[0:00] 
[1:40] What will you tell her.
[1:42] Yeah I'm ready.
[1:55] Are you ready, Thomas.
[1:57] We are ready.
[1:57] 
[2:00] What is the date today.
[2:03] 25th 25th.
[2:05] 25th somehow I thought
it was the 24th.
[2:07] 25th all right.
[2:09] We'll call this
meeting to order.
[2:11] Welcome to the August 25,
2026 city of Grand Junction
[2:15] planning commission meeting.
[2:16] A couple of housekeeping
items before we begin.
[2:20] Agendas are available on
your way into the auditorium.
[2:22] And please turn off or silence
your cell phones in order
[2:25] to promote a civil discussion
and honor the right to differing
[2:28] opinions, members
of the audience
[2:30] are asked to refrain from
exhibiting expressions
[2:32] of support or opposition,
such as cheering
[2:35] and yelling, at any
point during the meeting.
[2:38] Please note members
of the public,
[2:39] as well as applicants
or commissioners,
[2:41] may be joining us via
the web this evening.
[2:43] We ask for your patience as we
utilize this hybrid system that
[2:46] helps ensure that all want to
participate in this hearing
[2:49] are able.
[2:51] Our first order of
business tonight
[2:54] is to review the consent agenda.
[2:55] Items on the consent
agenda are items
[2:57] perceived to be
non-controversial in nature
[3:00] and meet all requirements of
the codes and regulations,
[3:03] and/or the applicant
has acknowledged
[3:05] agreement with the
recommended conditions.
[3:07] The consent agenda will be
acted upon in one motion,
[3:10] unless the applicant member of
the public planning commissioner
[3:13] or staff requests that
the item be removed
[3:15] from the consent agenda.
[3:16] Items removed from
the consent agenda
[3:18] will be reviewed as part
of the regular agenda.
[3:21] Consent agenda items must
be removed from the consent
[3:23] agenda for a full hearing to be
eligible for appeal or hearing.
[3:27] Is there a request
from the commission
[3:28] to remove our single item
from the consent agenda.
[3:33] Is there anyone else
interested in removing
[3:36] item from the consent agenda.
[3:38] All right.
[3:39] With that, is there a motion
to approve the consent agenda.
[3:42] So moved.
[3:43] I'll second.
[3:43] All right.
[3:44] All in favor.
[3:45] Aye Any opposed.
[3:47] All right.
[3:48] The consent agenda passes.
[3:50] Do we have 7, 7 to 0.
[3:53] Public hearings are conducted
pursuant to the laws
[3:56] of the state of Colorado,
the city of Grand Junction
[3:59] and the regulations duly
adopted by the planning
[4:01] commission of the city.
[4:03] The purpose of this hearing
is to receive information
[4:05] and testimony by all
interested parties,
[4:08] to enable this planning
commission to make
[4:09] appropriate findings and
reach the conclusions
[4:11] required to be made by law.
[4:14] Both a written and
video recording
[4:15] are made of these proceedings.
[4:17] Those who desire to
be heard must identify
[4:19] themselves by their full name.
[4:21] The order of this hearing
will be as follows.
[4:23] An examination of
the application
[4:25] and a determination concerning
the adequacy of notification.
[4:29] A presentation, description
and analysis of the application
[4:32] by staff.
[4:33] An opportunity for the applicant
to present evidence and argument
[4:36] concerning the
applicant's position,
[4:39] and all other interested parties
may address the commission.
[4:42] Public comment will
be limited to three
[4:43] minutes for each speaker.
[4:45] The planning commission
may ask questions of staff,
[4:49] the applicant or members of the
public after each presentation,
[4:53] public comment section of
the hearing may be closed.
[4:55] After all public comment
has been received,
[4:57] the applicant will be given
an opportunity to respond
[4:59] or rebuttal if desired.
[5:01] Staff may, may respond
to any statement made by
[5:04] the applicant, the
public or the commission.
[5:06] The chair will close
the public hearing.
[5:08] No further evidence
will be accepted.
[5:10] The evidentiary portion may be
reopened only by a majority vote
[5:14] of the planning commission.
[5:15] After the closure of
the public hearing,
[5:17] the planning
commission will begin
[5:18] its deliberation, which will end
with the passage of a motion.
[5:22] So the first item on
the agenda this evening
[5:25] is to consider requests
by Martin Mendoza
[5:27] to vacate a portion of
inland Avenue public right
[5:31] of way, that is,
the outlying areas
[5:34] of a cul-de-sac that about
567 Southwest gate drive
[5:41] and 569 Southwest gate drive.
