling with right now.
[2:34:51] And obviously,
we're kind of going
[2:34:52] through the housing needs
assessment stuff right now also.
[2:34:54] So that just acts as an
undercurrent of all of this.
[2:34:59] But having additional
housing stock,
[2:35:02] can help meet the community's
long term residential needs.
[2:35:06] This is consistent with our
managed growth principles,
[2:35:08] just because it aligns with land
use policy and changing market
[2:35:11] and demographic conditions.
[2:35:14] A comprehensive
plan Amendment is
[2:35:16] the formal or formal
mechanism for evaluating
[2:35:19] whether a property should
transition to a more appropriate
[2:35:21] future use with
a site like this,
[2:35:25] it is adjacent to
existing services.
[2:35:27] So redesignate redesignated it
to residential low supports,
[2:35:31] orderly expansion
rather than scattering
[2:35:34] or having inefficient
development patterns.
[2:35:38] I did want to touch on just
because the comprehensive plan
[2:35:40] is very supportive of preserving
industrial properties,
[2:35:44] but more specifically,
it's protects and preserves
[2:35:49] industrial properties and
more certain established areas
[2:35:53] and with areas that
have railroad access.
[2:35:56] So this property is
not within an area
[2:35:58] that has railroad Spurs
or special infrastructure
[2:36:02] to serve industrial properties.
[2:36:04] And in the comprehensive plan,
there's even a specific h road
[2:36:08] Northwest subarea that
it really encourages
[2:36:12] us to protect in the future.
[2:36:15] This area is not
within that area,
[2:36:17] so staff feels like it
is consistent to rezone
[2:36:21] this to a residential use.
[2:36:23] And just further if
industrial is no longer
[2:36:27] viable or appropriate
changing the designation
[2:36:30] to residential low
can reduce future land
[2:36:33] use conflicts, especially with
the site to the Middle East.
[2:36:38] It is a more consistent use
with the properties that
[2:36:43] are to the North,
the West and the East
[2:36:46] so it can help maintain a
better neighborhood quality
[2:36:48] and promote a more
predictable land use pattern.
[2:36:50] Obviously, there will still be
industrial land use designations
[2:36:54] to the South, but
staff kind of sees
[2:36:57] this as lessening the intensity
of the uses in that area.
[2:37:02] So staff finds that this
criterion has been met.
[2:37:06] 
[2:37:09] Secondly, that
the next criterion
[2:37:11] is that the commuter
area will derive benefits
[2:37:13] from the proposed Amendment.
[2:37:16] So we touched on housing.
[2:37:18] I think that's really
the largest benefit.
[2:37:21] I'll touch on it very quickly
because we did already
[2:37:25] talk about it.
[2:37:27] But residential low
creates the opportunity
[2:37:29] for additional housing.
[2:37:31] Is a more compatible transition
between the surrounding land
[2:37:35] uses.
[2:37:37] And the properties,
especially to the North,
[2:37:40] the East and the West.
[2:37:42] These types of low
density residential uses
[2:37:44] are typically more consistent
with the neighborhood character
[2:37:47] that you would see in that area.
[2:37:51] So lastly, just that
land use plan should
[2:37:55] adapt when conditions evolve.
[2:37:57] If the site such as this is no
longer optimal for industrial
[2:38:02] use.
[2:38:03] Redesignating it
to residential low
[2:38:05] is certainly a use
that it can still
[2:38:07] be used in a
productive manner that
[2:38:10] does benefit the city with our
housing shortage right now.
[2:38:14] So staff finds that the proposed
comprehensive plan Amendment
[2:38:18] will benefit the community
by increasing housing
[2:38:20] opportunities, promoting
compatible neighborhood
[2:38:22] development, reducing
potential industrial impacts,
[2:38:26] and efficiently utilizing
existing infrastructure,
[2:38:30] as well as supporting
long term, orderly growth.
[2:38:33] So staff finds that
criterion has been met,
[2:38:37] and then lastly, that
the Amendment will
[2:38:40] be consistent with the
vision, goals, principles,
[2:38:42] and policies of the
comprehensive policies
[2:38:43] of the comprehensive plan.
[2:38:46] So this was kind of touched
on earlier mentioned planned
[2:38:50] principle 3.1b earlier
and the acknowledgment
[2:38:54] of grand junction's
growing housing needs.
[2:38:58] Lastly, there's also
a plan, principle 5.1,
[2:39:03] which is strong neighborhoods
and housing choices.
[2:39:05] This calls on the city to
promote more opportunities
[2:39:08] for housing choices to meet
the needs of all people,
[2:39:12] ages and incomes.
