RESOLUTION NO. 91-96

ADOPTING THE GROWTH PLAN

CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO

RECITALS:

The City of Grand Junction and Mesa County Planning Commissions and planning staffs have diligently worked jointly and cooperatively in a planning process to prepare a growth plan for the urban area of the Grand Valley. After twenty months of extensive public involvement and deliberation, the City/County Growth Plan Steering Committee unanimously recommended adoption of a plan for future growth in the area between 19 and 33 Roads. This area includes Grand Junction, as well as the Redlands, Clifton, southern Appleton, Fruitvale, and Orchard Mesa areas. The action followed a series of four well-attended public workshops held throughout the community.

The plan does the following:

1. protects valued community assets (such as neighborhoods, parks, open space, the river);

2. establishes an urban growth boundary;

3. recommends more efficient growth patterns within the growth boundary;

4. reserves land for future urban development;

5. respects individual property rights; and

6. builds a foundation for City/County cooperation on growth issues.

The plan is a guide to public and private growth decisions through the year 2010. It is a statement of the community’s vision for its own future and a road map providing direction to achieve that vision. The view of the future expressed in the Growth Plan is shaped by community values, ideals and aspirations about the best management of the community’s resources.

In addition to defining the community’s view of its future, the Growth Plan describes the actions the community can take to achieve the desired future. The Plan uses text and diagrams to establish policies and programs the City may use to address the many physical, economic and social issues facing the community. The Plan is thus a tool for managing community change to achieve the desired quality of life.

The City Planning Commission is charged with the duty to prepare and adopt master plans for the City of Grand Junction and adopted the proposed Growth Plan, jointly with the Mesa County Planning Commission, on August 8, 1996.

The City Council finds that the proposed Growth Plan is an important tool for implementing the community’s vision for future growth.

 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION:

 That the Growth Plan, City of Grand Junction, Colorado, as adopted jointly by the City of Grand Junction Planning Commission and the Mesa County Planning Commission on August 8, 1996, is hereby adopted.

 PASSED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 1996.

           /s/ Linda Afman      

           President of the City Council

ATTEST:

/s/ Stephanie Nye      

City Clerk

GROWTH PLAN

CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO

 SUBMITTED BY:

 Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle

1000 Plaza West 4600 Madison Kansas City, MO 64112-3012 (816) 561-4414 FAX (816) 561-7931

 Strategic Community Solutions

 990 Easton Place Dallas, Texas 75218 (214) 320-1154 FAX (214) 320-0549

 ADOPTED

 OCTOBER 2, 1996

CREDITS

Mayor

Linda Afman

City Council

James R. Baughman, District B

Reford Theobold, District C

David Graham, District D

Ron Maupin, District E

R.T. Mantlo, At Large

Janet L. Terry, At Large

Planning Commission

Jeff Driscoll

Ron Halsey

John Elmer

Thomas Whitaker

Paul F. Coleman

Bob Withers

Jeffrey P. Vogel

Steering Committee

Angeline Barrett, City at Large

Frank Simonetti, Jr., Northern Downtown

Brenn Luff, North Area (City)

Chuck Locke, East Area (City)

Harry Talbott, East Area (Outside City)

Penny Heuscher, Orchard Mesa

Connis Watts, Redlands (City)

Bob Scheevel, Redlands (Outside City)

Priscilla Studt, Agricultural/Ranching (Outside City)

Quentin Jones, Arts/Cultural (City)

Doris Butler, Sierra Club

Dan Whalen, Grand Valley Air Quality Planning Committee

Mary Locke, Mesa County Civic Forum

Tim Wollin, Chamber of Commerce

Dan Garrison, Homebuilders Association

Dale Beede, Board of Realtors

Kenneth Tomlon, Major Employer (St. Mary's Hospital)

Carolyn Bruce (Alternate)

Pat Gormley, Downtown Development Authority

Glen Dennis (Alternate)

Lou Grasso, School District #51

Donna Garlitz, Mesa County Special District Association

Ray Kieft, Mesa State College

Don Campbell, Mesa County

Kirk Rider, Mesa County Economic Development Council

John Elmer, City Planning Commission

City Manager

Mark Achen

City Staff

David Varley, Assistant City Manager

Dan Wilson, City Attorney

Larry Timm, former Community Development Director

Jim Shanks, Public Works Director

Joe Stevens, Parks and Recreation Director

Ron Lappi, Administrative Services Director

Rick Beatty, Fire Chief

Darold Sloan, Police Chief

Debbie Kovalik, Visitor and Convention Bureau Director

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  i

Initial Assessment  i

Public Participation  i

Growth Management Alternatives  ii

Plan Development  ii

Implementation  ii

I.  GROWTH PLAN INTRODUCTION  I.1

A.  Overview  I.1

B.  Why Plan?  I.1

C.  What is in the Growth Plan?  I.2

D.  What do These Terms Mean?  I.3

E.  How Should the Plan be Used?  I.7

F.  City / County Coordination  I.7

II.  THE PLANNING PROCESS  II.1

A.  Overview  II.1

B.  Steering Committee Role  II.1

C.  Citizen Participation Plan  II.3

D.  Initial Assessment  II.4

E.  Plan Alternatives  II.5

F.  Plan Development  II.7

G.  Plan Implementation  II.7

III.  CONTEXT FOR PLANNING  III.1

A.  Overview  III.1

B.  Physical Assessment  III.1

C.  Growth Assessment  III.3

D.  Regulatory Assessment  III.19

E.  Planning Assessment  III.21

F.  Community Values  III.22

IV.  PLAN ALTERNATIVES  IV.1

A.  Overview  IV.1

B.  Definition of Alternatives  IV.2

C.  Analysis of Alternatives  IV.11

D.  Selection of a Preferred Alternative  IV.19

V.  FUTURE LAND USE PLAN -- JOINT URBAN PLANNING AREA  GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION  V.1

A.  General  V.1

B.  Vision for the Urban Area  V.1

C.  Key Issues  V.2

D.  Future Land Use Classes  V.7

E.  Preferred Land Use Scenario  V.10

F.  Goals and Policies  V.14

G.  Urban Area Plan Amendment/Administration  V.56

H.  Plan Implementation Strategies  V.59

VI.  PLAN ADMINISTRATION  VI.1

A.  Overview  VI.1

B.  Annual Review/Monitoring  VI.1

C.  Land Use Amendments  VI.2

D.  Policy Review/Amendment  VI.2

VII.  APPENDICES  VII.1

A.  Glossary  VII.1

B.  Resource Documents  VII.11

 LIST OF EXHIBITS

 Page

Exhibit I.1: Joint Planning Area  I.5

Exhibit II.1: The Planning Process  II.1

Exhibit II.2: Steering Committee Representation  II.2

Exhibit III.1: Grand Junction, Colorado  III.2

Exhibit III.2: Population Change  III.4

Exhibit III.3: Projected Planning Area Population Growth 1995-2010  III.5

Exhibit III.4: Population Change by Age Group from 1980 to 1990  III.6

Exhibit III.5: Marriage Status  III.7

Exhibit III.6: 1990 Household Type and the Presence of Children  III.8

Exhibit III.7: 1990 Household Income Distribution  III.9

Exhibit III.8: Percent Change in Poverty by Age Group  III.10

Exhibit III.9: Housing Units by Vacancy Status  III.10

Exhibit III.10: 1990 Housing by Type  III.11

Exhibit III.11: Monthly Rental Rates by Type of Unit  III.12

Exhibit III.12: Median Housing Values for Single Family and Condo/Townhomes  III.12

Exhibit III.13: Total Housing Units Built by Year Since 1980  III.13

Exhibit III.14: Mesa County Employment Changes  III.14

Exhibit III.15: Mesa County Employment Trends - 1979-93  III.16

Exhibit III.16: Mesa County Employment by Sector  III.17

Exhibit III.17: Mesa County Employment by Sector (Percent of Total Employment)  III.18

Exhibit IV.1: Current Practices  IV.3

Exhibit IV.2: Concentrated Growth  IV.4

Exhibit IV.3: Urban Core/Outlying Growth Centers  IV.5

Exhibit IV.4: Growth Plan Alternatives  IV.7

Exhibit IV.5: Alternatives Policy Distinctions  IV.14

Exhibit V.1: Joint Planning Area  V.3

Exhibit V.2: Future Land Use Categories  V.16

Exhibit V.3: Future Land Use Map  V.19

Exhibit V.4: Fruita/Grand Junction Transition Area  V.23

Exhibit V.5: Palisade/Clifton Transition Area  V.24

Exhibit V.6: Growth Areas  V.27

Exhibit V.7: Existing Centers of Activity  V.33

Exhibit V.8: Area Plans  V.36

Exhibit V.9: Corridor Guidelines  V.39

Exhibit V.10: Key Corridors and Gateways  V.41

Exhibit V.11: Functional Street Classes  V.51

Exhibit V.12: Level of Service Definitions  V.52

Exhibit V.13: Existing Parks and Open Space  V.57

Exhibit V.14: Urban Area Plan Implementation Strategies  V.60

 MAP EXHIBITS

 Page

Exhibit I.1: Joint Planning Area  I.5

Exhibit III.1: Grand Junction, Colorado  III.2

Exhibit IV.1: Current Practices  IV.3

Exhibit IV.2: Concentrated Growth  IV.4

Exhibit IV.3: Urban Core/Outlying Growth Centers  IV.5

Exhibit V.1: Joint Planning Area  V.3

Exhibit V.3: Future Land Use Map  V.19

Exhibit V.4: Fruita/Grand Junction Transition Area  V.23

Exhibit V.5: Palisade/Clifton Transition Area  V.24

Exhibit V.6: Growth Areas  V.27

Exhibit V.7: Existing Centers of Activity  V.33

Exhibit V.10: Key Corridors and Gateways  V.41

Exhibit V.13: Existing Parks and Open Space  V.57

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The process of planning gives residents, business owners and community leaders a means to create a shared image of the community they hope to enjoy in the future. It defines policies to guide decision makers toward this future. The planning process is not complete until it sets forth action to carry out the Plan, so all interested persons and groups can work together to achieve the community's desired future.

The City of Grand Junction understands the importance and responsibility of planning for the future. The City devoted much of the last year to developing a future land use plan that will help the community grow to the year 2010. This process resulted in the The Grand Junction Growth Plan. Grand Junction's planning process involved four key phases: an initial assessment, an analysis of different growth management alternatives, plan development and plan implementation. Community involvement was incorporated into each of these phases, and will continue to be a key element of all the City's planning as the Plan is implemented.

Initial Assessment

The process for preparing this Plan began with an assessment of existing conditions, trends and issues. The assessment noted several key features. One of the community's most valuable assets is its natural environment. The area is endowed with abundant open spaces, beautiful vistas, and winding canals, working to meet the needs of residents without sacrificing these resources will be a challenge. It also was noted that the area is experiencing a time of sustained rapid growth due to decreased reliance on a resource based economy. Another major factor affecting development is the area’s abundance of service providers willing to extend services throughout the community before streets and schools are able to be provided.

Public Participation

Public participation has been one key focus throughout the planning process. Another feature that makes this Plan unique is the high level of coordination with Mesa County's planning process. Grand Junction and Mesa County maintained an open planning process, seeking public input at each key step of the process. Both City- and County-appointed broad-based Steering Committees represented a wide variety of interests. These Committees have met jointly throughout the year to debate key policy issues and construct a land use plan. Together, with periodic guidance from the public, the Grand Junction City Council and the Board of County Commissioners, the City and County Steering Committees have constructively addressed many of the issues facing the community.

Growth Management Alternatives

Three diverse growth alternatives were proposed to answer questions about the future. The Trends alternative examined the impact of continuing historical policies and practices. The Concentrated Growth alternative promoted compatible infill and higher density development in areas of the community that already have adequate public facilities. The Urban Core and Growth Centers alternative supported creation or expansion of neighborhood commercial centers throughout the planning area.

After reviewing the impacts of each of these alternatives on population, commercial land supply, transportation system impacts, community character and a variety of other factors, input from area residents was sought. The City and County Steering Committees jointly selected a preferred alternative, which was a combination of the Concentrated Growth and Urban Core and Growth Centers alternatives. The preferred alternative included some new commercial centers, emphasized and promoted infill, established urban growth boundaries and increased protection of river and stream corridors.

Plan Development

The sprawling development pattern created in the area has resulted in fiscal burdens and is consuming large tracts of agricultural and open space land. The Plan developed goals and policies to reduce any further effects of sprawl and gain a fiscally responsible growth pattern. These goals and policies are intended to be adopted and jointly implemented by the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County. Some of those goals include:

•  Ensuring land use compatibility and a balance between urban development and open space,

•  Maintaining more compact development patterns,

•  Ensuring that there are adequate public facilities for residents and businesses,

•  Maintaining equitable funding strategies for public facilities and services,

•  Improving coordination between service providers,

•  Enhancing the visual appeal of major road corridors in the community, and

•  Focusing on unique needs in each of the community's neighborhoods.

Implementation

Successful plan implementation is the product of many individual actions by City, County and private decision makers over the course of many years. The City and County will need to accomplish many tasks and initiate various programs to accomplish the goals set forth in this Plan. Some of the ways the Plan proposes to achieve the stated goals is by:

•  Developing an inter-governmental agreement between Grand Junction and Mesa County to implement the Plan.

•  Adopting common standards for review of urban development proposals.

•  Encouraging new development to locate in areas that have access to adequate public facilities (e.g., roads, water, sanitary sewers).

•  Preserving a greenbelt along the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers, as well as other drainage ways.

•  Limiting development on steep hillsides and ridge lines.

•  Planning for an interconnected parks, trails and open space system to serve the entire urban area.

•   Developing infrastructure funding strategies that encourage infill and generally require new development to pay its fair share of capital costs.

•  Jointly adopting a Major Street Plan to provide for future transportation needs of the entire planning area.

The Growth Plan addresses all of the concepts summarized above in greater detail. The residents of the City and the County have joined together to strive for the highest quality future for the community.

CHAPTER ONE

GROWTH PLAN INTRODUCTION

A.  Overview  I.1

B.  Why Plan?  I.1

C.  What is in the Growth Plan?  I.2

D.  What do These Terms Mean?  I.3

E.  How Should the Plan be Used?  I.7

F.  City / County Coordination  I.7

I.  GROWTH PLAN INTRODUCTION

A.  Overview

This document is a guide to public and private growth decisions through the year 2010. It is a statement of the community's vision for its own future and a road map providing direction to achieve that vision. The view of the future expressed in the Growth Plan is shaped by community values, ideals and aspirations about the best management of the community's resources.