[5:44] The vacation shall be
conditioned on the city of Grand
[5:46] Junction, retaining a 14
foot multi-purpose easement
[5:51] in each portion
of the cul-de-sac
[5:53] along the remaining inland
Avenue right of way.
[5:57] Staff, are you ready
to proceed on this Yes
[6:01] And is the applicant present.
[6:03] And would you identify
yourself, please.
[6:05] And are you ready to proceed.
[6:07] Yes Thank you.
[6:13] And before we begin,
was the required
[6:15] public notice given on this.
[6:17] Yes pursuant to the city's
noticing requirements.
[6:21] Yes thank you.
[6:23] With that, we can proceed.
[6:24] Could you please introduce
the exhibits for the record.
[6:28] Absolutely let me grab them.
[6:44] That's OK.
[6:45] 
[7:03] So for the exhibits,
we have exhibit one,
[7:05] which will be the staff report.
[7:07] We then have exhibit
two which will
[7:09] be the development application.
[7:11] Exhibit 3 is the
neighborhood meeting notes.
[7:15] Exhibit 4 being the
right of way exhibits,
[7:17] and exhibit 5 being the
draft zoning ordinance.
[7:21] Thank you.
[7:22] And are there any additional
exhibits that were not
[7:24] included in the staff report.
[7:27] No perfect.
[7:29] You may proceed.
[7:30] 
[7:34] Good evening.
[7:35] Commissioners My
name is Lily Sutton.
[7:36] I'm a new senior
planner with the city.
[7:39] So this is my official first
presentation for y'all.
[7:42] Tonight's case is regarding the
Southwest gate of way vacation.
[7:47] So this is.
[7:49] The request is to vacate two
existing portions of previously
[7:53] dedicated right of way, totaling
approximately 2200ft They are
[8:00] the outlying areas
of a cul-de-sac
[8:03] that was never
developed, as inland
[8:06] Avenue is a through street.
[8:09] And as you can see
on the site map,
[8:10] these are the two
areas to be vacated.
[8:15] One is on the 567 parcel to
the South of inland Avenue,
[8:20] and the other is located
to the North of inland
[8:23] and is located on 569.
[8:29] The current zoning of the
property is commercial general.
[8:34] The applicant has also
put in an application
[8:37] and is going through
the review process
[8:39] for both a minor subdivision
for the 565 property,
[8:45] as well as the 567 property
both to the South of inland
[8:50] for a future vehicle and
equipment storage and warehouse
[8:58] for the owner's current
existing business,
[9:02] and to expand on these two lots.
[9:04] And there is also a
separate application
[9:06] for a minor subdivision to
combine these two lots together.
[9:12] The comprehensive plan
calls out the future land
[9:15] use as industrial.
[9:16] Both the zoning and
the future land use
[9:19] are compatible with the vehicle
and equipment use storage use
[9:24] that the applicant is proposing
in the future, but just not 100%
[9:29] relevant to the right of
way, but in the future.
[9:31] This is an allowed use by right.
[9:36] And for this is to show this
is one of the submittals that
[9:40] was submitted with the
site plan that is currently
[9:43] being reviewed by staff.
[9:45] It's just showing the
road alignment for inland
[9:48] and that it is in
fact a through street.
[9:51] And that cul-de-sac
and turnaround is no
[9:53] longer necessary for this area.
[9:58] And so for the
analysis, it is in line
[10:03] with the comprehensive plan,
both in the future land use
[10:06] and with the overall
circulation plan for the city.
[10:09] The access is not changed
considering that the Inland
[10:14] Avenue is already developed as
is, so there are no large scale
[10:21] changes other than the applicant
being able to use both this site
[10:26] and potentially if in for
future development of the 569
[10:30] site to the North
could just be developed
[10:32] to their full potential.
[10:34] 
[10:36] And based on the
finding of fact, the.
[10:43] After reviewing the request
to vacate approximately 2236ft
[10:48] of public right of way
along inland Avenue,
[10:52] but with the condition that
a 14 foot multi-purpose
[10:59] easement is granted
along the remaining
[11:02] portions of inland Avenue.
[11:04] Based on the submittals
that they have given
[11:07] the city for the site plan and
the subdivision in the future,
[11:10] they are both showing that 14
foot multipurpose easement.
[11:14] So staff is finding all of
these requirements to be met.