[2:39:14] So this principle
also calls on the city
[2:39:16] to monitor and periodically
update the land use plan
[2:39:20] to ensure the city has an
adequate supply of land
[2:39:23] designated for
different housing types.
[2:39:27] So staff has also found that
this criterion has been met
[2:39:32] and that it's consistent
with the comprehensive plan
[2:39:33] because it responds to
current housing needs,
[2:39:35] promotes compatible and more
cohesive land use patterns,
[2:39:38] and supports efficient use
and orderly of infrastructure
[2:39:42] and orderly growth patterns.
[2:39:45] So staff finds that
criterion has been met.
[2:39:49] And just in terms of
our findings of fact
[2:39:52] and in accordance with section
21.0205 5 minus 0 C4 romanet.
[2:39:57] Three of the zoning
and development code.
[2:39:59] The application
meets the criteria
[2:40:01] identified in the
comprehensive plan criteria.
[2:40:05] So the planning commission
also heard this request
[2:40:09] at their April 28 meeting.
[2:40:11] And they voted 7 to 0
to recommend approval.
[2:40:14] That's all I have.
[2:40:15] Happy to answer questions.
[2:40:17] Thank you.
[2:40:20] Is the applicant here.
[2:40:21] Do you have a presentation.
[2:40:23] 
[2:40:26] Good evening, council members.
[2:40:28] My name is Chris Hernandez.
[2:40:29] I'm representing the
applicant this evening.
[2:40:31] We just have a quick little
slide right here that we're
[2:40:36] going to just power through.
[2:40:38] Thomas has already kind
of gone over everything
[2:40:39] that we have here.
[2:40:40] So he's already done a real
good job explaining everything.
[2:40:46] The one thing that
we did want to hit on
[2:40:48] is that we do understand the
importance of the Industrial
[2:40:53] zoning and how we're keeping
that industrial zoning
[2:40:56] South of the.
[2:40:58] Requested residential.
[2:41:00] And they are developing in
two sections of that already.
[2:41:06] Well so here in I1
and one here, they
[2:41:16] are already having plats done
to develop industrial there.
[2:41:23] And then we're just
mirroring really
[2:41:25] the RL five the North
section of this parcel here.
[2:41:31] And that's really all we had.
[2:41:32] 
[2:41:35] Let me go ahead and read that.
[2:41:39] Read this.
[2:41:41] No, no.
[2:41:42] 
[2:41:46] No sorry I'm Tracy with
River City consultants.
[2:41:49] And could you speak into
the microphone, please.
[2:41:51] Sorry thank you.
[2:41:51] My name is Tracy Stetson
with River City consultants,
[2:41:54] and Chris here is training
as a project coordinator.
[2:41:57] And so we're kind of letting
him take the wheel tonight.
[2:42:00] There were some
points that we wanted
[2:42:01] to make just on this sheet.
[2:42:04] I'm going to let him read it
because I do have a sore tooth.
[2:42:07] So I'm going to let
him go with this.
[2:42:09] And so because of the
comprehensive plan priorities,
[2:42:12] the use of existing public
facilities and services,
[2:42:15] this property is a
target for Amendment.
[2:42:17] The property is already
within the city limits
[2:42:19] and has access to sewer.
[2:42:21] There's a growing
demand and limited
[2:42:22] supply of attainable
housing in Grand Junction.
[2:42:25] There is limited demand
for industrial development,
[2:42:29] and this Amendment
would increase
[2:42:31] opportunity to
create new housing
[2:42:33] and help to meet
long term needs.
[2:42:35] Residential low designation
is better aligned
[2:42:39] with the surrounding residential
development to the East
[2:42:42] and the residential low
designation to the North,
[2:42:45] and we're still preserving
14.36 acres of industrial land
[2:42:48] for development.
[2:42:49] And the applicant is committed
to industrial development
[2:42:53] in this area and is
currently developing
[2:42:55] the industrial properties
adjacent to the East
[2:42:59] of this parcel.
[2:43:00] 
[2:43:03] Thank you.
[2:43:04] OK we're available to answer
any questions you might have.
[2:43:07] OK thank you.
[2:43:08] If you just want to
remain there while we
[2:43:11] in case any of the Council
members have a question,
[2:43:14] we will come back to council
for comments or questions.
[2:43:17] 
[2:43:21] The one question I have is.
[2:43:23] So when I was
reviewing the packet,
[2:43:24] I did notice that the
neighborhood meeting
[2:43:26] was held in October 24 of 2024.
[2:43:29] And I was just wondering
why it was so long ago.
[2:43:34] Yeah, I can speak to that.