In addition to defining the community's view of its future, the Growth Plan describes the actions the community can take to achieve the desired future. The Plan uses text and diagrams to establish policies and programs the City may use to address the many physical, economic and social issues facing the community. The Plan is thus a tool for managing community change to achieve the desired quality of life.

B.  Why Plan?

Successful communities don't just happen; they must be continually shaped and guided. A community must actively manage its growth and respond to changing circumstances if it is to meet the needs of its residents and retain the quality of life that initially attracted those residents to the community.

Residents of the City of Grand Junction value the high quality of the natural environment, public services, cultural resources and recreational opportunities, as well as a strong sense of community. Concern about the impact of poorly managed growth has increased as residents have experienced increased traffic congestion, development of open areas, school crowding and commercial encroachment on community neighborhoods.

Effective growth management can help the community address these concerns. The City recognizes the importance of coordinating growth management efforts with Mesa County. Over half of the population and most recent development is located within unincorporated portions of the planning area. Therefore, the City and County have developed a joint strategy for growth management.

C.  What is in the Growth Plan?

This Growth Plan focuses on land use and development issues facing the City of Grand Junction. Following this introductory section, the Plan:

•  describes the planning process;

•  summarizes existing conditions, trends and issues that provide a context for the planning process;

•  reviews the analysis of Plan alternatives;

•  establishes goals, policies and strategies for the urban area around Grand Junction; and

•  outlines the process of monitoring, updating and amending the Growth Plan to ensure that it continues to serve the community.

Chapter Two describes the three phase planning process that included an initial assessment, an analysis of Plan alternatives and the Plan development. The two most significant aspects of Grand Junction's planning process are the high level of citizen involvement and the extraordinary coordination with Mesa County's planning process. The City's outreach program included focus group meetings, interviews, numerous public workshops, press releases and regular newsletters. The merger of the City and County Citizen Steering Committees early in the process has ensured that the City's Plan is well coordinated with the Mesa County's Plan. In fact, Chapter Five: Future Land Use Plan, Joint Urban Planning Area is intended to be jointly adopted and implemented by the City and County.

Chapter Three establishes a context for planning in the urban area -- exploring the natural and built environments, demographic characteristics and trends, regulatory considerations, public services and community values. The geographic conditions that make the community such a desirable place to live also impose some constraints. Historical development decisions, many of which were made during population boom and bust cycles, serve as a foundation for the community's future. Community values set priorities for community action.

Chapter Four summarizes the process and results of a rigorous review of Plan alternatives. The City and County explored the community impacts of three different growth scenarios. This analysis examined each alternative’s impacts on facilities and services. It also reviewed impacts on the environment, housing, economic opportunity and community character. The culmination of this process was the selection of a preferred alternative that combined the best aspects of each of the other alternatives. The preferred alternative served the basis for the Growth Plan.

Chapter Five is the heart of this Growth Plan -- defining goals, establishing policies and recommending specific strategies to achieve Plan goals. This chapter, which addresses the entire urban area around Grand Junction, is intended to be adopted and jointly implemented by the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County.

Chapter Six describes the process of maintaining an up-to-date, dynamic Growth Plan. It describes the processes for monitoring and amending the Plan to ensure that it continues to address vital community issues. Plan monitoring is an on-going process of measuring the City’s effectiveness in achieving Plan goals and carrying out Plan strategies. There are two types of amendments that Chapter Six recommends -- map amendments and policy updates. Map amendments are periodic adjustments to the future land use map to reflect changing conditions. Policy updates should occur every three to five years, based on the rate of growth and changes in the local or regional economy. Policy updates should be made in conjunction with a review of all the related goals and policies.

Together with the reference information included in the appendices, these six chapters comprise the City of Grand Junction’s Growth Plan -- a guide to the future growth of the City and the surrounding urbanizing area.

D.  What do These Terms Mean?

The following terms are used throughout the Plan to convey key concepts. These and other terms are defined in Appendix A.

Development - the physical construction of buildings and/or the preparation of land for non-agricultural uses. Development activities include: subdivision of land; construction or alternation of structures, roads, utilities, and other facilities; installation of septic systems; grading; deposit of refuse, debris, or fill materials; and clearing of natural vegetative cover (with the exception of agricultural activities). Agricultural activities and routine repair and maintenance activities are excluded from this definition.

Goal - description of a desired state of affairs for the community in the future. Goals are the broad public purposes toward which policies and programs are directed. Generally, more than one set of actions (policies) could be taken to achieve each goal. In this Plan, goals are phrased to express the desired results of the Plan; they complete the sentence "Our goal is ...".

Joint Planning Area - the area mapped in Exhibit I.1, as it may be amended from time to time, that is subject to joint planning efforts of the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County. This area includes urban, urbanizing, urban reserve and rural development areas.

Policy - statements of government intent against which individual actions and decisions are evaluated. Policies are phrased as sentences, with the agency responsible for implementing the policy clearly identified.

Exhibit I.1: Joint Planning Area

E.  How Should the Plan be Used?

The Growth Plan is a guide to action. It is not, itself, an implementation tool. By ensuring that individual actions are consistent with the policies of the Growth Plan, the City and County can effectively achieve its goals. For example, the Planning Commission and the City Council will use the Plan's policies and Development Diagram to decide whether to approve proposed rezoning. Zoning, subdivision, building and construction codes and standards will regulate development. Some amendments to these regulations will be necessary, however, to more effectively carry out the Plan. The Growth Plan defines policies and recommends measures governing the application, modification and interpretation of these development regulations. The Plan should guide the preparation of detailed facility master plans for the County's water, wastewater, flood control and transportation systems. The policies of the Plan also should guide the preparation and update of capital improvement programs and the annual budget (as well as development codes interpretation). The Plan should be a dynamic document, subject to periodic amendment when conditions within the City change significantly. Periodic updates of the Plan will be needed to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of City businesses and residents.

F.  City / County Coordination

Many problems faced by local governments are regional in nature. Issues such as population growth, environmental preservation, land use forms and growth patterns, and the quality and quantity of public facilities and services often transcend local, neighborhood or city boundaries. Moreover, the decisions made by a jurisdiction on these issues often have extraterritorial effects. Grand Junction and Mesa County are partners in the management of urban growth in the Central Grand Valley -- they share the same goals for the future of this area. Early in the planning process, the Committee recommended the City and County jointly develop a preferred alternative for the entire urban area. The initial City/County Steering Committee Meetings were so successful that, at the Committee's request, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners authorized the two Committees to jointly develop goals, policies and strategies for the joint planning area. Developed through the joint planning process, this provides a springboard for seamless growth coordination between the City and the County. The policies and implementation items in the Plan are applicable to the City, the County or both entities, as referenced herein and clarified through a Grand Junction/Mesa County intergovernmental agreement.

CHAPTER TWO

THE PLANNING PROCESS

A.  Overview  II.1

B.  Steering Committee Role  II.1

C.  Citizen Participation Plan  II.3

D.  Initial Assessment  II.4

E.  Plan Alternatives  II.5

F.  Plan Development  II.7

G.  Plan Implementation  II.7

II.  THE PLANNING PROCESS

A.  Overview

As shown in Exhibit II.1, Grand Junction’s planning process involved four key phases -- an initial assessment, an analysis of different growth management alternatives, plan development and implementation. Community involvement was incorporated into each of these phases, and will continue to be a key element of all the City’s planning efforts as the Plan is implemented.

Exhibit II.1: The Planning Process

B.  Steering Committee Role

Grand Junction's planning process was guided by a steering committee comprised of residents of Grand Junction and surrounding unincorporated areas. The City Council invited area residents to join the Committee at the beginning of the planning process. The Council asked fourteen organizations to each designate one representative. The Council then selected 10 out of 72 applicants to fill the remaining seats on the 24-member Steering Committee. Exhibit II.2 lists the interests represented by members of the Steering Committee.

Exhibit II.2: Steering Committee Representation

Throughout the process, the Steering Committee met at least once every month to review and discuss planning issues, forging consensus whenever possible. The Committee's roles included:

•  communicating the concerns of all interested community groups regarding the long-range development of the City;

•  providing a forum for discussion of differing views;

•  developing statements of the community's vision and goals in the context of staff's technical analysis;

•  helping to communicate with the general community; and

•  recommending goals, policies and strategies to the City's Planning Commission.

Early in the process, the Committee recommended that the City and County jointly develop a preferred alternative for the entire urban area. The initial City/County Steering Committee meetings were so successful that, at the Committee’s request, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners authorized the two Committees to jointly develop the goals, policies and strategies for the joint planning area. Chapter Five is the product of this cooperative planning process.

C.  Citizen Participation Plan

Grand Junction’s citizen-based planning process promoted broad community involvement many ways, including:

•  Ongoing direction from a broad-based Steering Committee as described above;

•  Interviews with key City and County leaders at the outset of the process to identify information sources, community opinions and suggestions for making the planning process and plan more valuable to the community;

•  Focus group sessions were conducted in the first phase of the process to identify the concerns of the business community, minority interests, the real estate and development community, downtown interests, service providers, government agencies and community organizations;

•  Community-wide and area specific workshops and open houses were conducted at the beginning of the project to identify key community issues, opportunities to address those issues, and a sense of community values. Workshops and open houses were conducted at each decision-making point in the process to gather input on the initial alternatives, the preferred alternative, the goals and policies and the final plan draft;

•  City and County newsletters were mailed to all residents to provide notice of opportunities to participate in the planning process and to provide information about the directions the process was taking; and

•  Media outreach through press releases, newspaper articles, service groups, radio and television was provided at key decision-making points in the process to promote public participation and awareness.

This combination of techniques was intended to provide all community residents with a variety of ways to express their concerns, values and ideas to the long range planning process. These techniques offered residents and non-residents a chance to have a "seat at the table" while maintaining a balance among interested groups.

D.  Initial Assessment

The first phase of the planning process is summarized in the Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report. The initial assessment was conducted to establish a clear understanding of existing conditions, trends, community needs, key community issues and opportunities for future actions. In addition to a comprehensive review of available reports, plans, studies and data, the initial assessment included public outreach to assess the values of the community that should be reflected in the Growth Plan. A list of references to the Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report and this Plan are listed in Appendix B.

The Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report, the findings of which are summarized in Chapter Three, explored physical conditions, recent growth trends, the regulatory environment, related planning and development efforts, and community values. It also included the following initial recommendations for priorities in the City's planning process and Plan contents:

Planning Process Recommendations

1.  Ensure that the process is inclusionary.

2.  Coordinate the City and County planning processes.

3.  Capitalize on the strengths of existing organizations.

4.  Include other service providers in the planning process.

Plan Content Recommendations

1.  Establish clear priorities for City action to implement the Growth Plan, including future planning needs.

2.  Plan for anticipated residential and non-residential growth.

3.  Plan for growth through a balanced combination of infill and annexation. The Growth Plan should provide a framework for a City/County agreement regarding future land use patterns in and around the City.

4.  Provide incentives for compatible infill and disincentives for development in areas which can't be served in a cost-effective manner.

5.  Develop appropriate strategies to ensure that the City has an adequate supply of affordable housing.

6.  Identify appropriate locations for a variety of residential choices.

7.  Provide guidance for determining the appropriate location and design of commercial and industrial development.

8.  Describe the City's role in promoting sound environmental decisions by service providers, residents and businesses in Grand Junction.

9.  Promote growth patterns and investment decisions that reduce residents' long-term dependence on automobiles and provide residents with realistic travel choices.

10.  Define minimum and target service levels for City services and amenities.

11.  Establish design guidelines for key gateways and corridors to enhance the visual appeal of the City.

12.  Establish detailed area plans for development of the I-70 interchange areas at Highways 6 and 50, 29 Road and 24 Road.

13.  Establish detailed corridor plans for Patterson Road, Highways 6 and 50 west of downtown, 29 Road, North Avenue, and Highway 50 in Orchard Mesa.

14.  Clearly state the City's role in building and maintaining a healthy, diverse economy.

15.  Describe how the City will assist School District 51, Mesa State College and other educational institutions serve the growing needs of the community.

16.  Identify a future parks, trails and open space system that will enhance residents' recreational opportunities, neighborhoods and the natural environment for use by humans and wildlife.

17.  Establish an action plan with clear priorities to guide decision-makers in implementing the Plan, including specific recommendations for zoning and development code modifications. The implementation strategy also should describe the process for updating capital improvements plans and programs.

18.  Establish a process to regularly seek citizen input in refining the Plan to meet the changing needs of the community.

Through coordination with Mesa County and the diligent efforts of the Steering Committee, the Growth Plan was able to address each of these recommendations.

E.  Plan Alternatives

In the second phase of the planning process, which is described in more detail in Chapter Four, Grand Junction and Mesa County compared the impacts of three land use alternatives on the joint planning area. Through quantitative and qualitative review, the City and County compared the advantages and disadvantages of each of the following growth alternatives.

Alternative 1 - Current Practices: This alternative assumed that historical growth trends and policies would remain in effect. New residential subdivisions would be developed at the same density as recent subdivisions in the vicinity. Non-residential development will continue to develop along urban arterial streets in accordance with existing zoning. The Current Practices scenario assumed that there would be no substantial changes in existing growth policies or development regulations on the part of the City or County.

Alternative 2 - Concentrated Growth: This alternative assumed that zoning and development policies would strongly discourage sprawl development. New residential growth would occur primarily within areas that currently have urban services. New non-residential growth would be located within existing commercial strips and nodes in the Grand Junction or Clifton. City and County policies would encourage reinvestment in existing non-residential areas and discourage development of agricultural lands that do not have access to urban services. An urban growth boundary¹ identified the area in which urban development would be allowed. Development within the urban growth boundary would be limited until all urban services are available at adopted levels of service.

Alternative 3 - Urban Core and Outlying Growth Centers: This alternative assumed that neighborhood and community centers would be located throughout the joint planning area. Each of the neighborhood centers would provide retail and service opportunities for residents. Public investment in parks, schools and libraries would be focused near these centers. Zoning would permit some higher density development to occur at each of the neighborhood centers. In addition to neighborhood centers, several community centers (e.g., Downtown Grand Junction, Mesa Mall, the airport, Mesa State College, St. Mary's Hospital) would serve distinct community functions (e.g., entertainment, office, retail, education, medical).

