Planning commission recommends rezoning for Olivegroves PAD after resident concerns about traffic and storage

The Glendale Planning Commission on Aug. 28 recommended city council approve a rezoning that would convert roughly 6 acres at the northeast corner of North Citrus Road and West Olive Avenue from C-1 (neighborhood commercial) to a Planned Area Development called the Olivegroves PAD.

The recommendation, passed by a 6–1 roll call vote, came after staff and the applicant described development standards intended to allow more intensive commercial uses while adding protections for nearby homes. Commissioner Edwin Nyberg was the lone “no” vote; the motion was made by Commissioner Sergio Arellano and seconded by Commissioner John Gears.

The Olivegroves PAD is consistent with the city’s General Plan designation of “general commercial,” staff said. Phil Martinez, planning division staff, told commissioners: “Staff recommends approval of ZON23Dash04, subject to the following stipulation.” The recommendation is not final; the item will be forwarded to the city council for final action.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to unincorporated Maricopa County and a county C-2 commercial parcel across Citrus Road. The applicant said that without PAD standards, potential commercial users could simply locate across the street in the county under more intensive county standards. The PAD is intended to keep those uses—and associated economic activity—within the city while adding development controls intended to protect nearby residences.

What the PAD would allow and limit: Applicant Andy Jochims, a planning consultant representing Olivegroves and the Gibran family, said the PAD uses county C-2 as a baseline to make the site marketable. The PAD would permit certain uses that today would require a conditional use permit (CUP) in the city—such as drive‑thru restaurants, minor auto service and self‑storage—as a matter‑of‑right in the PAD, but with added standards. “We have added a standard such that a sound study is required for this applicant, so they have to prove to the city through the design review process that there will not be any noise above ambient conditions or 55 decibels at that residential property line,” Jochims said. He also said the PAD would limit drive‑throughs to three and limit minor auto service to two locations on the site.

Self storage: The PAD would allow indoor self‑storage as a permitted use but would require that outdoor storage or outdoor RV storage would still need a conditional use permit and additional review. The PAD would also call for design standards so storage buildings “would have to look more like an office building and less like some of those less attractive storage buildings,” Jochims said. The PAD text limits self‑storage to three stories and includes a 30‑foot minimum setback credit for an existing HOA open space tract; the practical maximum building height at the residential property line was described as 30 feet.

Public comment and traffic concerns: Trina Phelps Wilson, who stated her address as 8911 North 170th Drive in Maricopa County opposite the site, said she opposed the rezoning and raised traffic, noise and neighborhood character concerns. “I was under the assumption when I paid down this money for this house that it was all residential,” she said. She also questioned how Citrus Road would be widened without removing sidewalks and landscaping on the residential side.

Applicant response on roads: Jochims and the applicant’s presentation said that Citrus and Olive are arterial roads and that road frontage improvements would be done to applicable standards at development. Jochims said the project team is coordinating required frontage improvements with Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and that the section of Citrus immediately north already has two lanes in each direction; he said the project would not remove existing sidewalks on the development’s side of the street.

Setbacks and buffers: Commission discussion clarified that the PAD recognizes the city’s 60‑foot commercial‑to‑residential buffer but allows credit for an existing 30‑foot HOA open‑space tract adjacent to the property; commissioners asked staff and the applicant to confirm precise measurement points when the matter returns to council.

Process and next steps: Commissioner Sergio Arellano moved approval “with the stipulations” outlined in the staff report; Commissioner John Gears seconded. Roll call votes were: John Crowe, aye; Tom Cole, aye; Edwin Nyberg, no; John Gears, aye; Brian Hooper, aye; Sergio Arellano, aye; Chair Vern Crow, aye. The planning commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for final consideration.

Discussion vs. decision: The planning commission’s vote is a recommendation; it does not approve construction plans. Final land‑use approvals, specific design review, frontage improvements and any required permits remain subject to future review and city council action.

Details: The applicant reported sending about 2,000 mailed notices and holding a virtual outreach meeting attended by five residents. Staff presentation referenced the Olivegroves PAD narrative date‑stamped June 12, 2025, and recommended approval subject to the stipulations in the staff report.

For the record: The public hearing was held during the Aug. 28 Planning Commission meeting; the commission considered two public hearing items that evening.