[2:43:35] So this has been an
ongoing application,
[2:43:38] and we also had to
do a subdivision
[2:43:41] prior to this rezone happening.
[2:43:44] So with the subdivision
happening, the minor subdivision
[2:43:46] that happened to make this
rezone reason possible.
[2:43:49] This has just been kind
of a longer process.
[2:43:52] OK thank you.
[2:43:54] Council Member stout.
[2:43:57] Yeah I wanted to say that I will
be voting yes for the Amendment
[2:44:01] because I find staff and the
applicants presentations to be
[2:44:04] complete and to be compelling.
[2:44:07] And I find that all the
criteria has been met.
[2:44:10] OK thank you.
[2:44:11] Are there any other questions
or concerns from or questions
[2:44:14] or comments from council.
[2:44:16] 
[2:44:19] OK thank you so much.
[2:44:21] You can go ahead.
[2:44:22] Have a seat and we will open
the floor for public hearing.
[2:44:26] If anyone has comment
that they would
[2:44:28] like to enter into the record.
[2:44:31] 
[2:44:33] Seeing none, we will
close the public hearing
[2:44:36] and we will move for last
comments or questions
[2:44:41] from council.
[2:44:42] 
[2:44:44] Seeing none, I would
ask for a motion.
[2:44:46] Emotion all right.
[2:44:52] I would move to adopt
ordinance number 5322,
[2:44:57] an ordinance amending
the comprehensive plan
[2:45:00] for approximately
19.83 acres from
[2:45:03] industrial to
residential low, located
[2:45:06] at 860 21 road on
final passage and order
[2:45:10] final publication
in pamphlet form.
[2:45:13] We have a motion on the floor
from council member Kennedy.
[2:45:16] Is there a second.
[2:45:17] Second we have a second.
[2:45:20] I think Mayor Pro tem
van Dijk got that first.
[2:45:25] So that would be our second.
[2:45:27] And celestina, if
you could call roll.
[2:45:30] Council Member Stout.
[2:45:32] Yes council member van Dijk.
[2:45:35] Yes council member.
[2:45:37] Ballard yes.
[2:45:39] Council Member.
[2:45:40] Beilfuss yes.
[2:45:45] Council Member.
[2:45:46] Kennedy yes.
[2:45:48] Council Member.
[2:45:49] Nguyen yes.
[2:45:50] Mayor Lutz.
[2:45:51] Yes The motion
passes 7 to 0, and we
[2:45:56] will move to our next ordinance,
which is an ordinance rezoning
[2:46:00] approximately 19.83 acres
from Industrial Light
[2:46:04] L1 to residential low
five RL 5, located
[2:46:08] on lot two of monument
vista subdivision
[2:46:10] at eight 6021 road and Thomas.
[2:46:14] Go ahead.
[2:46:15] We'll kick it back to you.
[2:46:17] Sure yeah, I'll try
to shorten this a bit.
[2:46:19] Won't be quite as verbose.
[2:46:20] I can read the
room a little bit.
[2:46:23] So this request
is from Industrial
[2:46:27] Light to residential low five.
[2:46:31] So it's the same site
we just talked about.
[2:46:34] And if you just look
at the current zoning
[2:46:35] it is I1 right now.
[2:46:38] And then to the East is
the RL four the RL and
[2:46:42] as well as the RL five.
[2:46:44] And then more industrial load
to the South and Southeast.
[2:46:47] 
[2:46:50] All right.
[2:46:51] So we'll get into our analysis.
[2:46:53] Really a lot of the consistency
and comprehensive plan elements
[2:46:56] are very similar
to the last one.
[2:46:58] So rather than getting
in too much detail
[2:47:00] I'll just hit on some
of the principles.
[2:47:03] So the first thing we got to
discuss when we're looking
[2:47:05] at a rezoning,
consider when we're
[2:47:07] looking at rezoning
is that it's generally
[2:47:08] consistent with the
applicable provisions
[2:47:10] of the comprehensive plan.
[2:47:12] So you all just amended
the comprehensive plan
[2:47:15] for it to be consistent with
the future land use map.
[2:47:18] So that area does have a
residential low designation now.
[2:47:23] And, our L5, what
they're requesting
[2:47:26] is an implementing zoning
district of residential low.
[2:47:30] So we touched on responsible
and managed growth policies,
[2:47:35] to support the efficient
use of existing facilities
[2:47:38] and services.
[2:47:39] This area is supported by that.
[2:47:43] Obviously, the comprehensive
plan acknowledges
[2:47:45] the growing demand for housing.