After review and comment by the public, the City and County Steering Committees selected desired elements of alternatives 2 and 3 to create a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative, which is described in detail in Chapter Five, supports the use of an urban growth boundary and an urban reserve area to limit urban sprawl. It incorporates policies that provide strong support for the growth of existing non-residential centers in Clifton, Downtown Grand Junction, the Airport Environs and Mesa Mall. It also provides for commercial services and neighborhood retail opportunities in the Redlands and Orchard Mesa areas. Finally, the preferred alternative strongly supports the conservation of natural resource areas by limiting development potential in floodplains and on steeply sloping areas.

F.  Plan Development

Definition of the preferred alternative was the initial step in developing the future land use plan contained in Chapter Five. The Steering Committees refined the preferred alternative through the development of goals, policies and strategies that will guide public and private development decisions for the next fifteen years. Through the autumn and winter of 1995-96, the City and County Steering Committees met at least once per month to develop a balanced set of goals, policies and strategies. The Committee debated the merits of policies and strategies, building consensus for the joint City/County Plan. After completing their review in February, 1996, the Steering Committee conducted a series of four open house meetings. These meetings, conducted in the Downtown, Clifton, Redlands and Orchard Mesa areas of the community reflected broad support for the Plan’s policies. Early implementation of the Plan was a primary interest expressed by meeting participants. In addition, citizens recommended several land use changes that were incorporated into the Future Land Use Plan by the Steering Committee.

G.  Plan Implementation

After adopting this Plan, the City and County will pursue its implementation. The initial strategies to accomplish the Plan's goals will be the development of an intergovernmental agreement between the City and County, and updates of the City and County development codes. These and other tasks are described in the last section of Chapter Five. For the Plan to continue to serve the community, the City and County will need to monitor and update the Plan. Chapter Six describes an ongoing monitoring process, as well as the processes for land use and policy amendments.

CHAPTER THREE

CONTEXT FOR PLANNING

A.  Overview  III.1

B.  Physical Assessment  III.1

C.  Growth Assessment  III.3

D.  Regulatory Assessment  III.19

E.  Planning Assessment  III.21

F.  Community Values  III.22

III.  CONTEXT FOR PLANNING

A.  Overview

This chapter summarizes the findings of the Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report, prepared in the summer of 1995. It addresses aspects of the physical environment, growth trends, development regulations, facility and service planning, and community values that most directly impact the Growth Plan.

As shown in Exhibit III.1, Grand Junction and Mesa County are located on the western edge of Colorado along Interstate 70. The Joint Planning Area (shown in Exhibit I.1) encompasses 105 square miles of land in the Central Grand Valley. The valley is defined by the Book Cliffs to the north, the Grand Mesa to the East and the Colorado National Monument to the southwest. The confluence of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers is located near the center of the joint planning area -- an area that roughly extends from A Road to I Road on the south and north, and from 19 Road to 35 Road on the west and east.

B.  Physical Assessment

The natural environment is one of the community's most valuable resources. The Colorado and Gunnison Rivers, the abundance of Federally owned open space, the temperate climate and relatively clean air have made Grand Junction a desirable place to live and work. The community's topography, soils, water supply and climate provide both opportunities and constraints. Decisions affecting growth and development have long-term impacts on the condition of these resources for future generations. The community's challenge is to provide for the needs of residents and businesses without sacrificing these natural assets. Key natural resource concerns addressed in the growth plan are:

Protection of the riverine environment. The Colorado and Gunnison River floodplains serve a variety of purposes, such as conducting snowmelt and stormwater through the community, providing habitat for a variety of plants and animals, and providing a recreational amenity for community residents and visitors. The City, County, State and private interests have devoted a lot of resources to cleaning up and protecting the river in recent years. This Plan

Exhibit III.1: Grand Junction, Colorado

supports efforts to conserve and enhance the environmental and recreational value of riverfront areas.

Managing hillside and ridgeline development. Development of steep hillsides and ridgelines along the rivers and in the southern half of the planning area is a concern for safety and aesthetic reasons. Several of these steep slopes have a demonstrated history of instability. In the most dramatic example, several houses on Orchard Mesa had to be relocated to avoid being dropped into the river. From an aesthetic perspective, views of natural hillsides are a key element of the community character. Development of hillsides and ridgelines should be sensitive to both safety and aesthetic concerns.

Preservation of key open space areas and corridors. While the rivers are the most significant wildlife corridors running through the City, there are several waterways and drainage basins that retain enough open space to provide for the movement of watchable wildlife. Preservation of these drainageways and other open areas enhances the community character and can help to filter urban stormwater runoff before it enters the rivers.

Maintaining clean air. Thermal inversions trap air pollutants in the valley to some degree approximately 300 days per year. Wood smoke and road dust make this problem particularly acute during winter months when inversions are most severe. To maintain the health of the community and the views of the surrounding landscape, residents, businesses and local government must cooperate to minimize the air pollutant loading.

C.  Growth Assessment

Since 1990, the planing area has experienced sustained rapid growth. Historically, the community has experienced a series of population boom and bust cycles, Exhibit III.2 lists the population and rate of growth for the City, County and State since 1940. However, decreased reliance on a resource based economy and increased geographic flexibility for workers through improving telecommunications are likely to moderate future down cycles.

As shown in Exhibit III.3, the population of the planning area is anticipated to increase throughout the planning period (from 1995 to 2010) at an annual rate

     Exhibit 111.2: Population Change

* City of Grand Junction population estimate.

of two percent. Just as significant as the population increase is the character of the community's population -- where will they live? and what services will they demand.

Exhibit III.3: Projected Planning Area Population Growth 1995-2010

Extra-territorial growth. During the 1980s, the City's population increased by only 3.2 percent, compared with a 27 percent growth rate within the urbanized areas of the County. Rapid urbanization of unincorporated areas surrounding the City has created service dilemmas. The County has faced increased demands to provide urban police and street maintenance services. Multiple special districts have been formed to provide water, wastewater and fire protection services within unincorporated urban areas and the City has found that it provides a parks and recreation system for a population that is more than twice its resident base. While annexation will resolve some service dilemmas, coordination between the City, County and other service providers will be required to equitably fund and adequately provide urban services.

Increasing numbers of senior citizens. The age of the City's population provides a good basis for evaluating current and future service needs. While the total population of Grand Junction increased modestly during the 1980s, age characteristics of the city changed dramatically as the City "grayed." There was a 30 percent increase in people over 65. Exhibit III.4 displays the population change in Grand Junction from 1980 to 1990.

Much of the out-migration of young adult residents can be attributed to economics, including the collapse of the shale oil industry. The increase in seniors can be attributed to the warm, dry climate, health care facilities, and overall quality of life in the community. These factors will continue to attract retirees into the 1990s.

This trend is significant for the planning area because senior citizens create different service demands than young families with children. While the number of people in a given age bracket will determine the demand for services, it also may affect the community's priorities for public services. This shifting may affect community consensus on recreational and educational facilities and services, transit, discount pricing for the needy and other social services.

Increasing school age population. Analysis of age distribution by census tract, within the city and the urbanized area, shows exactly where each age group is concentrated. In general, most residents under age 17 live within the urban fringe areas that are growing most rapidly, including the northeast and southwest sections of town. Recent growth has pushed school enrollment to capacity limits. As the number of children increases, school capacity is likely to be the primary constraint to growth.

Education services. Education is an important resource in every community. Not only are schools charged with educating the community's youth, they also are major employers. In Grand Junction, Mesa County Valley School District #51 provides public education to a student population of approximately 12,500. On average, these students had a student/teacher ratio of about 25 to 1 for most of the schools.

There are five post-secondary schools in Grand Junction: Mesa State College; Unified Technical Education Center; University of Colorado - Continuing Education; Technical Trade Institute and Intermountain Bible College and Colorado Christian University.

Households Composition. The number of households in Grand Junction increased by 8 percent, to 12,831, between 1980 and 1990. Average household size remained roughly the same, with only a slight drop from 2.3 persons per household in 1980, to 2.2 in 1990. Exhibit III.5 shows the increase in the percentage of single people, which is one factor contributing to this decrease. Exhibit III.6 illustrates the types of households in which the population resides. More than half of these households (66 percent) were family households. There was an increase of 12 percent in the number of single parent households, 82 percent of which were led by women. The increase in single parent families, combined with the increase in the number of families with two working parents follows national trends, which challenges accepted notions of worklife, schedules, education, childcare, recreation and other socio-economic factors.

People not living in family households generally live alone, though there is a small percentage (8 percent) living in group quarters. In Grand Junction, most of the people living in group quarters are either living in nursing homes (35 percent) or are in college dormitories (45.5 percent).

Income and Poverty. Analysis of the 1990 household income distribution for Grand Junction shows that there is a significant low to middle income population, while there is a very small upper income population. Exhibit III.7 shows the income distribution for the City. The median household income was $19,042 in 1990. While the median household income increased 69.3 percent (from $13,203 to $19,042 between 1980 and 1990), the real change after adjusting for inflation was 15.1 percent. If the City follows the County trend, income will continue to increase. Household income in the County was estimated to have increased by 35 percent to $32,043 in 1993.

The median household income for the urbanized area in 1990 was $23,536. Since there were more elderly, retired individuals living in the central city, income was lower there than in the suburbs, which have a larger number of people in the work force. The median household income in the outlying urbanized areas is consistently higher than median household income in the entire area.

Poverty. The City experienced a significant (7 percent ) increase in the number of people living on incomes below the poverty level in the last decade. Poverty guidelines are set by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. Total population living in poverty was estimated to be 5,980, or 22 percent of the City's population. Exhibit III.8 shows the number of children living in poverty is increasing while relatively fewer adults are living in poverty. The number of youths living below poverty increased 11 percent between 1980 and 1990, while the number of working age and elderly people living below poverty decreased. The percentage of families living below the poverty level increased from 9 percent to 14 percent between 1980 and 1990. The increased poverty creates additional challenges for the community, including the provision of better jobs, more affordable housing and transportation assistance.

Housing. The total number of housing units in the City increased by 7 percent, to 13,698 units between 1980 and 1990 (see Exhibit III.9). An additional 650 units were “permitted” in the City between 1991 to 1994. Most houses are occupied (94 percent), with one-half of these units being owner-occupied houses and the other half renter-occupied. The supply of housing has not kept up with demand -- the number of occupied housing units climbed by 8 percent while vacant housing in the area decreased by over 4 percent. The increase in occupied housing was mostly seen in the rental market. Despite the 19.6 percent increase in rental units in the 1980s, the number of vacant units available for rent decreased from 467 in 1980 to 366 in 1990.

While, approximately one-half (49 percent) of the housing is renter occupied, only about 36 percent of rental units are multi-family. There are some mobile and manufactured homes in Grand Junction, but the majority of rental units are detached single-family units. Exhibit III.10 shows the distribution of housing stock by type.

The increased demand for rental housing in the area contributed to the 30 percent increase in housing cost, from $217 a month in 1980 to $313 in 1990. Since 1990, there has been a continual increase in monthly rental rates. Exhibit III.11 illustrates this trend. As the price of rental units increases, the proportion of people who cannot afford housing also rises. In 1990, 42 percent of the people living in rental units could not afford them.² The cost of owner-occupied housing units rose slightly in the 1980's. The median value of these housing units increased about 7 percent, from $49,700 to $53,600 between 1980 and 1990. The Grand Junction Board of Realtors reports that since 1989, the median price of a single-family home has increased by $40,000, (see Exhibit III.12). According to the 1990 Census, 17 percent of owner-occupied households were beyond the means of the household residents.

Most of the housing structures in the City were built before 1980, with the median year of construction being 1962. Between 1980 and 1990, approximately 859 housing units were built in the City, with most of these being built prior to 1984. New home construction has been on the rise since 1990. Exhibit III.13 shows the number of housing units built in Grand Junction and unincorporated Mesa County by year since 1980. The graph illustrates the impact of the 1980s bust on the housing industry and the industry's recent resurgence.

Employment. Exhibit III.14 illustrates the trend in County employment between 1983 and 1993.³ The table clearly illustrates the decrease in employment experienced in the mid-1980s, and the steady resurgence since 1986. Total County employment has grown at an annual rate of more than 4 percent since 1986. During the 1980s, the City of Grand Junction's employment dropped from 13,150 to 12,100. Since 1990, employment and the labor force have rebounded. By the end of 1993, the City's labor force included over 14,500 people. Exhibit III.14 shows the number of employed persons also has increased since 1990. Unemployment has fluctuated between 7 and 9 percent. The top ten employers in the Grand Valley by numbers of employees are either public employers or health care, industries which are very important to the area. City Market is the only employer on the major employers list that does not fit into one of these categories. Each of the employers on the list provides a relatively stable source of employment for community residents.

Exhibit III.14: Mesa County Employment Changes

Exhibits III.15, III.16 and III.17 show Mesa County employment trends by industry. Exhibit III.15 shows the rise and fall of mining employment relative to the shale oil boom in the early 1980s. Mining employment plummeted from 7.5 percent of the jobs to 0.6 percent before rebounding to 1.4 percent in 1993. Similarly, construction shifted from 10 percent of total employment in 1980 to 5.1 percent in 1993. Manufacturing, finance, insurance and real estate, transportation, communications, public facilities, government and wholesale/retail trade have all maintained a fairly consistent percentage of total employment. Service sector employment decreased slightly during the mid-1980s, but steadily gained in share of total employment -- increasing from 20.6 percent in 1979 to 28.8 percent in 1993. This growth in the service sector reflects a national trend. The recent increase in the number of manufacturing jobs does not reflect national or state trends, but reflects local successes in retaining and attracting new manufacturing jobs.

Exhibit III.15: Mesa County Employment Trends - 1979-93

Exhibit III.16: Mesa County Employment by Sector (Total Employment)

Exhibit III.17: Mesa County Employment by Sector (Percent of Total Employment)

D.  Regulatory Assessment

The City of Grand Junction and Mesa County have made great strides to improve the compatibility of their development regulations. Common road and other improvement standards have improved the quality of urban infrastructure in the planning area. To implement the Plan, the City and County will need to address the following outstanding regulatory issues:

Developing common concurrency standards. The level of public services in the community is a significant factor in the residents' quality of life. As the urban area grows, increases in demands on the street, school and parks systems are perceived as eroding the quality of life. By ensuring that there are adequate public facilities in place at the time that growth creates new demands, the community can maintain established levels of service. However, in developing standards for streets, parks and schools, the City will need to coordinate with the County and School District.