[11:19] And with that, I will open
it up to any questions
[11:23] that you all might have for
either me or the applicant.
[11:26] Are there any questions
for staff at this time.
[11:28] I have one.
[11:29] Go ahead.
[11:30] Yes Lynn, first off, welcome.
[11:32] Glad to have you here.
[11:35] In regards to the 569 West
gate address, which is
[11:39] also affected by this vacation.
[11:43] They have asked, does this
have any effect to them.
[11:46] And for the record, I'd like
to just ask that question
[11:49] and have it answered, please.
[11:50] Yeah, absolutely.
[11:51] That's a great question.
[11:52] The effect that this will
have on the 5, 6, 9 property
[11:57] is that it removes
that dedicated right
[12:01] of way which is on their lot.
[12:04] So really the only impact
is that if they want
[12:07] to develop in the
future, that space is no
[12:10] longer considered right of way.
[12:12] And they are able to
use that site to its max
[12:15] layout and Max potential.
[12:16] So there is an impact, but
it's a net positive impact.
[12:20] Thank you.
[12:21] Thank you.
[12:23] Go ahead.
[12:24] Just piggybacking on that.
[12:26] Has there been communication
with those property owners
[12:30] to the North.
[12:31] I have not had
direct communication,
[12:33] but I will turn that
over to Kim Kirk.
[12:35] If there's been
any communications
[12:37] with that property owner to
the North, there has not.
[12:41] Yeah if you could, we'll
just turn it over to you.
[12:44] At this time, I
was going to say,
[12:45] do you have a
presentation for us.
[12:47] And then also could just
answer that question.
[12:52] Not so.
[12:54] Good evening,
commissioners and staff.
[12:57] Kim Kirk, Kim Kirkland
consulting and development.
[13:00] So I'm the representative for
the owner, Martin Mendoza.
[13:06] So this I'm going to
back up and give you
[13:09] just a little bit of history.
[13:10] So this project started
out with Mr. Mendoza,
[13:15] went in to apply
for a fence permit.
[13:18] And he owns these two
lots at 565 and 567.
[13:21] So it came about that
if he wanted to not
[13:25] have to put fence
through the middle,
[13:26] he could combine the lots.
[13:28] So long story short, it ended
up doing a minor subdivision,
[13:33] a site plan review.
[13:34] 
[13:37] And Lily's like
the fourth planner,
[13:40] so she probably wouldn't even
know all of that information.
[13:45] So we got through
the subdivision,
[13:47] we were getting through
all the processes,
[13:49] and then we were
notified by the planner.
[13:51] Previous planner that we had
to vacate that right of way.
[13:56] And they.
[13:57] So it was mandated to us to
vacate that right of way.
[14:00] I asked the question, how
do we vacate something
[14:02] off of someone else's property.
[14:04] And they said,
that's not necessary
[14:05] because it's city right of way.
[14:07] So I didn't contact
the neighbors.
[14:11] That's the long answer.
[14:13] 
[14:18] Thank you for that explanation.
[14:20] Appreciate it.
[14:20] Yes and then I have just
a little tiny bit more
[14:24] to add on these two properties,
there are no plans for any type
[14:31] of warehouse or construction.
[14:33] This is for a landscaping
company owner that wants to park
[14:38] his equipment there at night.
[14:41] So the big.
[14:42] He'll come in the morning,
get over whatever equipment
[14:45] he might need, take it out
for the day and return it.
[14:48] So there's not any development
planned on these two lots
[14:51] at all.
[14:52] 
[14:55] Are there any other questions
for staff or applicant.
[14:59] Just a small one.
[15:01] It you mentioned the 14
foot multipurpose easement.
[15:05] There seems to be on the exhibit
for the right of way exhibit.
[15:10] There's a.
[15:13] It shows a 15 foot
utility easement.
[15:15] Are those also remaining
and is that should
[15:21] those be different sizes.
[15:25] Or dimensions to the
best of my knowledge,
[15:27] the 14 foot multipurpose
easement is called out
[15:30] separately on the subdivision.
[15:33] I'm not entirely sure what
the difference between the 15
[15:38] foot utility easement
and the multi-purpose.
[15:41] I can just confirm that the
condition is met for the 14 foot
[15:45] so far on what has
been submitted.
[15:47] Are there any other questions.
[15:56] 
[15:59] Madam Chair, if I may.
[16:00] Who said that.
[16:01] Oh, that's James Beard
assistant city attorney.
[16:05] I would just like to
clarify some for the record.
[16:08] Our right of way
isn't on their lots.