[2:47:48] So rezoning area
from I1 to RL five
[2:47:52] increases opportunities
for new housing
[2:47:54] stock in terms of
strong neighborhoods
[2:47:57] and housing choices.
[2:47:59] It calls on the city to monitor
and periodically update its land
[2:48:02] use plan and zoning to
ensure that the city has
[2:48:05] an adequate supply
of land for housing.
[2:48:08] So it checks that box as
well, so just to summarize,
[2:48:15] it's consistent with the
vision, goals, principles,
[2:48:16] and policies of the Comp
plan because it responds
[2:48:19] to current housing needs.
[2:48:21] It promotes compatible and
cohesive land use patterns.
[2:48:25] It supports the efficient
use of infrastructure,
[2:48:27] and it advances orderly growth
and community livability.
[2:48:32] So staff finds that
criterion has been met.
[2:48:36] Second, we have development
patterns, and that the proposed
[2:48:39] zoning will result in logical
and orderly development
[2:48:41] patterns.
[2:48:43] So a rezone from r I1 to R5
results in a logical and orderly
[2:48:48] development pattern because
it aligns the subject property
[2:48:51] with the established pattern
that is directly to the East as
[2:48:55] well as the North, so it creates
a more coherent transition
[2:48:59] of land uses.
[2:49:01] It's already bordered
by residential zoning
[2:49:04] to the Northeast and the West.
[2:49:06] So RL five it's just a logical
extension of that with the I-1
[2:49:12] zoning to the
South, you RL 5 can
[2:49:15] serve as a transitional district
between the more intense
[2:49:18] industrial activity to the
South and then the more ag
[2:49:21] uses to the North.
[2:49:23] I did just wanted to make sure
everybody was aware that we do
[2:49:26] have residential
compatibility standards
[2:49:29] between industrial properties
and residential properties.
[2:49:33] So any industrial property
that does develop to the South
[2:49:36] if it develops to
the South, you we'll
[2:49:39] have to have adequate
buffers and screening,
[2:49:43] where it is adjacent
to industrial property.
[2:49:47] So I just wanted to make sure
that was clear in case there
[2:49:49] were any questions about that.
[2:49:51] But lastly, residential zoning
uses allowed in RL 5 being two
[2:49:58] or I guess minimum of 2, maximum
or no, it's a minimum of three,
[2:50:02] maximum of 5 and 1/2.
[2:50:03] Dwelling units better match the
established neighborhood context
[2:50:07] and reduce future conflicts
between adjoining properties.
[2:50:10] This rezone provides an
appropriate transition.
[2:50:13] It supports infill
development and promotes
[2:50:15] a more cohesive and
compatible land use pattern.
[2:50:19] So staff finds that
criterion has been met.
[2:50:22] And then lastly benefits.
[2:50:24] We talked about this at
the last item in the CPA.
[2:50:27] Resigned from IO to RL
5, can help the community
[2:50:30] and surrounding land area
derive meaningful benefits
[2:50:34] by aligning zoning with our
current community needs,
[2:50:37] one of our main ones
being additional housing
[2:50:41] and improving
neighborhood compatibility
[2:50:43] and long term growth.
[2:50:45] So staff also finds this
criterion has been met.
[2:50:48] I'm not going to get as
much into these details
[2:50:50] just because I think
they've already been stated
[2:50:52] and they are in the staff
report for the record.
[2:50:56] So lastly, findings of fact in
accordance with section 21.0205
[2:51:01] M3 remnant, two of the zoning
and development code, staff
[2:51:05] has found that this application
meets the criteria identified
[2:51:08] in the rezoning criteria,
and the planning
[2:51:11] commission also recommended
approval of this 7 to 0.
[2:51:16] That concludes my presentation.
[2:51:18] Happy to answer any questions.
[2:51:19] OK thank you.
[2:51:21] With the applicant.
[2:51:22] Like to add to that.
[2:51:24] Good evening again.
[2:51:25] My name is Chris Hernandez.
[2:51:27] I'm with River City consultants
and just available to answer
[2:51:30] any questions if there was any.
[2:51:32] And with that, is there any
council comments or questions.
[2:51:38] 
[2:51:41] If you'll go ahead and
have a seat and then
[2:51:43] we will open the public hearing.
[2:51:47] If anyone has any comment.
[2:51:50] Seeing none, we will
close the public hearing
[2:51:53] and return to council for
comments or questions.
[2:51:56] 
[2:51:59] Seeing none, I would
ask for a motion.
[2:52:02] I move to adopt ordinance number
5323, an ordinance rezoning
[2:52:06] approximately 19.83 acres
from light industrial I-1
[2:52:11] to residential low
five RL 5, located
[2:52:14] on lot two of the
monument vista subdivision
[2:52:17] at eight 6021 road on
final passage, in order.