Adjusting the character of zoning districts. Grand Junction's zoning districts do not match the character of the community. Commercial zoning districts allow industrial uses, the downtown commercial district does not recognize the character of the downtown businesses and residences, multi-family districts allow high rise apartment towers, and neighborhood business districts lack sufficient compatibility standards. By clarifying the purpose of each district and the standards within the districts, the City can tailor most of the zoning districts to meet the needs of the community.

Providing adequate open space in residential areas. The development regulations do not adequately address residential open space requirements. This is particularly important for mixed use and higher density residential projects. The planned development provisions of the City's code also lack adequate guidance for determining the appropriate amount and types of open space and other necessary amenities. Requiring dedication of adequate open space and other amenities can help ensure the long-term integrity of individual neighborhoods.

Adjusting zoning for consistency with the Plan. Zoning is one of the most powerful tools for implementing the goals and policies of the Growth Plan. Key changes need to be made in Grand Junction's existing zoning ordinance to be consistent the Plan's goals and policies. The RM 32 and RM 64 zones need to be eliminated as districts. These districts are too intensive and do not match the character of the community. Some sites will require rezoning such as the heavy industrial areas along Highways 6 and 50 and in the South Downtown area; these areas will be rezoned to less intensive classifications.

Overlay districts. The addition of overlay districts will help Grand Junction and Mesa County to have greater control of areas which have special needs. Overlay districts encompass one or more underlying zones and impose additional requirements above what are already required by the underlying zone. Several overlay districts are proposed such as; a Downtown Overlay District, a Floodplain and Slope Overlay District, and a Corridors and Gateways Overlay District. These areas have special needs which can not be addressed by conventional districts and creating overlay zones will allow for more appropriate standards to be placed on these areas.

Coordinate city/county review and approval. The joining of the City and the County into one Plan will simplify the review process for future developments. A rational review and approval process is needed to ensure consistency with the Plan.

Planned development. Additional parameters are needed for this negotiated process to ensure that planned development will be a long-term asset for residents and the community as a whole. A planned development is defined as a development on a tract of land under single ownership, designed as a cohesive unit, and consisting of a combination of residential and nonresidential uses.

Improving community aesthetics. Existing zoning and development regulations require minimal landscaping improvements and limited buffering between dissimilar uses. Just as the City has incorporated landscaping as an integral part of public improvement projects, it should update its requirements for landscaping of private projects, particularly those located along the community's most visible corridors.

E.  Planning Assessment

One of the most difficult growth management challenges facing the community is the abundance of independent service providers. Water districts (many of which aggressively extended water service areas in the 1980s) and sanitation districts provide services throughout most of the planning area. While there is a relative abundance of utility capacity, the community's streets and school systems pose serious constraints to future growth. The lack of a City or County land use plan and the availability of utilities has fostered haphazard development patterns and raised the following concerns:

Improving the predictability of land use decisions. Residents, developers, public boards and staff lack adequate guidance to predict what uses should be developed in much of the community. Improving the predictability of land use decisions through the implementation of this Plan will benefit each of these groups.

Targeting urban infrastructure investments. The City and County need the guidance of a future land use plan to help target public investments which best achieve community goals. By proactively planning capital improvements instead of reacting to development requests, the City and County can plan and provide services more efficiently.

Maintaining adequate levels of services. While water and wastewater service are not in short supply, the community is experiencing overcrowding within both school and street systems. The City and County must plan cooperatively with each other and the School District to ensure that new growth does not overwhelm the community's ability to maintain adequate levels of service.

Funding / Impact Fees. New development and growth generates a need for more public services before the city or county is able to fund them. The use of impact fees to pay for new development is increasing nationwide. Impact fees are premised on the policy that new development should bear the cost of new public facilities and services whose demand is created by such development.

F.  Community Values

There is remarkable consensus among community residents about the issues facing the community. In surveys, workshops, focus group meetings, steering committee meetings and interviews, the community presented a consistent message. The following community perceptions and observations formed the basis of the Growth Plan's vision statement, policies and recommendations. While not all of these issues are fully resolved in the Growth Plan, most are addressed.

1.  Managing and Planning Future Growth

a.  The Plan should retain current community assets and build on them as we plan for our future.

b.  The community is not "no growth," but is very concerned that new growth be appropriate to the community.

c.  The City is part of a larger urban community. Growth decisions need to address the needs of both the City and the larger community of Grand Junction.

d.  The future size of the City is a concern. There are advantages (in terms of federal funding and national perception) to a population over 50,000. On the other hand, the feeling of a small community (which is enjoyed today) is also an asset.

e.  By managing growth, the community would like to minimize the effects of boom/bust cycles.

f.  Future growth should be planned so it is within the limitations of our natural and community resources. How much growth can our community accommodate? How much growth can our natural, economic and cultural resources allow?

g.  Planning for growth should also focus on preserving environmental quality. It should not result in declining air quality or degradation of other environmental resources.

h.  Future growth should be planned and located so it can be provided with adequate infrastructure.

i.  The form development takes is an issue for planning and managing growth.

j.  The amount, type and location of extra-territorial growth is an important concern, in addition to management of growth inside the City limits.

k.  The concept of "infill" -- development within defined boundaries where services and facilities already exist -- is appealing. How does Grand Junction define infill? Which areas are infill areas? How can this form of development be encouraged?

l.  There may be potential for a "village" development form, where businesses and community services are located together in a core surrounded by residential development.

m.  The vistas of the Monument, Grand Mesa and the Book Cliffs are important to this community's character. They should not be obscured by air pollution. Development in the foothills, even at low densities, may reduce the ability to enjoy these views. How can hillside development be managed to avoid this?

n.  There is a strong need for community agreement on the direction for Grand Junction's future.

2.  Maintaining Community Character

a.  There is a need for community agreement about the character we want Grand Junction to have, about the key features that contribute to the desired character and about the appropriate steps to take to maintain or achieve that character.

b.  People here have a sense of community pride. This is one part of the community character we hope to retain in the future.

c.  Local business leaders support the community and are involved in community issues/action. This is a strength we hope to retain.

d.  Neighborhood quality of life is important to the character of Grand Junction; it is one of the features that attract residents to this community. Some factors that shape neighborhood quality of life are:

(1)  neighborhood stability;

(2)  compatibility of land uses;

(3)  availability of parks and open spaces;

(4)  a sense of tranquility and safety;

(5)  friendliness and neighborhood pride; and

(6)  the people in the neighborhoods.

e.  The community needs to take actions to minimize crime.

f.  Grand Junction has many arts and cultural facilities that make this community unique. As we plan the future development of the community, we can build on these assets.

g.  Historic preservation should be part of planning for the community's future.

h.  The views of the mountains are an important part of this community's character.

i.  The impact of residential wood burning on air quality should be reviewed.

j.  There are special needs and opportunities related to downtown and the surrounding areas.

(1)  Development opportunities (such as residential above ground floor office/retail) are available downtown that don't exist elsewhere.

(2)  We need a plan for the future land use and zoning of downtown and its surroundings.

(3)  The existing single-family neighborhoods around downtown are zoned for much higher density development. Zoning changes should be made to reflect (and retain) the existing uses.

(4)  The area south of Main (from 7th to 1st) has potential for mixed use development -- residential, commercial and recreational. Development in this area must address compatibility issues with nearby industrial development.

(5)  Government offices should remain downtown.

k.  Stronger code enforcement is needed to address visual clutter in key areas.

l.  Gateways to Grand Junction are important because they provide visitors with first impressions of the city. There is some need for improved design at gateways. The City should consider some form of design guidelines or review for gateways, but should keep this flexible and avoid over-regulation. However, things people use (like infrastructure) should receive attention before things people see (like gateways).

m.  The design & appearance of major transportation corridors through and around the City (e.g., I-70, Hwys. 6 & 50, Bus. 70, North Avenue, Horizon Drive, etc.) are also concerns; issues are similar to those for gateways.

3.  Supporting Job Growth and Economic Development

a.  Grand Junction needs a stable and diverse economic base.

b.  We should encourage economic development that creates jobs at all pay levels, requiring a variety of skills.

c.  Economic development should include jobs for young people, so those who grow up here or attend Mesa College can stay in the community.

d.  The community should support existing businesses, helping keep them here and encouraging them to grow here. The future of one existing employer, the Department of Energy, causes special concern because of its size and the high skill, high wage jobs it provides. Its plans should be reviewed.

e.  Firms in the 20 to 200 employee range should be encouraged to locate here.

f.  The community needs a plan to set priorities for economic development. The Growth Plan should become an economic development tool.

g.  Many suggestions were made regarding which industries and business types that should be the focus of economic development efforts. Some suggestions are:

(1)  Telecommunications and other information technology firms;

(2)  Tourism;

(3)  Environmentally-sensitive businesses;

(4)  Environmental clean-up technologies (for world-wide markets);

(5)  Clean light industry;

(6)  Businesses that strengthen the viability of agriculture;

(7)  Businesses that use the skills of existing residents or provide training to residents; and

(8)  Businesses that continue Grand Junction's role as a regional center for finance, commercial activities and health care.

h.  The Mesa County Economic Development Council should continue its role in Grand Junction's economic development.

i.  Appropriate locations for new economic development should be identified and planned. The Bureau of Land Management land near the airport is one possibility.

4.  Preserving Open Spaces

a.  Open spaces are important to the community; they should be included in the Growth Plan.

b.  Possible "open spaces" range from agricultural areas and the riverfront to neighborhood parks and connecting greenbelts. The planning process should consider:

(1)  The definition of open spaces to be preserved (whether these include publicly-owned lands, developed parks, natural areas, canals and/or agricultural areas); and

(2)  The amount and location of future open space areas.

c.  Open spaces and natural areas are important as part of the community's image. They make the first impression on visitors.

d.  Agricultural areas have value as open (non-urban) spaces, yet they are privately owned and used for private businesses. How can Grand Junction and its urban residents help support continuing, viable agriculture? If agricultural uses do not continue, should the land be preserved for other open space uses? What tools can be used that will be effective and are reasonable for the agricultural land owners and the community?

e.  Open spaces should be connected with a valley-wide trails system. Analysis and policy debate are needed to:

(1)  Define the desired connections;

(2)  Clarify whether they are community developed;

(3)  Clarify whether they are publicly owned;

(4)  Clarify whether they must be available to the public; and

(5)  Address the appropriate uses of these areas and their visual impact on the community.

f.  The role of canals in the open space system is a critical issue. Policy, legal, institutional and operational issues must be explored to define their role.

g.  Neighborhood parks are important to open space, too. New development in areas which are not now urban must include parks to replace some of the open space benefits of the undeveloped land.

h.  How can open space and parks be funded, operated & maintained? Who should be responsible?

i.  What are the most appropriate and reasonable tools to use in acquiring or retaining open space areas?

5.  Providing for Affordable Housing

a.  The City should plan, or provide, for housing that is affordable to residents at all income levels. Additional efforts may be needed to address low income housing needs.

b.  There should be a full range of housing options available in the community -- single-family detached homes on small lots, homes on larger semi-rural lots, duplexes, apartments, manufactured/mobile homes and others.

c.  Locations must be identified for development of new multi-family and manufactured housing. Once these locations are identified, planning and zoning should support these development options. City decision-makers must be willing to then allow development consistent with the plans and zoning.

d.  New development should be compatible with the existing neighborhoods surrounding it.

e.  The appropriate role for the City in planning or providing appropriate housing types and affordable housing must be discussed.

6.  Providing Adequate Transportation

a.  Planning for the transportation system must consider all transportation modes. Its impact on air quality must be evaluated.

b.  An adequate roadway system must be planned and constructed to keep pace with growth. Particular concerns relate to traffic flow at key Downtown intersections and the need for additional arterial streets.

c.  Trails and pathways should be part of the transportation system. They should be designed for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. They should expand the Riverfront trail system.

d.  During the planning period, Grand Junction may need some form of public transit. Will this be needed? What form of transit would be most appropriate?

e.  Grand Junction needs better aviation service.

7.  Addressing Public Education

a.  Quality education is important at all levels, from elementary schools to Mesa College.

b.  The school district is facing significant needs without adequate resources.

c.  The community supports the growth of Mesa College, but is concerned about where and how that growth occurs. Negotiation and institutional land use controls should be used to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Parking and student housing are important needs in terms of long-range planning and land use patterns.

d.  The City and County should be a partner with the school district in the selection of school sites and the coordination of growth with school facility capacity.

8.  Ensuring Efficient Service Provision

a.  The community should set priorities to address current community needs first.

b.  Facilities and services should be planned and built so they keep up with growth as it occurs.

c.  The community's changing demographics affect service needs. The Plan must consider this in evaluating future service needs and appropriate service delivery standards.

d.  What is the long-term role of irrigation districts and systems in areas that are becoming urban? What services are necessary and appropriate? What provisions are needed during development to protect existing irrigation systems?

e.  It may be appropriate to set different service levels in urban, suburban and rural areas. These service levels can reflect the different character of these areas; they should be cost-effective in light of the future development patterns and densities.

f.  There should be a "backbone" system of major lines and facilities for services such as water, sewer, irrigation and roadways. The facilities in the backbone system could be designed consistently, regardless of the entity constructing them. Other, localized facilities could then be designed as each entity chose.

g.  Which entities should serve urban areas? Should these areas be annexed into the City or should urban-level service be provided by the County and/or other entities?

h.  Who should pay for facility expansions, replacements, and extensions? What are the policy options?

i.  What is the appropriate basis for setting fees related to capital facilities? Should they cover facility replacement costs or new facilities? What is the current practice for the City and other service providers?

j.  The costs to serve infill development are different from those for development in urban expansion areas. Fees and charges should reflect this cost differential.

9.  Cooperation between the City, Mesa County and Other Service Providers

a.  Local governmental entities should work harder at working together. The City's attitude in dealing with other entities and unincorporated area residents is perceived as a problem by some.

b.  There are more successes in cooperation than the general public understands. Some of this concern is related to the perception that there is not enough cooperation. The City and County need to "tell the success stories".

c.  Better coordination among service providers is a concern to many participants. Coordination includes the sharing of plans and projections, use of consistent design standards and inclusion of service providers in development review processes. There have been successes in this area, but more is needed.

d.  Annexation issues need to be addressed. These issues cause confusion and create suspicion about the City's motives in annexing areas. Some of the issues for which consistent policy is needed are listed below. Clear communication of these policies to the public is also an important part of addressing annexation concerns.

(1)  Why does the City consider annexation?

(2)  When is annexation appropriate? What factors support annexation to the City?