[16:10] It's the city's right of way.
[16:12] They have just been utilizing
it because it's never been built
[16:15] to look like it is roadway.
[16:17] And so they've been treating
it as if it's their lots.
[16:20] And so basically by going
ahead and vacating the roadway,
[16:25] we're giving them what
they believe or would
[16:28] appear to already be their lot.
[16:31] Technically it could
change something
[16:33] a little bit for both lots and
that now they would be looked
[16:37] at as those really
are fully their lots,
[16:40] all that area included
within their lots.
[16:43] It may change their
tax assessment.
[16:45] I can't expect that
it's going to be a lot,
[16:48] but arguably that now
will be their land
[16:52] to be considered
as all of theirs
[16:54] and not considered as road
right away any longer.
[16:58] And so we're really giving them
what they think they've got.
[17:01] But at the same time it is city
road right of way to vacate
[17:06] if the city chooses to do so.
[17:08] We don't have to have permission
of the property owner to do it.
[17:13] We have yet to have
a property owner
[17:14] though complain that we did it.
[17:16] So I just wanted to clarify.
[17:18] I think there were two times
it was mentioned that it was
[17:20] their lots and it's
not their lots,
[17:22] it's the city road right of way.
[17:25] Thank you.
[17:26] Yes thank you.
[17:27] And I was just going to say,
just to echo Jamie's point,
[17:29] this is really like a clean
it up kind of exercise.
[17:33] When we do see
something like this,
[17:35] like in what MS Kirk said
with the fence permit.
[17:38] We tried to clean up the
record in these types of things
[17:45] and with this case a
paper plat of right of way
[17:50] that is never actually
been used as such.
[17:54] As plans change with streets
and things like that,
[17:57] we run into these sometimes.
[18:00] So to clean it up, exercise.
[18:05] Thank you.
[18:05] Are there any other questions.
[18:08] So at this time, we'll
open the hearing up.
[18:10] Thank you, MS Kirk,
for public comment.
[18:13] Seeing no one in the audience.
[18:14] Do we have anybody online.
[18:17] We do not.
[18:18] All right.
[18:19] Seeing no public and having
no public online to comment,
[18:23] I will close the public comment
hearing the public comment
[18:27] portion of the hearing.
[18:28] 
[18:31] Our let's see.
[18:33] And we don't need any additional
comments to the public.
[18:37] Comments we didn't get.
[18:40] Sorry trying to go
through the meeting notes.
[18:43] That's OK.
[18:44] I thought I was going to
ask you who was up at bat.
[18:48] All right.
[18:48] Are there any additional
questions for staff or applicant
[18:51] at this time before I close
this item for public hearing.
[18:55] All right.
[18:56] We will close the public
hearing and turn to the planning
[18:58] commission for
additional discussion,
[18:59] deliberation or a motion.
[19:03] Motion you better just close
your laptop down there.
[19:08] I'll just make the comment
that I did go out and look
[19:11] at this property and
met the people at 569,
[19:16] and they did have some
concerns about what this meant.
[19:20] They had gotten a postcard that
they didn't exactly understand.
[19:24] There was no posting or
anything out there at the time.
[19:28] And so there was some
confusion, but we talked it out
[19:31] and they feel a lot
better about it.
[19:33] But they did want
it on the record
[19:35] that this was not going to
affect their property adversely.
[19:39] And so they're all fine with it.
[19:40] And having looked at it,
it is a clean up exercise
[19:44] and make perfect sense to me.
[19:46] 
[19:48] And with that, I'd
like to make a motion.
[19:51] Go ahead.
[19:51] 
[19:54] Madam Chair.
[19:56] On the Inland Avenue
public right of way.
[19:57] Vacation located between 5,
6, 7 Southwest gate drive
[20:01] and 569 Southwest gate drive.
[20:04] I move that the planning
commission, for recommendation
[20:06] of approval to city
council of the findings
[20:09] of fact and conditions as
listed in the staff report.
[20:11] Second, there's a motion.
[20:14] And second, are there any
additional discussion.
[20:17] All right.
[20:17] All in favor, say Aye.
[20:18] Aye Any opposed.
[20:21] The motion passes 7 to 0.
[20:23] 
[20:27] Is there any other business to
be brought before the planning
[20:29] commission this evening.
[20:31] 
[20:35] All right.
[20:35] Do we have a motion to adjourn.
[20:37] So moved.
[20:38] Second All in favor.
[20:41] Aye we are adjourned.
[20:45]