Connect with City Council

My question is regarding the annexation & rezoning of the 5.58 parcel of land near 29 & B1/2 roads, I believe named Montano Vista. We are neighbors in the community surrounding this acreage and were shocked to learn of the MU-1 high density housing, possibly even commercial rezoning effort of this property. 1st if commercial, there is no direct access to it from the main roads except to commute through the neighborhoods to get to it. 2nd is the other possible proposed plan to place 38 homes on this 5.58 acres of ground instead of using the RL-4 zoning like all the rest of the community homes are around it. We believe that would look very crowded & not attractive at all compared to the rest of the neighborhood if allowed to proceed & not look well planned either.
I have read the GJ city's Comprehensive Plan and both of these are very inconsistent with that Plan. The neighborhood is not opposed to home developement here but can we just ask that you please consider the RL-4 zoning be applied to this parcel instead? Thank you for your time.

Proposed MU-1 zoning on parcel off 29 road and Uniweep.

I want to address how the city is handling zoning and annexation. Too often, decisions are made without meaningful consideration of the neighborhoods and residents most affected. Even when many citizens attend meetings and raise valid concerns, those concerns rarely seem to influence the planning commission or city council. That process is deeply frustrating.
Specifically, a 5.5-acre parcel is being considered for rezoning to MU-1 even though it is completely surrounded by RL-4 housing. That is inconsistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, which says development should be similar to the surrounding area. The MU-1 designation added for this parcel in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan appears arbitrary and does not fit the existing neighborhood.
Residents of the neighboring communities met with a planning department representative and the developer's team, but this neighborhood meeting was not productive. It began with inaccurate statements, offered little opportunity for residents to speak, and gave no real consideration to the concerns that were raised. The meeting notes later filed with the clerk's office were also inaccurate. Most troubling, residents were told not to speak with city council members because it could affect the council’s ability to vote. That was both confusing and discouraging.
I am asking the city to apply RL-4 zoning to this parcel when it is annexed, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and with Mesa County's current R4 zoning. That approach would support development that fits the area, as the Comprehensive Plan calls for, and would reduce added strain on roads and traffic. It would also better protect nearby property values. Residents are simply asking to be heard and for those concerns to be taken seriously.

Removed by moderator.

I am writing to express serious concerns about the city’s annexation and rezoning process. While I appreciate the need to plan for responsible growth, residents in my community have repeatedly tried, without success, to have our concerns heard about a proposed MU-1 high-density development, potentially including commercial use, on a 5.5-acre parcel that is accessible only through a single entry point within adjacent RL-4 neighborhoods.

The required neighborhood meeting did not serve its intended purpose and failed to provide a fair, transparent, or accurate opportunity for public input. Residents raised several serious concerns, including inaccurate statements that the proposed development was consistent with surrounding zoning. The planning department representative also discouraged residents from contacting city council members, stating that doing so could require those members to recuse themselves from voting.

Can residents only raise concerns at the end of the process during the city council vote? And even then, public comment is limited to three minutes. In contrast, developers and builders may speak with planning commission staff without those meetings being documented, and they are given unrestricted time to present at council meetings. In addition, a builder serves on the planning commission. How is this a fair and transparent process?

Our neighborhood has legitimate concerns about the new development putting increased pressure on the traffic and infrastructure, adding public safety hazards, and is completely out of character with the adjacent communities. Additionally, the meeting notes were woefully inaccurate and did not include all of the concerns raised at the meeting.

Finally, the property being developed was once part of the 29 Road corridor when the 2020 Comprehensive Plan was developed, but the property was recently split severing the 29 Road access. Mixed-use zoning is intended to place housing near employment centers, transit, and services to reduce infrastructure strain—conditions that this parcel does not meet.

This is not about opposing growth. Our residents simply want thoughtful development and a fair, equitable process in which our voices are genuinely heard. We have a petition of nearly 200 signatures opposed to the MU-1 zoning change and have asked both the developer and the City Clerk to make this public record, but even that has not been achieved.