(3)  What are the costs and benefits of annexation to area residents, property owners and businesses?

(4)  Should the City annex strips and other configurations that exclude some areas within a neighborhood or community? If so, when are these types of annexation appropriate?

e.  There are opportunities for additional coordination with the school district.

f.  The potential for consolidation of service districts should be explored.

10.  Implementing the Plan

a.  What regulations are appropriate to accomplish the community's goals?

b.  In reviewing existing or potential regulations, it's important to retain flexibility in responding to individual situations and needs.

c.  Much of the City's development process works well. There are some opportunities for improvement. Most suggestions relate to the PUD process:

(1)  When it should be used (type, size &/or location of projects);

(2)  What criteria should apply consistently to PUD's;

(3)  What issues should be handled with "case-by-case" negotiations;

(4)  How to ensure that negotiated provisions are compatible with the needs of other service providers; and

(5)  How provisions are monitored and enforced.

d.  By implementing the Growth Plan in conjunction with the County's Comprehensive Plan, we expect that Grand Junction will be a desirable community for residents and new businesses. The attractions of a desirable community should create economic development advantages.

e.  What role should specific incentives play in economic development efforts? How should these be targeted? How can their costs be evaluated and their benefits measured?

CHAPTER FOUR

PLAN ALTERNATIVES

A.  Overview  IV.1

B.  Definition of Alternatives  IV.2

C.  Analysis of Alternatives  IV.11

D.  Selection of a Preferred Alternative  IV.19

IV.  PLAN ALTERNATIVES

A.  Overview

The City and County jointly embarked on rigorous alternatives analysis process to:

$  Compare the consequences of different growth management strategies; and

$  Select a future growth alternative that is consistent with community values and resources.

As the community prepared the Growth Plan, it faced many choices about the character, intensity and location of new growth. By exploring the implications of different growth management strategies, the City and County were able to choose policies and strategies that will best achieve the community's goals. The Steering Committee, with input from the staff, consultants and the general public, determined the composition of each alternative.

The alternatives analysis focused on future land use patterns and their service/cost implications. The three alternatives identified the location of different types of growth within the community. Each alternative shared some common characteristics because they used existing land use patterns as a foundation. The differences between these alternatives were most obvious in the locations where new growth will be directed. The alternatives analysis explored the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative by focusing on distinctions among land uses, demands for services, public facility and service costs and implementation strategies.

After the Steering Committee reviewed the impacts of each alternative and public comments, it recommended a preferred alternative upon which the City's Growth Plan is based.

B.  Definition of Alternatives

The Growth Plan alternatives were designed with four objectives in mind:

$  The alternatives should reflect a clear understanding of the existing conditions in the community;

$  The alternatives should propose growth trends and development patterns that reflect realistic possibilities for the City and community as a whole;

$  The alternatives should describe future land uses with enough detail to permit quantitative analysis; and

$  The alternatives should pose distinct land use and policy options, which reflect the goals and objectives of distinct constituencies within the community.

Exhibits IV.1, IV.2 and IV.3 illustrate the general concepts of each of the three alternatives selected for analysis. Exhibit IV.4 describes each alternative in greater detail.

Exhibit IV.1: Current Practices

Exhibit IV.2: Concentrated Growth

Exhibit IV.3: Urban Core/Outlying Growth Centers

Exhibit IV.4: Growth Plan Alternatives

C.  Analysis of Alternatives

Each of the alternatives was analyzed for its impacts on the following factors:

The following paragraphs summarize some of the most significant differences between the alternatives. See the alternatives analysis report for more detail.

The future land use analysis revealed that the concentrated growth alternative resulted in the preservation of more than twice as much agricultural land as the other alternatives (2,661 acres versus 758 acres for current practices and 1,240 acres for urban core/outlying centers). The Urban Core/Outlying Centers resulted in the greatest preservation of open space, primarily along the rivers and along drainageways through the Redlands.

As shown in the following table, each of the alternatives provided for far more population and employment capacity than is anticipated during the planning period.

Based on detailed traffic modeling that distributed population and employment into 100 separate traffic zones, each of the alternatives generated enough traffic to overtax the existing road system. In each case, the addition of a bridge crossing in the 29 Road corridor and a Riverside bypass from Broadway to South 5th Street helped relieve the worst traffic problems. Because each alternative largely respected existing zoning, which provides for extensive employment in the west half of the planning area and residences in the east, each alternative resulted in peak hour traffic congestion on the east-west arterial streets.

There was little difference in the impacts on water systems because of the extensive infrastructure that already is in place. However, new capital improvements required for the wastewater system differed significantly. The Concentrated Growth alternative resulted in the lowest total projected wastewater improvement cost at build-out ($1.1 million). This alternative requires some sewer line expansions in Orchard Mesa and north and south Grand Junction. Current Practices generated the highest total wastewater improvement cost ($4.4 million), due to the cost of a significant amount of large diameter pipe (60") needed for the south-southwest Clifton area. This alternative also requires improvements in Orchard Mesa and south Grand Junction. The Core/Centers alternative generated a demand for $2.4 million in improvements at build-out.

There were minor differences in the overall capital improvements required to provide fire, police, parks and school services. These costs were significant on a per capita basis, but varied only slightly between alternatives. The most significant cost is the projected need for $84 million in new school facilities.

The Concentrated Growth alternative provided the greatest opportunity for affordable housing, authorizing up to 24,000 higher density units, versus 14,000 and 15,000 units for the Current Practices and Core/Centers alternatives, respectively.

The alternatives had distinct impacts on downtown viability. While the Concentrated Growth alternative provided for more population and employment potential than the other alternatives, the Core/Centers alternative included public improvements that would make the downtown a more pleasant place to live and work. Consequently, the Core/Centers alternative was determined to have the greatest benefit for the downtown area. The Current Practices alternative, by assuming the construction of a new convention center near the airport, would have the least beneficial impact on the downtown.

A final area of analysis identified the distinctions between the policies required to carry out each alternative. Exhibit IV.5 lists these policy distinctions.

Exhibit IV.5: Alternatives Policy Distinctions

D.  Selection of a Preferred Alternative

The City and County Steering Committees carefully weighed the impacts of each of the Plan alternatives and community input before "selecting" a preferred alternative on which to base the Plan. Based on the alternatives' impacts and written comments from most of the 150 people who attended an open house on the alternatives, the Steering Committees jointly selected the Concentrated Growth alternative with the following refinements:

•  Incorporate the lower densities, commercial centers and open space concepts from the core centers alternative for the Redlands area;

•  Carefully evaluate the viability of a downtown convention center/hotel complex before allocating public resources to this effort;

•  Pursue the South 5th Street green gateway concept as shown in the core/centers alternative;

•  Provide for more commercial and employment expansion in the Clifton area to balance the flow of commuter traffic;

•  Provide for greater floodplain protection along the river corridor;

•  Enact hillside and ridgeline standards to address aesthetic and safety concerns;

•  Include additional park and open space area on the Matchet property; and

•  Plan for limited westward expansion of Mesa State College.

While Chapter V describes the preferred alternative in detail, the following paragraphs provide a concise overview.

Theme. The Concentrated Growth alternative is characterized by infill development, redevelopment, moderated outward growth and support for a vital downtown core. Infrastructure guides the timing and location of growth.

General. New urban growth (lots smaller than 2 acres) is limited to areas within the urban growth boundary where water, wastewater and street improvements are in place. Non-urban (residential lots of 2 or more acres) parts of the community will receive rural service levels (e.g., no sidewalks, minimal fire protection, no sewer service). The development of agricultural and other open space lands that do not have access to urban services is discouraged. The City and County will use utility extension and clustering policies to retain agricultural land and minimize urban sprawl. Higher density infill is located where it can be made compatible with existing development and natural resources. In stable single-family neighborhoods near the core, multi-family land is down-zoned. The City will continue to support downtown vitality through infrastructure investments and the creation of more appropriate downtown development regulations.

Land Use Patterns - Single-Family. The preferred alternative will use minimum and maximum lot sizes to discourage large lot subdivisions in future urban areas. Agricultural and other open space lands will be protected by limiting utility extension and exercising clustering policies. The City and County will encourage mixed residential and commercial projects.

Land Use Patterns - Multi-Family. New multi-family units are scattered in areas of transition between commercial and single-family development, with additional multi-family developments east of 32 Road and on the east side of 24 Road. Mixed developments of single-family and multi-family units are encouraged.

Land Use Patterns - Commercial. The downtown area is a high priority. The City will stimulate redevelopment of lighter commercial services along Ute/Pitkin corridor. South Downtown is rezoned to commercial with some commercial along riverfront park frontage. Mixed commercial/multi-family residential development is encouraged in this area. The downtown commercial core area is developed as a mixed use/specialty retail/ entertainment/government center, with additional housing encouraged.

New large-scale commercial development is limited to neighborhood convenience services at existing commercial sites, except at existing commercial centers, such as the downtown, Clifton, Mesa Mall and Airport areas. The Jarvis property is partially developed for commercial uses, with the riverfront area reserved for trails and open space.

Land Use Patterns - Industrial. The development of the airport area is mostly light industrial and office space. Residential development is limited in areas of airport influence. The City and County also will require investment in landscape screening along major heavy commercial and industrial corridors.

Institutional & Utility Policies. To maintain consistency with City/County plans, there is extra effort to coordinate between utility providers. Development will be limited to locations where adequate facilities are available. Non-contiguous development must bear the full cost of extensions to new development areas. The City and County will work with the School District to link development approvals with school capacity.

       Airport. This area is developed as commercial/light industrial center with some office buildings and some light manufacturing/warehousing operations. No major increase in hotel or meeting space is anticipated.

Appleton. Most of the land remains as rural or low intensity residential development.

       Clifton. Residential development of various densities occurs throughout the area, with some new multi-family development occurring along both sides of 32 Road south of Business 70. The area east of 33 Road is maintained as a rural and agricultural area. Commercial development near 30 and 32 Roads along Bus. 70 intensifies to provide residents with better access to employment and shopping opportunities.

         Downtown Commercial Core and General Downtown Area. The focus is on redevelopment in the downtown area. The City continues to work with the Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) to pursue feasible alternatives to increase downtown economic growth. Area development will focus on entertainment, tourism, specialty retail, government and financial offices, with incentives provided for compatible downtown residential development. Adjacent neighborhoods are down-zoned in most areas to stabilize single-family development. Heavy commercial and industrial areas are downzoned to encourage other types of uses and redevelopment that is more compatible with the "vision" for downtown.

       Fifth Street (South Downtown). The City will provide some incentives for redevelopment. Public street fronts are improved for better pedestrian circulation and streetscaping is used to soften the image of nearby commercial and industrial buildings.

       Fruitvale/Pear Park. A mix of residential development occurs in area north of Business 70. All commercial development is limited to the area between North Avenue and Business 70. Low density residential development south of the railroad tracks will be bounded by higher density residential development to the west.

       Orchard Mesa. Most importantly, the Orchard Mesa Plan is followed. Land east of 30 Road is reserved for future urban development. Interim development is clustered to help retain agricultural land and provide for future urban development where the City and County extend the urban growth boundary. A commercial node is placed along Highway 50 at intersection with 29 Road corridor.

       Redlands. This area is developed at a mix of residential densities, with some low intensity projects and conservation areas established. The commercial areas near Broadway and Monument Village expand to provide increased shopping and community service opportunities.

CHAPTER FIVE

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN

JOINT URBAN PLANNING AREA

GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION

A.  General  V.1

B.  Vision for the Urban Area  V.1

C.  Key Issues  V.2

D.  Future Land Use Classes  V.7

E.  Preferred Land Use Scenario  V.10

F.  Goals and Policies  V.14

G.  Urban Area Plan Amendment/Administration  V.56

H.  Plan Implementation Strategies  V.59

Table of Contents

 Page

V.  FUTURE LAND USE PLAN -- JOINT URBAN PLANNING AREA  GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION  V.1

A.  General  V.1

B.  Vision for the Urban Area  V.1

C.  Key Issues  V.2

D.  Future Land Use Classes  V.7

E.  Preferred Land Use Scenario  V.10

F.  Goals and Policies  V.14

G.  Urban Area Plan Amendment/Administration  V.56

H.  Plan Implementation Strategies  V.59

 List of Exhibits

 Page

Exhibit V.1: Joint Planning Area  V.3

Exhibit V.2: Future Land Use Categories  V.16

Exhibit V.3: Future Land Use Map  V.19

Exhibit V.4: Fruita/Grand Junction Transition Area  V.23

Exhibit V.5: Palisade/Clifton Transition Area  V.24

Exhibit V.6: Growth Areas  V.27

Exhibit V.7: Existing Centers of Activity  V.33

Exhibit V.8: Area Plans  V.36

Exhibit V.9: Corridor Guidelines  V.39

Exhibit V.10: Key Corridors and Gateways  V.41

Exhibit V.11: Functional Street Classes  V.51

Exhibit V.12: Level of Service Definitions  V.52

Exhibit V.13: Existing Parks and Open Space  V.57

Exhibit V.14: Urban Area Plan Implementation Strategies  V.60

V.  FUTURE LAND USE PLAN -- JOINT URBAN PLANNING AREA

GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION

A.  General

Grand Junction and Mesa County are partners in the management of urban growth in the Central Grand Valley -- they share the same goals for the future of this area. This Urban Area Plan applies throughout the Mesa County/Grand Junction joint planning area illustrated in Exhibit V.1. The Urban Area Plan establishes a joint planning strategy to guide land use and development decisions through the year 2010. The policies and implementation items in the Plan are applicable to the City, the County or both entities as referenced herein and clarified through a Grand Junction/Mesa County intergovernmental agreement.

B.  Vision for the Urban Area

C.  Key Issues

Historical boom and bust growth cycles have shaped growth attitudes and growth patterns within Grand Junction and Mesa County. During boom periods, utilities and roadways have been extended to serve much of the planning area without regard to the long-term costs. During the economic busts, relaxed development standards fostered substandard development and citizen resentment towards certain types of development.

As an increasing proportion of the County's urban residents live in unincorporated areas, the costs of inefficient development patterns has become more evident. The sprawling development pattern has created fiscal burdens and is consuming large tracts of the agricultural and open space land that attracted so many of its residents.

The goals, policies and strategies in this plan respond to the following issues facing the community.