[2:52:20] Final publication
in pamphlet form.
[2:52:23] We have a motion on the floor
from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
[2:52:26] Do we have a second.
[2:52:28] Second We have a second
from council member Nguyen.
[2:52:31] And so if you could
call the roll.
[2:52:34] Council Member van Dijk.
[2:52:36] Yes council member.
[2:52:38] Ballard yes.
[2:52:40] Council Member.
[2:52:41] Beilfuss yes.
[2:52:43] Council Member.
[2:52:44] Kennedy yes.
[2:52:46] Council Member.
[2:52:47] Nguyen yes.
[2:52:49] Council Member.
[2:52:50] Stoute yes.
[2:52:53] Mayor Lutz.
[2:52:54] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.
[2:52:59] And just a quick reminder,
council member beilfuss,
[2:53:03] if you can use your microphone.
[2:53:04] Because just when I'm
watching remote or not here,
[2:53:08] it's very hard to hear.
[2:53:09] So if you could do that.
[2:53:11] Thank you.
[2:53:12] OK next.
[2:53:15] Are we doing OK still.
[2:53:16] Everybody OK.
[2:53:18] We're going to
discuss an ordinance
[2:53:20] to vacate the Eastern
15 feet of 24.25 road
[2:53:24] public right of way
between Canyon view park
[2:53:26] and 2426 grams road.
[2:53:28] We have a staff presentation
from associate planner Sam
[2:53:34] wubbels.
[2:53:36] Did I say that correct.
[2:53:38] You did.
[2:53:38] Thank you.
[2:53:39] 
[2:53:43] Thank you.
[2:53:43] Mayor good evening.
[2:53:44] Members of the Council
and members of the public.
[2:53:47] As stated, my name
is Sam wubbels,
[2:53:48] associate planner
with the Community
[2:53:49] Development Department.
[2:53:51] This presentation regards a
request by 2426 grams road,
[2:53:55] LLC to vacate the Eastern
15 feet of the 24.25 road
[2:54:00] public right of way
between Canyon view park
[2:54:02] and 2426 grams road.
[2:54:05] The subject properties are
located along the Eastern 15,
[2:54:08] along 24.25 road and g road.
[2:54:11] The city and applicant
came to an agreement
[2:54:13] to perform a land exchange
in which the applicant,
[2:54:16] the applicant will receive the
Eastern 15 along 24.25 road,
[2:54:20] and the city will
receive right of way
[2:54:22] along g road, which supports
the circulation plan to where
[2:54:25] the road is brought
up to standards
[2:54:26] and provided a detached
sidewalk in the future.
[2:54:29] The site map in front of you
highlights the right of way that
[2:54:31] will be in the land exchange.
[2:54:34] The surrounding
properties are currently
[2:54:36] zoned P2, Rm 12 LHRH
24, mu2, and PD all
[2:54:41] lying within the
24 road corridor.
[2:54:43] Design standards.
[2:54:46] Pursuant to Section 21 two
0.50 pounds of the zoning
[2:54:50] and development code.
[2:54:51] Request for a vacation
of public right of way
[2:54:54] shall demonstrate conformance
with the following review
[2:54:56] criteria as identified on
this and following slides.
[2:54:59] Specific discussion
and detail regarding
[2:55:01] these individual review criteria
for the vacation request
[2:55:04] can be found and identified
within the staff report.
[2:55:08] Looking at review
criteria number one,
[2:55:10] the request does not conflict
with the comprehensive plan
[2:55:13] or the Grand Junction
circulation plan.
[2:55:15] Further, the vacation
request is consistent
[2:55:17] with the following
goals and policies
[2:55:19] of the comprehensive plan.
[2:55:20] Plan principle three responsible
and manage growth plan.
[2:55:23] Principle five
strong neighborhoods
[2:55:25] and housing choices.
[2:55:26] Policy one promote
more opportunities
[2:55:28] for housing choices that meets
the needs of people of all ages,
[2:55:31] abilities, and incomes.
[2:55:33] Policy two encourage infill
and redevelopment to leverage
[2:55:36] existing infrastructure.
[2:55:37] And lastly, policy four maintain
and build infrastructure that
[2:55:40] supports urban development.
[2:55:44] Looking at review
criteria number 2,
[2:55:46] the New subdivision will
have access from G road,
[2:55:48] with new streets
being constructed
[2:55:49] inside the subject property for
the subdivision development.
[2:55:52] The vacation will not
landlock any property.
[2:55:55] Review criteria
number three access
[2:55:57] will not be restricted
with required conditions.
