Brandon Leuallen, The Business Times

The Grand Junction Planning Commission voted Dec. 23 to recommend approval of three zoning and development code amendments, including a proposal to eliminate the city’s mandatory pre-application meeting requirement from the zoning code.

City staff framed the pre-application change as a procedural cleanup rather than a substantive change to development standards, saying the amendment would not alter what information applicants must ultimately submit. But it would remove a required step that staff and applicants say has produced inconsistent results and added time and cost to the planning process.

Pre-application meetings would become optional, not codified

The proposed amendment, filed as ZCA-2025-699, would remove mandatory pre-application meetings added during the city’s 2023 zoning-code update and currently required for major site plans, major subdivisions and planned developments, according to the staff report included in the agenda packet.

Staff wrote that while the meetings were intended to improve application completeness and early coordination, city experience and applicant feedback indicate the required meetings “have produced inconsistent results,” and applicants who benefit from the meetings tend to self-select into the process regardless of whether participation is mandatory.

Pre-application meetings and general meetings would continue to be offered as optional customer-service tools, either at staff discretion or at an applicant’s request, even though they would no longer be codified in Title 21.

Housing Task Force recommendation cited in support

The agenda packet includes a formal recommendation from the Housing Affordability Committee Task Force, which advised eliminating mandatory pre-application meetings as a way to reduce cost, delay and uncertainty in the housing-development process.

According to the task force’s letter included with the packet, making pre-application meetings optional could save some applicants between $9,000 and $15,000 and reduce timelines by three or more weeks, depending on project complexity.

During the meeting, Housing Affordability Task Force co-chairman Kevin Bray told commissioners the group was created through a city-run application process and appointed by Grand Junction City Council to identify targeted regulatory changes that reduce cost and time without compromising safety or core development standards. Bray emphasized the task force is not advocating sweeping deregulation, but focused adjustments intended to remove friction in the housing delivery system.

“This is not about removing health and safety standards. We want to build quality housing, and it needs to be safe and functional,” Bray told the planning commission. “Recommendations coming from the Housing Task Force are things that reduce costs, increase supply, improve the process, eliminate unnecessary burdens, establish more predictability or create flexibility in the code.”

Bray added the task force’s work is aimed at specific obstacles rather than broad regulatory rollbacks.

“These are targeted changes,” he said. “This is not sweeping reform.”

Bray also framed the task force’s recommendations within broader affordability trends, pointing to generational shifts in the housing market.

“Right now, the average first-time homebuyer age is 40 years old,” he said. “Our average homebuyer age is 62.”

Bray said that gap reflects a structural challenge that did not exist for earlier generations.

Local engineer supports reverting to optional process

Mark Austin, a civil engineer in Grand Junction who said he has processed applications with the city since 1999, told commissioners he supports removing the mandatory pre-application meeting requirement and returning the process to an optional tool.

“I suspect our firm is probably the biggest user of these pre-application processes,” Austin said, adding his experience spans the period when the meetings were optional and the more recent period when they were codified.

Austin said once pre-application meetings were incorporated into the zoning code, the process became longer and more rigid, often requiring multiple meetings before applicants could receive project-specific feedback. He described the sequence as time-consuming and “really long and clunky,” and said making the meetings optional allows applicants to move more directly into the application process when early coordination is unnecessary, while still preserving the option for more complex projects that benefit from it.

Planner of the Day cited as faster alternative

Austin pointed to newer city tools as positive changes that provide early guidance without requiring a formal pre-application meeting.

“One of the new changes that the city staff has made is the Planner of the Day, and that’s a pretty convenient process,” he said. “We can just walk up to the counter, talk to the planners, say this is what we need to do, clarify what those checklist items are, and we’re out.”

Austin said the walk-in service has helped speed up early coordination, adding, “That’s been a great help to expedite that process.”

Before the commission voted to support the changes, staff said pre-application meetings would still be available and promoted through the city’s website, handouts and planner consultations.

Additional zoning amendments advanced

In a separate action, the commission recommended approval of ZCA-2025-697, an ordinance amending outreach-meeting requirements and accessible-parking standards related to electric-vehicle charging.

According to the agenda packet, the outreach amendment would remove the requirement for a neighborhood comment meeting for code text amendments and vacations of easements, while retaining the requirement for vacations of a public right-of-way. Staff wrote that requiring outreach meetings for easement vacations was an unintended error in the last code update and inconsistent with prior city practice.

The same ordinance includes updates to maintain compliance with Colorado House Bill 24-1173, which requires local governments to adopt or comply with the state’s Electric Vehicle Charging Model Land Use Code. According to the staff report, the amendment clarifies how EV-served parking spaces are counted toward minimum parking requirements, including allowing a van-accessible EV charging space, when not designated as disability-reserved parking, to count as two standard automobile spaces.

The commission voted unanimously in favor of the changes.

Planning commissioner term limits clarified

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners also voted to recommend approval of a separate text amendment clarifying planning commissioner term limits, allowing reappointment after one year, instead of four years, following two full terms.

According to the agenda packet, while commissioners currently serve four-year terms and are limited to two consecutive terms, the code does not specify when a former commissioner may be eligible for reappointment. Staff said the city has traditionally waited at least four years before reappointing former members. The amendment would clarify that a former commissioner may be reappointed after being off the commission for at least one year, while maintaining the two-term consecutive limit. The reason cited for the change is difficulty in recruiting applicants.

Commissioner Orin Zyvan said the change was likely necessary due to a lack of applicants, but expressed concern it could be abused in the future.

“I guess I hope that we can have more applicants in the future and this is not an issue,” Zyvan said.

The commission voted unanimously in favor of the change.

Next steps

All three recommendations now advance to the City of Grand Junction City Council for public hearings and final consideration.

City Council may approve, modify or reject the proposed ordinances, and members of the public may continue to provide feedback by email or through public comment at a regular City Council meeting before a final vote.