City / County Coordination. Early in the planning process the residents of the City and County realized the importance of working together. Residents recognized that jointly, the City and the County could better address issues such as; environmental preservation, growth patterns and public facilities and services. This Growth Plan coordinates future land uses and zoning so that compatible uses are adjoining to each other. Land uses along the Cities boundaries will be continued into the County in a logical pattern. The plan will also ensure improved service provisions. Areas within the Grand Valley will be allowed to develop when there is adequate funds to provide public services and facilities such as roads and school. Finally, the plan will simplify the review process for future developments since the same standards will be adopted through out the County.

Municipal Coordination. The growth and annexation experienced in Grand Junction, Fruita, and Palisade has resulted in the cities nearly abutting each other. Currently, an undeveloped buffer exists between these entities. The residents want to address how these communities should

Exhibit V.1: Joint Planning Area

develop this area. This plan recognizes the need for the buffer to be developed as a transition area, with specific design guidelines.

Ensuring Land Use Compatibility. Residents are concerned that commercial encroachment or poorly developed multi-family projects will degrade the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Residents recognize the value of developing residential units of various types and price ranges throughout the community and the value of having quick access to businesses. However, they want to be certain that new development will not erode their property values or create excess traffic or noise. This plan supports a heterogeneous mix of land uses, but calls for the establishment of appropriate standards to ensure neighborhood compatibility.

Maintaining Compact Development Patterns. Residents want to preserve the extensive agricultural and open space land surrounding the urban area. They also want the benefits of more efficient street and utility services. More compact development patterns will support both of these objectives. Unfortunately, sprawling infrastructure, historical development approvals and market demands for larger lots has led to decreased urban densities. This plan represents one step in the community's efforts to balance the pressures for outward growth with the desire to promote infill.

Ensuring Adequate Public Facilities for Residents and Businesses. Increased traffic, utility demands, park usage and school enrollments are challenging local governments' abilities to keep up with growth. The quality of life in the community is directly related to maintaining an acceptable level of these vital services. As streets, parks or schools get crowded, residents begin to resent growth. High capital costs associated with expanding utility systems typically translate into rate increases. This plan defines minimum service levels for some facilities and recommends strategies to develop acceptable standards for other facilities. Schools and street system capacity will remain the primary constraints to growth in the urban planning area.

Establishing Equitable Funding Strategies. Growth can help stimulate the local economy. However, growth that does not adequately fund construction of new capital facilities creates an ongoing drain on local government budgets. In addition to funding operations and maintenance costs, existing residents and business owners continually provide funds for new roads, new utility plants and lines, new fire stations new parks and new schools. If growth funds the capital costs for which it is directly responsible, then local taxes and user fees can be set at the more moderate levels required to maintain existing facilities and remedy existing deficiencies.

Improving Coordination Between Service Providers. As the community demands better and more cost-effective services, local governments and utility companies have been forced to search for more efficient ways to provide services. The City, County and School District efforts to jointly provide recreational services is one example of local government providing higher quality services more efficiently. Through better coordination of capital and operations plans, the City, County, School District and utility companies can continue to improve local service efficiencies. This plan identifies several strategies to accomplish this objective.

Focusing on the Unique Needs of the Community's Neighborhoods. The community within the planning area includes several unique neighborhoods, each with distinct needs and priorities. The downtown area has quite different needs than the rural development at the fringes of the urban area. This plan recognizes the different characteristics of the community's neighborhoods and recommends the use of area plans to identify and address unique neighborhood needs.

Enhancing Community Aesthetics. The residents take pride in their community and have shown an interest in preserving and reinforcing all aesthetically appealing aspect of the area. Therefore, they have begun a successful effort to enhance the community’s appearance. In the past, entry roads, gateways and river corridors were allowed to develop without much consideration to aesthetics. Junk yards and open storage areas were scattered throughout. The plan continues the efforts started and recommends stronger design guidelines, especially in the highly visual areas of the community.

D.  Future Land Use Classes

The Urban Planning Area is located in and around the most heavily urbanized area of the Grand Valley, including the community areas of the Redlands, Orchard Mesa, Clifton and Grand Junction. This area is jointly planned by Mesa County and the City of Grand Junction.

The Urban Planning Area has a more detailed land use classification system than the Rural Areas of the County due to the more intense urban pressures it experiences. This second tier in the County land use terminology has fourteen (14) classifications. The fourteen (14) land use classes are:

a.  Agriculture (orchard, crop/pasture, feeding, non-irrigated range/35 acre plus)

b.  Rural (5-35 acre lots)

c.  Estate (2-5 acre lots)

d.  Residential/Low Density (1.9 du/acre - 1 du/2 acres)

e.  Residential/Medium Low Density (2-3.9 du/acre)

f.  Residential/Medium Density (4-7.9 du/acre)

g.  Residential/Medium High Density (8-11.9 du/acre)

h.  Residential/High Density (12-24 du/acre)

i.  Commercial (Retail, Office, Service, Entertainment, etc.)

j.  Commercial/Industrial (Heavy commercial and light industrial)

k.  Industrial (Heavy commercial and industrial operations)

l.  Public/Institutional (Schools, colleges, hospitals, libraries, etc.)

m.  Parks (Active park and recreation sites)

n.  Conservation (public lands, BLM, NFS, sensitive areas, hazard areas)

The following paragraphs describe each of the use categories in detail. Zoning districts will be used to establish the conditions for the use and development of land in each of the categories. The development codes will identify which district or districts are appropriate for each land use category.

Agriculture. Private lands with homes on approximately 35 acres or more. Typical uses would consist of the farms, orchards, pastures, other commercial agriculture operations or open areas. Agricultural parcels will not receive urban level services. This category does not include industrial farms or livestock feedlots.

Rural. Private land that will remain in parcels of 5 to 35 acres. The uses will vary among residential lots, low intensity agricultural operations, orchards and other small scale operations. The bulk of these parcels will receive no urban level services, though rural water supplies may be available. Clustered or attached single family units may be developed in future urban areas through the planned development process.

Estate. Typical “estate” style single family homes on large lots of 2 to 5 acres. Centralized services might be needed depending on site conditions and proximity to existing services. Zoning will regulate the intensity of agricultural operations permitted on Estate parcels.

Residential Low Density. Single family detached residences on lots ranging from ½ to 2 acres. These homes are generally served by a public water and wastewater system. Clustered homes and attached single family units may be permitted in planned developments

Residential Medium-Low Density. Detached single family residents with typically 2 to 4 units per acre that receive full urban services. Alternative residential development types, including single family attached, townhomes, and multi-family units may be permitted in these areas through the planned development process, where gross densities do not exceed four units per acre and compatibility with adjacent development can be assured.

Residential Medium Density. A mix of residential development types with gross densities less than 8 dwelling units per acre are anticipated in areas with this designation. Single family development will be integrated with other dwelling types, including duplexes, and low intensity attached residential development. Some low intensity multi-family development may be permitted through the planned development process where compatibility with adjacent development can be assured.

Residential Medium-High Density. A mix of residential development types with gross densities less than 12 dwelling units per acre are anticipated in areas with this designation. Duplexes, manufactured home subdivisions and low intensity attached residential development will be integrated with townhomes, and low intensity multi-family development. Larger multi-family developments and/or small (less than 5,000 square feet) neighborhood retail/service centers may be permitted through the planned development process where compatibility with adjacent development can be assured.

Residential High Density. All types of residential development may be permitted in these areas provided that gross densities are at least 12 and no more than 24 dwelling units per acre. Higher density residential and neighborhood retail/service center development may be permitted through the planned development process where compatibility with adjacent development can be assured and adequate community-wide amenities or other benefits are provided consistent with zoning standards.

Commercial. Permits a wide range of commercial development (office, retail, service, lodging, entertainment) with no outdoor storage or operations. Mixed commercial and residential developments will be encouraged in some areas.

Commercial Industrial. Heavy Commercial, offices and light industrial uses with outdoor storage, but no outdoor operations other than sales (e.g., office/warehouse uses, auto sales, auto repair shops, lumber yards, light manufacturing). Some yard operations may be permitted through the planned development process where adequate screening and buffering can be provided to ensure compatibility with existing and planned development in the vicinity of the proposed use. Residential uses are not appropriate.

Industrial. Heavy commercial and industrial operations are predominant in industrial areas. Batch plants and manufacturing uses with outdoor operations are appropriate if developed consistently with zoning regulations. Residential uses are not appropriate in industrial areas.

Public/Institutional. Public and quasi-public uses, such as schools, government facilities, cemeteries, hospitals and churches. Prior to conversion of these areas to private, non-institutional uses, a land use amendment will be required pursuant to the process established in the development code. These uses may be permitted in other categories if developed consistently with zoning regulations and compatibly with adjacent development.

Parks. Active park and recreation sites with significant public access, whether publicly or privately owned.

Conservation. Public or private lands reserved for open space, wildlife habitat, sensitive or hazardous land protection, and other environmental conservation purposes. Mining and sand/gravel operations may be permitted as a temporary use.

E.  Preferred Land Use Scenario

Urban Planning Area Preferred Land Use Scenario

The Joint Mesa County/Grand Junction Steering Committee (City of Grand Junction Growth Plan Steering Committee and Mesa Countywide Steering Committee) considered the analysis of three land use alternatives for the Urban Planning Area part of the Grand Valley. They agreed on the following seven policy principles which define this alternative's approach:

Principles

a.  Concentrate Urban Growth

b.  Support/Enhance Existing Neighborhoods

c.  Reinforce Existing Community Centers

d.  Provide Open Spaces Throughout the Urban Area

e.  Ensure That Development Pays Its Own Way

f.  Disperse Higher Density Housing

g.  Continue Coordination to Implement Plan

h.  Retain Valued Cultural and Environmental Resources

Urban Area Features

A more detailed description of the features of the preferred land use plan is found below:

a.  Concentrate Urban Growth

1.  The general land use pattern should be as shown on the "Concentrated Urban Growth Alternative" with the following changes:

•  Strengthen the Downtown focus;

•  Show the existing centers and their surrounding development (Clifton, the Mall, the Airport area);

•  Include an urban open space network;

•  Show an interchange at I-70 and 29 Road;

•  Route the Riverside bypass to avoid the existing neighborhood;

•  Reflect the open space buffers and lower densities in the Redlands;

•  Distinguish light and heavy industrial uses; and

•  Plan for urban development south of the I-70 interchange with 32 Road. Planned uses should promote quality gateways into the community.

2.  A key objective of this growth pattern is to use infrastructure (existing and planned) most efficiently and cost-effectively.

3.  An Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) should be defined as the outer limit of urban development within the Urban Planning Area.

4.  Phasing and other techniques may be used in addition to the UGB.

b.  Support/Enhance Existing Neighborhoods

1.  Planning should help maintain the quality of life in existing neighborhoods.

2.  The recently adopted Orchard Mesa neighborhood plan should be incorporated.

3.  New roadways (such as the Riverside bypass) should be designed and located so they do not intrude on existing neighborhoods.

4.  Compatibility standards should be in place for more intense uses in or adjacent to neighborhoods.

c.  Reinforce Existing Community Centers

1.  A vital Downtown is a major part of this plan. The viability of an updated Two Rivers convention center and support hotel rooms should be impartially evaluated prior to development of new tourism/convention facilities in other parts of the community.

2.  Other existing centers (Clifton, the Mall, the Airport area) should be recognized and allowed to grow.

3.  There may be a need for some new neighborhood-scale centers in some areas.

4.  No major new community centers will be included in the plan.

d.  Provide Open Spaces Throughout the Urban Area

1.  Neighborhood parks should be located in all urban areas.

2.  Natural open spaces and greenbelts should be provided within the urban area.

3.  A trails network is needed, both for recreation and transportation (include pedestrian, bike, equestrian).

4.  Floodplains offer good opportunities for greenbelt and trail location.

e.  Ensure that Development Pays Its Own Way to the Extent Allowed by Law

f.  Disperse Higher Density Housing

1.  Higher density housing is needed and an adequate supply should be provided.

2.  This housing should be located throughout the community rather than concentrated in a few small areas. Ideally it should be integrated into mixed density housing developments.

3.  Design and compatibility standards are needed to ensure that higher density housing is a long-term asset to the community.

4.  The plan should support creation of affordable single family homes as well as the higher density housing types (affordable housing doesn't have to mean attached units).

g.  Continue Coordination to Implement Plan

1.  Intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) are critical implementation tools. The City and county should negotiate an IGA to provide for joint plan implementation.

2.  Zoning should be compatible with and supportive of the plan. While areas may be appropriate for downzoning, private property rights must be respected.

3.  Service duplications should be eliminated when cost savings can be achieved.

h.  Retain Valued Cultural and Environmental Resources

1.  Support for preservation of historic resources and neighborhood integrity will help the community retain sites of cultural or architectural significance.

2.  Hillside and riverine policies and strategies will help retain natural vistas and open space linkages through the community. They also will provide natural areas to support wildlife in and around the community.

F.  Goals and Policies

The following goals and policies are embraced by both the City and the County for the Joint Planning Area. Goals, which uniformly apply to both the City and County describe a desired state of affairs for the community in the future. They are the broad public purposes toward which policies and programs are directed. In this Plan, goals are phrased to express the desired results of the Plan; they complete the sentence "Our goal is ..." Policies are statements of government intent against which individual actions and decisions are evaluated. Policies are phrased as sentences, with the agency responsible for implementing the policy clearly identified. Policies with the verb "will" express a greater level of commitment than policies using "should" or "may".

Land Use

Goal 1:  To achieve a balance of open space, agricultural, residential and non-residential land use opportunities that reflects the residents' respect for the natural environment, the integrity of the community's neighborhoods, the economic needs of the residents and business owners, the rights of private property owners and the needs of the urbanizing community as a whole.

Policy 1.1:  The City and County will use the future land use categories listed and described in Exhibit V.2 to designate appropriate land uses within the Joint Planning Area identified in Exhibit V.1. City and County actions on land use proposals within the Joint Planning Area will be consistent with the plan.

Policy 1.2:  The City and County will use Exhibit V.2 to guide decisions on the gross density of residential development.⁵

Exhibit V.2: Future Land Use Categories⁶

Policy 1.3:  The City and County will use Exhibit V.3: Future Land Use Map in conjunction with the other policies of this plan to guide zoning and development decisions.

$  City and County decisions about the type and intensity of land uses will be consistent with the Future Land Use Map and Plan policies.

$  The City and County may limit site development to a lower intensity than shown on the Future Land Use Map if site specific conditions do not support planned intensities.