[2:56:01] Additionally, because
the parcel does not
[2:56:02] rely on the unconstructed 24.25
road right of way for ingress
[2:56:06] or egress, the
proposed vacation will
[2:56:08] not reduce or
devalue the property
[2:56:10] or any adjacent properties.
[2:56:13] Review criteria number
four the proposed
[2:56:16] vacation will not negatively
affect public health, safety,
[2:56:19] or welfare.
[2:56:20] The right of way is unbuilt and
unused, and access via G road
[2:56:23] remains adequate for
emergency services.
[2:56:26] Review criteria number five.
[2:56:28] The vacation will not impact
public facilities or services.
[2:56:31] A private irrigation line
that conveys wastewater
[2:56:33] for the subject property
is located within the right
[2:56:36] of way area proposed for
vacation, because this line
[2:56:39] serves only the subject parcel.
[2:56:41] This function will not be
impaired by the vacation
[2:56:43] and will remain
the responsibility
[2:56:44] of the property owner.
[2:56:47] Lastly, review
criteria number six.
[2:56:50] The proposed vacation will not
hinder public or city functions.
[2:56:53] The city the right of way,
has not been constructed
[2:56:55] and is not utilized.
[2:56:57] Upon vacation, the property will
revert to private ownership.
[2:57:01] The proposed vacation is part of
a land exchange between the city
[2:57:04] and the applicant.
[2:57:05] Through this exchange,
the applicant
[2:57:06] will acquire the
vacated right of way
[2:57:08] and the city will obtain
additional right of way
[2:57:10] along g road.
[2:57:11] The acquisition of right
of way along g road
[2:57:12] supports the city's
transportation network and
[2:57:14] public infrastructure needs.
[2:57:17] After reviewing the 2426 grams
road public right of way,
[2:57:20] vacation file
number vac 2025 202.
[2:57:25] Located between Canyon
view park and 2426 grams
[2:57:27] road, the following
findings of fact,
[2:57:29] have been made with
the recommendation
[2:57:31] with the recommended
condition of approval
[2:57:33] that can be seen on the screen.
[2:57:35] The request with the
following conditions,
[2:57:37] conforms with section 21 two
0.50 pounds of the zoning
[2:57:40] and development code.
[2:57:42] Therefore, staff recommends
approval and the planning
[2:57:44] commission at the
April 28 hearing
[2:57:46] recommends approval
with a 7 0 vote.
[2:57:48] Other requested right of way.
[2:57:50] This concludes my presentation.
[2:57:51] I'm happy to answer
any questions.
[2:57:53] Thank you.
[2:57:54] Is there any questions now.
[2:57:57] Is the applicant here all
right Yes it's me again.
[2:58:03] Hello Chris Hernandez.
[2:58:04] Welcome back River
City consultants.
[2:58:06] Yeah just available
for any questions OK.
[2:58:09] Great are there any
council comments
[2:58:11] or questions at this time.
[2:58:12] 
[2:58:15] OK thank you so much.
[2:58:17] Thank you.
[2:58:17] Have a seat.
[2:58:18] We will go ahead and
open the public hearing
[2:58:20] if anyone has comments.
[2:58:23] OK, I'm seeing no one.
[2:58:26] So we will close
the public hearing
[2:58:28] and return to council for
any additional comments
[2:58:31] or questions.
[2:58:34] Hearing none, I would
ask for a motion.
[2:58:38] I move to adopt
ordinance number 5324,
[2:58:41] an ordinance vacating the
Eastern 15 feet of 24.25 road
[2:58:45] public right of
way between Canyon
[2:58:47] view park and 2426 grams
road on final passage,
[2:58:51] in order of final
publication in pamphlet form.
[2:58:53] We have a motion on the floor
from council member Nguyen.
[2:58:56] Do we have a second.
[2:58:57] Second We have a
second from council
[2:58:59] member Kennedy and celestina.
[2:59:02] If you could call roll.
[2:59:05] Council Member.
[2:59:05] Ballard yes.
[2:59:08] Council Member.
[2:59:09] Yes council member.
[2:59:12] Kennedy yes.
[2:59:14] Council Member.
[2:59:14] Nguyen yes.
[2:59:16] Council Member.
[2:59:17] Stoute yes.
[2:59:19] Council Member Van Dyke.
[2:59:21] Yes mayor.
[2:59:22] Lutz yes.
[2:59:23] The motion passes 7 to 0, and
we will now move to number 6
[2:59:29] on our agenda procurements.
[2:59:33] And this is to
authorize a contract
[2:59:35] for water treatment plant South
tank, interior road recoding.
