Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Whitman Storage Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors approve CUPD rezoning for Whitman mini-storage despite neighbor objections
Summary
The Board approved a Conditional Use Permit and C-2 zoning overlay for a mini-storage facility along Grand Avenue after staff and planning commission recommended approval; neighbors said the project intrudes on a residential area.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUPD) and rezoning request to allow a mini-storage facility near Grand Avenue in the unincorporated area on March 26, despite opposition from nearby property owners.
Paul Gilbert, attorney for Viking Development, presented the application and said the project would be restricted by the CUPD to a single use — mini storage — and submitted a traffic study showing minimal impact. “We submitted a traffic impact study...there will be no more than an average of 25 trips,” Gilbert said, noting ADOT and county review agencies had no concerns. Gilbert added the site plan limits access to Grand Avenue and complies with dark-sky lighting rules; a caretaker residence and largely single-story storage buildings were described.
One nearby property owner, David Hanner, testified in opposition, saying the parcel sits behind other residential lots and that most of the parcel is currently zoned R43, not commercial. Hanner told supervisors the site is “very residential, it's very quiet” and said he owned parcels surrounding the proposed site.
County staff and the planning commission recommended approval; the planning commission had placed the case on the consent agenda and then voted unanimously to approve. Supervisor Debbie Lesko, who took time to review neighbors’ letters, moved approval. Supervisor Stewart seconded and the board voted aye; the motion carried unanimously.
The approval imposes CUPD restrictions limiting the property to the mini-storage use and includes the conditions recommended by staff. The project proponent said access would use a Grand Avenue crossover, hours would be limited (standard daytime access for general users, extended card access for account holders), and the development would comply with county traffic and lighting standards. Opponents argued the parcel’s residential context and limited ingress/egress made the commercial use inappropriate.
The board’s action was a final local land-use decision subject to any appeal processes in county planning rules.