Policy 1.4:  The City and County may allow residential dwelling types (e.g., patio homes, duplex, multi-family and other dwelling types) other than those specifically listed for each residential category⁸ through the use of planned development regulations that ensure compatibility with adjacent development. Gross density within a project should not exceed planned densities except as provided in policy 1.5. Clustering of dwellings on a portion of a site should be encouraged so that the remainder of the site is reserved for usable open space or agricultural land.

Policy 1.5:  The City and County may allow maximum residential densities to exceed those specified in Exhibit V.2 by up to twenty (20) percent through the use of planned development regulations that result in specific community benefits, if adequate public facilities can be provided and the proposed development will be compatible with adjacent development. (Specific community benefits may include: compatible infill, affordable housing, community parks, trails or open space.)

Policy 1.6:  The City and County may permit the development of limited neighborhood service and retail uses within an area planned for residential land use categories through planned developments.

Policy 1.7:  The City and County will use zoning to establish the appropriate scale, type, location and intensity for development. Development standards should ensure that proposed residential and non-residential development is compatible with the planned development of adjacent property.

Policy 1.8:  The City and County will use zoning and special area policies (adopted as part of this plan) to describe the preferred types of non-residential development in different parts of the community.

Policy 1.9:  The City and County will direct the location of heavy commercial and industrial uses with outdoor storage and operations in parts of the community that are screened from view from arterial streets. Where these uses are adjacent to arterial streets, they should be designed to minimize views of outdoor storage loading and operations areas.

Policy 1.10:  The City and County will encourage building and landscape designs which enhance the visual appeal of individual projects and the community as a whole. Design guidelines should provide flexibility while promoting aesthetics, traffic safety and land use compatibility.

Exhibit V.3: Future Land Use Map

Policy 1.11:  The City and County will ensure that medium-high and high density residential projects have adequate usable public or private open space incorporated into the project or linked to the project on adjacent parcels.

Policy 1.12:  The City and County will require that provisions be made for on-going maintenance of open space areas by an appropriate public or private entity.

Goal 2:  To ensure orderly transitions or buffers in areas of joint concern between different communities (i.e., Grand Junction, Fruita, Palisade) that help define distinct communities within Mesa County.

Policy 2.1:  Grand Junction and Mesa County will coordinate with the City of Fruita to establish and maintain a transition area between Grand Junction and Fruita that includes the proposed area of joint concern shown in Exhibit V.4. Mesa County and Grand Junction should coordinate the adoption of specific design standards for this area with Fruita to strengthen the visual transition between these communities.

Policy 2.2:  Mesa County and Grand Junction will coordinate with the Town of Palisade and other affected jurisdictions to establish and maintain a transition area between the Clifton area and the Town of Palisade that includes the proposed area of joint concern shown in Exhibit V.5. Mesa County and Grand Junction should coordinate the adoption of specific design standards for this area to strengthen the visual transition.

Policy 2.3:  The City and County will support public and private investment in community gateway areas that enhance the aesthetic appeal of the community.

Growth Management

Goal 3:  To implement the plan through the coordinated and consistent actions of Grand Junction, Mesa County and other service providers.

Policy 3.1:  The City and County will negotiate an inter-governmental agreement (IGA) to promote consistent application and implementation of the Joint Plan.

Policy 3.2:  The City and County will prohibit the extension or connection of services to developments that do not comply with the Joint City/County Land Use Plan and local development regulations.

Policy 3.3:  The City and County will target public investments to promote development or redevelopment that supports the goals of the plan.

Policy 3.4:  The City and County will support efforts to continually improve the effectiveness of the Utility Coordinating Committee (UCC) in the coordination of improvements to serve new and existing development.

Exhibit V.4: Fruita/Grand Junction Transition Area

Exhibit V.5: Palisade/Clifton Transition Area

Policy 3.5:  The City and County will coordinate with public and private service providers to develop and maintain public improvements which efficiently serve existing and new development.

Policy 3.6:  The City and County will maintain and annually update ten-year capital improvement plans that identify specific improvements required to serve existing and approved development.

Goal 4:  To coordinate the timing, location and intensity of growth with the provision of adequate public facilities.

Policy 4.1:  The City and County will place different priorities on growth, depending on where proposed growth is located within the Joint Planning Area, as shown in Exhibit V.6.⁹ The City and County will limit urban development¹⁰ in the Joint Planning Area to locations within the Urbanizing Area with adequate public facilities as defined in the City and County Codes. Development at non-urban intensities within the Urban Reserve Area may be permitted if it is designed to accommodate urban development when urban services are available.

Policy 4.2:  The City and County will coordinate their capital improvements programs to provide public facilities in portions of the urbanizing area which can be served most efficiently.

Policy 4.3:  The City and County may, by mutual agreement and plan amendment, expand the boundaries of the Urbanizing Area when the urban facilities and services can be provided in a cost effective manner. The City and County may, by mutual agreement, amend the Urban Growth Boundary to adjust the community's supply of urban land to better achieve community goals.

Policy 4.4:  The City and County will ensure that water and sanitary sewer systems are designed and constructed with adequate capacity to serve proposed development.

Policy 4.5:  The City and County will require adequate public services and facilities to be in place or assured¹¹ so they will be in place concurrently with urban development in the joint planning area. The City and County will adopt consistent urban level of service and concurrency standards for the following services: water, wastewater, streets, fire stations, schools and stormwater management.

Policy 4.6:  The City will develop and maintain a supply of water and a distribution system that will meet existing and future domestic and fire protection demands throughout the City's water service area.

Goal 5:  To ensure that urban growth and development make efficient use of investments in streets, utilities and other public facilities.

Policy 5.1:  The City and County will target capital investments to serve developed areas of the community prior to investing in capital improvements to serve new development, except when there are un-met community needs that the new development will address.

Exhibit V.6: Growth Areas

Policy 5.2:  The City and County will encourage development that uses existing facilities and is compatible with existing development.

Policy 5.3:  The City and County may accommodate extensions of public facilities to serve development that is adjacent to existing facilities. Development in areas which have adequate public facilities in place or which provide needed connections of facilities between urban development areas will be encouraged. Development that is separate from existing urban services ("leap-frog" development) will be discouraged.

Goal 6:  To promote the cost-effective provision of services for businesses and residents by all service providers.

Policy 6.1:  The City and County will conduct periodic meetings with other service providers to exchange information about capital improvements projects and to coordinate the timing and capacity of improvements to efficiently provide for demands from planned development.

Policy 6.2:  The City and County will coordinate with other service providers to identify opportunities for improving operating efficiencies. The City and County will encourage service providers to participate in joint service ventures that reduce service costs while maintaining adequate levels of service.

Policy 6.3:  The City and County will cooperate with the school district to identify appropriate locations for future school facilities. Elementary schools should be located within residential neighborhoods to minimize the need for children to cross arterial streets.

Policy 6.4:  The City and County will encourage consolidations of services whenever such consolidations will result in improved service efficiencies while maintaining adopted level of service standards.

Policy 6.5:  The City and County will encourage the use of non-potable water for irrigation, particularly for recreation areas, common areas and other public spaces.

Policy 6.6:  The City and County will work with service providers to monitor demands from existing land uses and provide assistance in projecting demands based on future land uses, approved development projects, existing development and projected growth rates.

Goal 7:  To equitably fund improvements required to serve community residents and businesses.

Policy 7.1:  The City and County will require new development to fund its fair share of capital costs for public facilities at adopted levels of service.

Policy 7.2:  The City and County will assess fees, as applicable, for acquisition and development of the following facilities required to serve new development: streets, water systems, wastewater systems, drainage improvements, neighborhood and community parks, fire station sites (land acquisition only), open space and trails, and school sites.¹²

Policy 7.3:  The City and County development fees should reflect the different costs of facilities needed to serve different areas and different types of development.

Policy 7.4:  The City and County may subsidize development fees in certain defined areas to promote redevelopment and infill development.

Policy 7.5:  The City and County will negotiate an equitable mechanism to fund parks and recreation land acquisition, development and maintenance for residents throughout the Joint Planning Area.

Community Character/Image

Goal 8:  To support the long-term vitality of existing centers of community activity as shown in Exhibit V.7.

Downtown Commercial Core Area

Policy 8.1:  The City will evaluate major capital improvement projects to determine their impact on Downtown vitality. The City will support improvement projects that foster growth of office, entertainment and specialty retail business areas within the Downtown area.

Policy 8.2:  The City and County will maintain the majority of governmental operations Downtown to help support the area's economic stability/vitality.

Policy 8.3:  The City and County will support efforts to increase the vitality of the Downtown.

Airport Environs/Horizon Drive

Policy 8.4:  The City and County will encourage the development of uses that are compatible with the airport and the image of this area as a gateway into Grand Junction, particularly: office/warehousing; and light industrial/indoor manufacturing near the airport; and highway-oriented commercial development serving tourists and visitors (e.g., lodging, recreation and restaurants) along Horizon Drive between Crossroads Blvd. and G Road.

Policy 8.5:  The City and County will prohibit inappropriate development within the airport's noise and approach zones.

Mesa Mall Environs

Policy 8.6:  The City will encourage the conversion of heavy commercial and industrial uses along 24 Road, Patterson Road and Highway 6/50 near the Mall to a mixture of retail/service commercial and multi-family uses.

Policy 8.7:  The City and County will support integrated commercial development using shared access points along 24 Road, Patterson Road and Highway 6/50 in areas designated for commercial use. The intent of this policy is to minimize the number of driveways, encourage coordinated signage, promote shared parking and consistent, high-quality landscaping.

Policy 8.8:  The City and County will ensure that capital improvement and land use decisions are consistent with the development of 24 Road as an arterial parkway and community gateway.

Exhibit V.7: Existing Centers of Activity

Clifton

Policy 8.9:  The City and County will apply the existing Clifton area plan when it is consistent with the Urban Area Plan until a revised area plan is adopted.

Hospital Environs

Policy 8.10:  The City should encourage the growth and development of retail, office and service uses related to hospital operations. Retail businesses should be of an appropriate scale to serve the needs of clients, employees and visitors to the hospital and adjacent medical offices.

Policy 8.11:  The City will prevent the encroachment of parking areas and non-residential development into stable single-family residential neighborhoods near hospitals and clinics.

Mesa College

Policy 8.12:  The City and County will encourage Mesa State College to retain its main campus in the City of Grand Junction at its current location, and will support the growth of the college at its current campus or at facilities located within non-residential portions of the Urbanizing Area.

Policy 8.13:  The City will encourage the College to maximize the use of its existing land through increased height allowances, but will support the planned westward growth of the College as shown on the Future Land Use Map.

Goal 9:  To recognize and preserve valued distinctions between different areas within the community.

Policy 9.1:  The City and County will update existing area plans listed in Exhibit V.8 and create new plans for areas where more detailed planning is needed. Until these plans are updated, the Urban Area Plan will prevail when area plans are inconsistent with this plan.

Policy 9.2:  The City and County will encourage neighborhood designs which promote neighborhood stability and security.

Goal 10:  To retain valued characteristics of different neighborhoods within the community.

Policy 10.1:  The City and County should encourage public and private investments that contribute to stable residential areas and encourage redevelopment of transitional areas in accordance with the Future Land Use Map. Public facilities should be designed to support desired neighborhood character.

Exhibit V.8: Area Plans

Policy 10.2:  The City and County will consider the needs of the community at large and the needs of individual neighborhoods when making development decisions.

Policy 10.3:  The City and County , recognizing the value of historic features to neighborhood character and the distinctions between neighborhoods and will allow design variety that is consistent with the valued character of individual neighborhoods, while also considering the needs and values of the community as a whole.

Policy 10.4:  The City and County will encourage development designs that enhance the sense of neighborhood.

Goal 11:  To promote stable neighborhoods and land use compatibility throughout the community.

Policy 11.1:  The City and County will promote compatibility between adjacent land uses by addressing traffic, noise, lighting, height/bulk differences, and other sources of incompatibility through the use of physical separation, buffering, screening and other techniques.

Policy 11.2:  The City and County will limit commercial encroachment into stable residential neighborhoods. No new commercial development will be allowed in areas designated for residential development unless specifically approved as part of a planned development.

Policy 11.3:  The City and County may permit the development of multi-family units in all residential categories, provided such development is approved as part of a planned development that is consistent with gross density limits (see policy 1.5 regarding density bonuses) and achieves community goals for land use compatibility, housing affordability and open space preservation.

Goal 12:  To enhance the ability of neighborhood centers to compatibly serve the neighborhoods in which they are located.

Policy 12.1:  The City and County will encourage the retention of small-scale neighborhood commercial centers that provide retail and service opportunities in a manner that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy 12.2:  The City and County will limit the development of large scale retail and service centers to locations with direct access to arterial roads within commercial nodes shown in the Future Land Use Map.

Policy 12.3:  The City and County will protect stable residential neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible residential and non-residential development.

Goal 13:  To enhance the aesthetic appeal of the community.

Policy 13.1:  The City and County will establish heightened aesthetic standards and guidelines for the gateway areas and high visibility corridors listed in Exhibit V.9 and mapped in Exhibit V.10.

Policy 13.2:  The City and County will enhance the quality of development along key arterial street corridors. Existing corridor plans listed in Exhibit V.9 will remain in effect. Until these plans are updated, the Urban Area Plan will prevail when corridor plans are inconsistent with this plan.

Policy 13.3:  The City and County will foster improved community aesthetics through improved development regulations addressing landscaping, screening of outdoor storage and operations, building orientation, building design signage, parking lot design and other design considerations.

Exhibit V.9: Corridor Guidelines

Exhibit V.10: Key Corridors and Gateways

Goal 14:  To encourage public awareness and participation in community activities.

Policy 14.1:  The City and County will maintain open planning processes, providing opportunities for all affected parties to participate in public workshops and hearings involving plan amendments, area planning and periodic plan reviews.

Policy 14.2:  The City will use its newsletter, public service announcements and other media sources to notify the public of all public meetings and events.

Policy 14.3:  The City and County will provide a variety of options for people to express their views on public issues, including formal and informal public meetings, mail-in comment sheets on specific proposals and other mechanisms.

Policy 14.4:  The City and County will support efforts to educate and inform neighborhood groups.

Policy 14.5:  The City and County should disperse information to the public on all major public improvement projects.

Housing

Goal 15:  To achieve a mix of compatible housing types and densities dispersed throughout the community.

Policy 15.1:  The City and County will encourage the development of residential projects that compatibly integrate a mix of housing types and densities with desired amenities.

Policy 15.2:  The City and County may permit the owner of a parcel of property to shift density from one portion of a parcel to another to compatibly provide a variety of housing types within a development.