[2:59:40] And we have a staff presentation
from interim utilities
[2:59:43] director Ashley ferl who
waited all night to present.
[2:59:48] So thank you.
[2:59:48] 
[2:59:54] Thank you for having me.
[2:59:57] Good evening.
[2:59:58] Council I'm Ashley Farrell, I'm
the interim utilities director.
[3:00:16] And this is a presentation
regarding the contract
[3:00:21] to award the interior
recoding for the city's
[3:00:25] water treatment plant,
South water storage tank.
[3:00:29] 
[3:00:38] So this is a partial diagram
of the water treatment process.
[3:00:45] Two four million
gallon tanks store
[3:00:47] treated water that
is distributed
[3:00:50] to the system and the
community, but they are also
[3:00:55] part of the treatment
process because they allow
[3:00:58] for the contact
time or residence
[3:01:00] time necessary to ensure
adequate disinfection
[3:01:04] per regulations.
[3:01:06] So water demand can
quadruple in the summer,
[3:01:10] requiring that both
tanks stay online
[3:01:12] and operate in sequence so that
contact time is maintained,
[3:01:17] unlike cure in
place pipe projects
[3:01:21] where environmental
conditions like temperature,
[3:01:24] humidity, and
precipitation can be more
[3:01:27] easily controlled underground.
[3:01:29] A large coating project
like this on a steel tank
[3:01:32] is a much more
intensive process.
[3:01:35] The existing coating has to be
stripped from every surface,
[3:01:39] and then the raw steel
has to be prepped
[3:01:42] for a primer coat, which can
involve spot repairs, welding
[3:01:46] and rust removal.
[3:01:48] The primer coat and
all subsequent coats
[3:01:51] should be allowed to cure in
moderate ambient temperatures
[3:01:54] and normal humidity, ideally
without large fluctuations in
[3:01:59] temperature whenever possible.
[3:02:01] So, since the steel tank is
so large, 170 in diameter,
[3:02:06] 25 feet tall in the
walls, it's really not
[3:02:10] feasible to heat the interior
of the tank during this project
[3:02:14] if we were to hit really
bad weather conditions.
[3:02:17] 
[3:02:20] So the storage tank rule is
a state regulation, initially
[3:02:25] enacted in 2016 and updated
in 2021 with policies
[3:02:30] to clarify certain aspects,
including what constitutes
[3:02:34] a sanitary defect and requiring
certain qualifications
[3:02:38] for personnel that perform
certain inspection methods,
[3:02:42] including diving
into tanks, which
[3:02:45] is how our tanks are inspected.
[3:02:48] They're required to be performed
by these skilled set of divers
[3:02:53] that are experienced very
specifically with this kind
[3:02:56] of work to do these inspections,
these guys are completely
[3:03:00] disinfected before
they enter our tanks,
[3:03:02] and we're able to have video
and photographs taken of all
[3:03:06] the interior surfaces without
having to take the tank offline,
[3:03:10] which is a really advantageous.
[3:03:14] As you can see, there's some
photos here from the inspection
[3:03:17] where we identified this
peeling on the ceiling
[3:03:23] and on the interior posts as
critical sanitary defects.
[3:03:28] So once those are identified
as critical defects,
[3:03:33] the storage tank rule requires
that we should establish
[3:03:38] a corrective action
plan to address
[3:03:41] them in the South water tank.
[3:03:43] 
[3:03:46] We needed to address those
pretty much immediately.
[3:03:50] And we're making an
attempt to do that.
[3:03:54] We wanted to do that
last year, but this year
[3:03:58] is the best that we can do.
[3:04:00] So that's what the
regulation requires us to do.
[3:04:03] 
[3:04:08] So the project timeline.
[3:04:12] We identified these critical
defects in fall of 2024,
[3:04:18] and then in the first
quarter of this year,
[3:04:21] we specified the project
scope with the work
[3:04:25] breakdown and the coding type.
[3:04:28] The IFB invitation for
bids closed on March 4,
[3:04:33] and after that date, the
contractors guarantee
[3:04:37] their prices for 60 days.
[3:04:41] Now, in the second
quarter of 2026,
[3:04:45] we have asked for an extended
guarantee one time 30 days
[3:04:51] from the contractor that we
intended to award the bid to
[3:04:58] or rather had the
lowest price on the IFB
[3:05:04] per procurement
policies, the city
[3:05:07] performed additional
due diligence,
[3:05:10] including checking
references and checking
[3:05:14] contractual requirements.
[3:05:17] And doing some research
on how we could
[3:05:20] include those into
the final contract.
