Planning commission backs rezoning for self‑storage on Highway 89 after debate over access easement

The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission on June 25 voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors rezone a 1.87‑acre parcel on U.S. Highway 89 from a split AR‑2.5/CG‑10,000 designation to full CG‑10,000 to allow self‑storage development, while adding conditions intended to preserve access for an adjacent residence.

The matter drew extended public comment and commissioner discussion after neighbors and their attorney said a decades‑old informal drive crossing the site gives them a prescriptive easement and that litigation will be filed; the parcel owner and the applicant said a recorded northern easement already exists and that rezoning would resolve long‑standing ambiguities and allow construction of a new legal access meeting county and ADOT standards.

The commission majority concluded the parcel sits inside the Burris Lane rural activity center identified by the Flagstaff Regional Plan and the Doney Park‑Timberline‑Fernwood area plan and found commercial zoning consistent with those plans and with the county zoning ordinance, subject to conditions. Commissioners tied approval to maintaining access for the neighboring property to the east during development and to substantial conformance with the applicant’s submitted site plan and narrative; building permits and any commercial construction would be contingent on meeting required access, ADOT encroachment, engineering and EDCM standards.

Staff planner Jess McNeely described the site as 1.87 acres with the northern half already zoned CG‑10,000 and the southern half zoned AR‑2.5; an abandoned church building sits at the south end of the parcel and an informal unrecorded track (“Delagowski Drive”) has crossed the property for many years. McNeely said a recorded easement exists along the property’s north side that could provide legal access to the eastern neighbor and that the applicant has submitted a traffic/encroachment packet to ADOT. He told commissioners the zoning ordinance provides buffer, screening, landscaping and dark‑sky lighting standards that would apply if the rezoning is approved.

Neighbors including attorney Monica Pertea and resident Tim Delagalski urged denial or delay. Pertea told the commission that her clients have used the informal drive “openly, notoriously and continuously” and will file suit to establish a prescriptive easement; she warned that approving the rezoning now could be seen as endorsing one side’s position. Delagalski and a representative of an adjacent storage business said they oppose the rezoning as presented and asked the commission to consider residential rezoning or other options.

Property owner Juliette Moores and applicant engineer Isaac Block said the owner inherited the parcel with split zoning and ambiguous access; they said rezoning is intended to resolve an underutilized site and to finance building a compliant access. County counsel Angela Lane and staff stressed that private litigation over access is a matter for the courts and not a determinative part of the zoning findings, but the commission added conditions addressing neighbor access to limit potential adverse effects.

Commissioner John Williams moved to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors; Commissioner David Hayward seconded. The vote to recommend approval with the conditions (substantial conformance with the submitted site plan/narrative and maintenance of access for the east property while the project proceeds) passed unanimously. The Board of Supervisors will consider the final zone change and any final conditions.

If the court later establishes a prescriptive easement in the informal alignment, or if the parties reach a private settlement, that legal determination would affect what can be built on the parcel; the commission’s action is a recommendation on zoning and does not itself resolve private title or easement disputes.