Policy 15.3:  Prior to any future plan amendments, the City and County will ensure that the Future Land Use Map designates sufficient land in appropriate locations to accommodate anticipated demand for each residential land use category for the next ten years.

Policy 15.4:  The City and County should facilitate development of a variety of housing types (e.g., clustered units, zero lot line units and mixed density projects) without requiring the planned development process.

Goal 16:  To promote adequate affordable housing opportunities dispersed throughout the community.

Policy 16.1:  The City and County will be a partner with the State, other agencies and the private sector in promoting the development of adequate affordable housing opportunities for community residents.

Policy 16.2:  The City and County will encourage the dispersion of subsidized housing throughout the community. Subsidized housing projects should be encouraged in areas with easy access to public facilities, as well as existing and future transit routes.

Policy 16.3:  The City and County will monitor the status of substandard housing units and promote the rehabilitation or redevelopment of these units. Rehabilitation will be encouraged in stable single family neighborhoods. Redevelopment will be encouraged in areas designated for medium-high density residential and high density residential uses.

Policy 16.4:  The City and County will support affordable housing initiatives which result in high quality developments that meet or exceed local standards for public facilities and amenities.

Policy 16.5:  The City and County will encourage the rehabilitation of historic buildings for affordable housing.

Economy

Goal 17:  To promote a healthy, sustainable, diverse economy.

Policy 17.1:  The City and County will support efforts to attract and retain moderate-sized, clean and stable industries that provide appropriate and diverse employment opportunities for community residents.

Policy 17.2:  The City and County may consider incentives to attract prospective industrial employers and encourage expansions of existing industries that are consistent with the goals and policies of the Urban Area Plan.

Policy 17.3:  The City and County will support public and private projects which increase the attractiveness of the community for residents and tourists.

The City and County will coordinate with appropriate entities to identify and address the public service needs of small businesses and major employers in the community.

Goal 18:  To maintain the City's position as a regional provider of goods and services.

Policy 18.1:  The City and County will coordinate with appropriate entities to monitor the supply of land zoned for commercial and industrial development and retain an adequate supply of land to support projected commercial and industrial employment.

Policy 18.2:  The City and County will protect industrial land from residential development which limits the community’s industrial development potential. Rezonings of industrial land to a residential district will not be considered unless it is consistent with the Urban Area Plan and there is a sufficient supply of industrial land in appropriate locations to meet demands for the next 10 years.

Cultural/Historic Resources

Goal 19:  To retain and preserve historic and cultural resources that symbolize the community's identity and uniqueness.

Policy 19.1:  The City and County will support efforts to inventory, designate and protect valued historic structures.

Policy 19.2:  The City and County will establish building code provisions that accommodate the safe and efficient use of historic structures, even though the structures may not comply with standards for new construction.

Policy 19.3:  The City will consider providing aesthetic improvements (such as historic lighting, specialized pavers and other streetscape improvements) as an incentive for property owners to register and maintain historic structures.

Natural Environment

Goal 20:  To achieve a high quality of air, water and land resources.

Policy 20.1:  The City and County will actively participate in air quality enhancement projects and support efforts of appropriate entities to enhance the quality of the community’s air.

Policy 20.2:  [Moved to list of action items] The City and County will support efforts to maintain or improve the quality of green spaces along the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers. The intent of this policy is to reduce erosion and flood damage, retain the riverine vegetation and preserve the corridors for wildlife habitat. Recreational uses along river corridors should be limited to low intensity uses such as trails and active recreation areas with limited improvements.

Policy 20.3:  The City and County will develop more restrictive grading and construction standards than FEMA guidelines for the Colorado and Gunnison River floodplains.¹³ The intent of this policy is to minimize floodplain development and retain a natural riverine environment.

Policy 20.4:  The City and County will consider water quality impacts when evaluating open space acquisitions, designing roadway improvements and when designing stormwater improvements. The City and County will support actions which enhance water quality or minimize negative impacts.

Policy 20.5:  The City and County will favor natural drainageways over built drainage systems whenever the natural drainageway can accommodate anticipated runoff. Where projected runoff cannot be accommodated by natural drainageways, the City and County will seek improvements that retain the natural characteristics of water courses and floodplain areas to the greatest extent practical.

Policy 20.6:  The City and County will promote State, Federal and private efforts to clean up contaminated sites in the community.

Policy 20.7:  The City and County will limit development on steep slopes, ridgelines and hilltops to promote public safety and preserve natural vistas of the Book Cliffs, Grand Mesa and Colorado National Monument.

Policy 20.8:  The City and County will limit development along ridgelines overlooking the banks of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers to promote public safety and maintain the visual and natural quality of the riverine environment.

Policy 20.9:  The City and County will encourage dedications of conservation easements or land along the hillsides, habitat corridors, drainageways and waterways surrounding the City.

Policy 20.10:  The City and County will limit cut and fill work along hillsides. In areas where cut and fill is necessary to provide safe access to development, the City may require landscape improvements to reduce the visual impact of such work.

Policy 20.11:  The City and County will oppose efforts to use publicly owned hillside lands for public or private development or enterprises.

Policy 20.12:  The City and County will support cost-effective habitat conservation strategies involving dedications, targeted acquisition of land or development rights, and clustering of development.

Goal 21:  To minimize the loss of life and property by avoiding inappropriate development in natural hazard areas.

Policy 21.1:  The City and County will coordinate with appropriate agencies to regulate development in areas threatened by floodwaters, unstable soils, landslides and wildfires.

Policy 21.2:  The City and County will prohibit development in or near natural hazard areas, unless measures are undertaken to mitigate the risk of injury to persons and the loss of property. Development in floodplains and/or drainage areas, steep slope areas, geological fault areas, and other dangerous or undesirable building areas will be controlled through the development regulations.

Policy 21.3:  The City and County will encourage the preservation of natural hazard areas for use as habitat and open space areas.

Goal 22:  To preserve agricultural lands.

Policy 22.1:  The City and County will encourage the location of new development on land that is least suitable for agricultural production.

Policy 22.2:  The City and County will require sufficient on-site buffering of new development adjacent to agricultural operations to mitigate potential land use conflicts and protect existing agricultural operations.

Policy 22.3:  The County should adopt measures to enhance and communicate a policy of right-to-farm/ranch provisions to educate non-farm/ranch users about the characteristics of an agricultural lifestyle (noise, spraying, dust, traffic, etc.).

Policy 22.4:  The City and County will coordinate with appropriate public agencies to minimize or mitigate potential conflicts between proposed development, wildlife and agricultural uses.

Policy 22.5:  Mesa County and Grand Junction recognize that agriculture is an important basic industry and major natural resource and encourage the retention of large tracts of prime and unique agricultural land outside the urbanizing area. To this end, the City and County are committed to the following:

•  When development is allowed adjacent to or near productive agricultural lands, the historical uses and cultural practices common to agricultural production will be honored and protected.

•  Agricultural lands should be excluded from new taxing districts which may be formed for purposes not of measurable benefit to agricultural operations.

•  Development will not be allowed to interfere with irrigation water used for agricultural production. Delivery of the full water right to farmland using irrigation water will be guaranteed by the developers through a proper delivery system.

•  Dry land and marginal agriculture land, by its very nature, may be suitable for conversion to other land uses, provided the needed infrastructure is present and compatibility with adjacent land uses is ensured.

Transportation

Goal 23:  To foster a well-balanced transportation system that supports the use of a variety of modes of transportation, including automobile, local transit, pedestrian and bicycle use.

Policy 23.1:  Exhibit V.11 lists the functional classifications of streets in the community. The City and County will classify all streets in accordance with this exhibit.

Exhibit V.11: Functional Street Classes

Policy 23.2:  The City and County will develop a Major Street Plan to classify existing and future streets, to use as a basis for development review and help prioritize capital improvement programming. New development will be required to provide transportation improvements that are consistent with the adopted Major Street Plan.

Policy 23.3:  The City and County should maintain a level of service “C” or better on all streets as defined in Exhibit V.12. However, arterial streets in the Downtown area are anticipated to operate at lower levels of service during peak traffic hours.

Exhibit V.12: Level of Service Definitions

Policy 23.4:  The City and County will coordinate through the metropolitan planning organization to monitor traffic levels and identify improvements required to maintain adopted levels of service.

Policy 23.5:  The City and County will maintain ten-year CIPs which prioritize road improvements based on needs for improved capacity, safety enhancements, maintenance and linkages. The City and County will coordinate on improvements to urban arterials and streets which pass through the City into unincorporated areas adjacent to the City.

Policy 23.6:  The City and County will require the use of side streets and shared driveways to minimize the number of driveways directly accessing arterial streets.

Policy 23.7:  The City and County will encourage development patterns which minimize road construction and maintenance costs while providing adequate emergency access.

Policy 23.8:  The City and County will require vehicular, bike and pedestrian connections between adjacent projects when such connections improve traffic flow and safety.

Policy 23.9:  The City and County will coordinate with other community employers to implement cost effective transportation demand management strategies.

Policy 23.10:  The City and County will identify and develop a coordinated trails system in cooperation with appropriate community interests.

Policy 23.11:  The City and County will continue to work towards the development of a feasible mass transit system.

Goal 24:  To develop and maintain a street system which effectively moves traffic throughout the community.

Policy 24.1:  The City and County will coordinate the construction and funding of proposed road improvements with the State in accordance with the Major Street Plan.

Policy 24.2:  When improving existing or constructing new streets which pass through residential neighborhoods, the City will balance the desires of residents with the need to maintain a street system which safely and efficiently moves traffic throughout the community. The City and County will provide enhanced streetscaping along street projects which pass through existing neighborhoods.

Goal 25:  To obtain improved ground and air access to the community.

Policy 25.1:  The City and County will support efforts to enhance passenger and air freight service to Walker Field.

Policy 25.2:  The City and County will support efforts to retain and expand rail freight and passenger service to Grand Junction.

Policy 25.3:  The City and County will improve pedestrian access from the rail station to the Main Street pedestrian mall.

Parks and Open Space

Goal 26:  To develop and maintain an interconnected system of neighborhood and community parks, trails and other recreational facilities throughout the urban area.

Policy 26.1:  The City will update and use the Parks Master Plan to guide future park and recreation development in Grand Junction and surrounding areas in Mesa County.

Policy 26.2:  The City will develop and maintain a network of recreation areas and facilities.

Policy 26.3:  The City and County will encourage the retention of lands that are not environmentally suitable for construction (e.g. steep grades, unstable soils, floodplains, etc.) for open space areas and, where appropriate, development of recreational uses. Dedications of land required to meet recreational needs should not include these properties unless they are usable for active recreational purposes.

Policy 26.4:  The City and County will help preserve areas of outstanding scenic and/or natural beauty and, where possible, include these areas in the permanent open space system.

Policy 26.5:  The City and County will obtain adequate park land needed to meet neighborhood and community park needs, as urban development occurs, through the subdivision process and other appropriate mechanisms. Other public, quasi-public and private interests will be encouraged to secure, develop and/or maintain parks.

Policy 26.6:  The City and County will coordinate with the school district to achieve cost savings through joint development of school and recreational facilities.

Goal 27:  To include open space¹⁵ corridors and areas throughout the planning area for recreational, transportation and environmental¹⁶ purposes.

Policy 27.1:  The City and County will retain existing open space areas mapped in Exhibit V.13 for environmental and recreational purposes.

Policy 27.2:  The City and County will prepare an open space plan to guide development and open space acquisition decisions.

Policy 27.3:  The City and County will coordinate with appropriate agencies to mitigate the impact of recreational use of open space on its environmental value.

Policy 27.4:  The City and County will seek public and private partnerships in efforts to secure open space.

G.  Urban Area Plan Amendment/Administration

This section describes the need for regular review and periodic amendment of the Urban Area Plan. Specific procedures for plan review and amendment should be established in the City/County intergovernmental agreement.

Plan Amendment

The Urban Area Plan is intended to be a dynamic document -- one that responds to changing needs and conditions. Periodic amendments to the future land use plan may be needed. These amendments should not be made lightly. Each proposed amendment should be considered carefully to determine whether or not it is consistent with the plan's goals and policies. The cumulative effect of many minor changes may be a dramatic policy shift, even though the incremental impact may be minor. Therefore, each proposed amendment must be evaluated in terms of its significance to overall community policy.

Plan Monitoring and Review

To ensure that the plan remains an effective guide for decision-makers, the City and County will conduct annual plan reviews and periodic policy evaluations. Annual plan reviews should inform the Council and Board about growth trends, the status of recommended action strategies, changes to the list of recommended actions, and actions on requests for future land use plan amendments. Every three to five years, depending on the rate of change in community conditions, the City and County should conduct a major policy review. This review should include an evaluation of City and County effectiveness in achieving plan goals and consider changes in:

•  Community needs, trends or other conditions that form the basis of the plan;

Exhibit V.13: Existing Parks and Open Space

•  Fiscal conditions that affect the City and/or County's ability to finance plan recommendations;

•  Community support for the plan's goals and policies; and

•  State or federal laws which affect the community's implementation tools.

The major review process should encourage input from merchants, neighborhood groups, developers and other citizens through the creation of a Citizen Review Committee. Any plan amendments that appear appropriate as a result of this review should be processed according to the plan amendment process agreed to within the City/County IGA.

H.  Plan Implementation Strategies

Successful implementation of the plan is the product of many individual actions by City, County and private decision-makers over the course of many years. The goals and policies describe what the community wants to become and how decision-makers should respond in various circumstances, but they do not provide a work program for the community. The City and County will need to accomplish many tasks and initiate various programs to accomplish the goals set forth in this plan.

This section describes many ways the City and County can use key implementation tools to achieve the Urban Area Plan's goals. It also sets priorities for actions and recommends an initial work program. This section is intended to guide decision-makers in the initial steps of plan implementation. It should be updated regularly to reflect community accomplishments, new approaches to community issues, changing conditions and shifting priorities.

Exhibit V.14 lists specific actions recommended to achieve the plan's goals. This list is not intended to be exhaustive -- the City, County and other public and private entities will take numerous actions throughout the life of this plan to achieve community goals. This list is intended to identify the highest priority tasks to be pursued over the next several years. The table relates each strategy to the applicable goal and policies, and identifies the strategy's priority ranking, time-frame for completion, responsible entities and funding sources. Evaluation and update of this exhibit should be conducted annually prior to budget preparation.

Exhibit V.14: Urban Area Plan Implementation Strategies