[3:05:25] So due to the constraints of
our corrective action plan
[3:05:31] and the weather and demand
in the summertime needing
[3:05:36] to keep those tanks
online, we really have
[3:05:39] to take those tanks offline.
[3:05:41] The day after
Labor Day, mobilize
[3:05:43] the contractor immediately.
[3:05:45] They have approximately 94
days to complete that project,
[3:05:51] and then we can close the
corrective action plan
[3:05:56] and call the tanks
sanitary defect free.
[3:06:01] Finally funding for this project
is included in the 2026 water
[3:06:10] enterprise fund
adopted budget already,
[3:06:15] and that is a picture
of the empty water
[3:06:17] tank, which is actually
really cool to be inside of.
[3:06:21] It's very large.
[3:06:23] If now I will see any questions.
[3:06:26] Thank you.
[3:06:27] Thank you very much.
[3:06:29] So with that, we'll
return to council
[3:06:31] for comments or questions.
[3:06:32] Council Member Kennedy go ahead.
[3:06:34] Thank you.
[3:06:34] Thank you Ashley.
[3:06:35] Thank you for that presentation.
[3:06:37] And my sincere
appreciation to staff
[3:06:39] for doing the extra due
diligence that we asked for.
[3:06:42] And it's more than satisfies
all my concerns and I
[3:06:45] and there was a lot of
additional information
[3:06:48] in the packet.
[3:06:48] And I thank you for doing that.
[3:06:50] And I didn't mean to make
to add the extra work.
[3:06:54] I know you're already
very busy, so thank you.
[3:06:56] I also just as a side note, I
mean, again, very supportive
[3:07:01] of the staff recommendation.
[3:07:02] No hesitation on
supporting that tonight.
[3:07:05] But just going forward, I think
for the sake of that in the best
[3:07:09] interest of the city,
part of the way council
[3:07:11] makes that decision.
[3:07:13] Just for the broader discussion
with council at some point,
[3:07:16] I do like the idea of a
local preference policy.
[3:07:20] And I know that's
not in place now
[3:07:21] and that's not what
we're talking about here.
[3:07:23] But I do see that
as being preferable.
[3:07:27] But just to keep money
in the local market
[3:07:30] and employing local people
every chance that we can.
[3:07:35] That said, you
certainly satisfied
[3:07:37] the due diligence here.
[3:07:38] Thank you for that.
[3:07:40] Any other questions or comments.
[3:07:46] OK hearing none let's see.
[3:07:50] We will open OK.
[3:07:52] So we are not going to
have comment on this
[3:07:54] because it is not a hearing.
[3:07:58] We will go ahead and
ask for a motion.
[3:08:02] I moved to authorize the city
purchasing division to enter
[3:08:05] into a contract with mandros
painting incorporated of Rock
[3:08:08] Springs, Wyoming
for the WT South
[3:08:11] tank interior recording project
in the amount of $821,300.
[3:08:19] OK, we have a motion on the
floor from council member win.
[3:08:21] Do we have a second.
[3:08:22] Second We have a second
from council member Kennedy.
[3:08:27] And we do not need to do
roll call for this one.
[3:08:31] We do.
[3:08:31] Oh, OK.
[3:08:33] So all in favor.
[3:08:35] Hi Any opposed.
[3:08:41] The motion passes 7 to 0.
[3:08:45] And we will now move to
non-scheduled comments.
[3:08:49] This is an opportunity
for individuals
[3:08:51] to speak to city council about
items on tonight's agenda.
[3:08:54] And time may be
used to address city
[3:08:55] council items that were
discussed at a previous city
[3:08:58] council workshop.
[3:08:59] Do we have anyone that has
a non-scheduled comment.
[3:09:04] OK hearing none, we would
move to other business.
[3:09:07] Does anyone have other business.
[3:09:09] Yeah I just have
one quick thing.
[3:09:11] I want to extend a
very sincere thank you
[3:09:15] to Councilman beilfuss, who
reached out to me today and was
[3:09:19] generous enough to let me take
the lead with the business
[3:09:23] incubator role as
well as the Riverview
[3:09:26] Technology Corporation.
[3:09:28] And just I truly
do appreciate that.
[3:09:30] And Scott's going to stay on
as a backup on it as well.
[3:09:35] So we'll be working together
with the BIC and Riverview tech.
[3:09:38] So thank you very much Scott.
[3:09:40] I do truly appreciate it.
[3:09:43] Thank you.
[3:09:44] Any other business.
[3:09:48] Is it bedtime.
[3:09:50] I think so.
[3:09:51] OK with that, we are adjourned.
[3:09:53] 
[3:09:56] Oh, yeah.
[3:09:58]