🎉   Welcome to our new web site!   🎉

For the next 30 days, we’re providing free access to non-subscribers so you can see what we have to offer. And if you subscribe by May 1, you’ll get a 25% discount on your subscription! We hope you’ll like what you see and want to support local media.

City Council puts moratorium on self storage facilities

The council voted unanimously April 2


A 180 day moratorium has been placed on self storage facilities within the city of Arvada.

An unanimous vote April 2 from the Arvada City Council means that no self-storage facilities will be able to submit plans to the city while staff further evaluates the potential impacts to property, public health, safety and welfare.

“We have not liked to see the use of moratoriums, but this was a situation where we need more time to look at these,” Arvada Mayor Marc Williams said during the meeting. “Once these facilities go, in it will stay there forever — they are good money generators for the people running them. But they don't generate sales tax and they take land that could be used for other things.”

On July 18, 2016 the city allowed for self-storage to be an allowed use in the PUD-I and PUD-BP zoning districts. Since that time the Arvada has received five applications for self-storage facilities in contrast to having received only two applications in the previous 10 years.

As a result, city council wishes to review the allowed and conditional principal uses for self-storage in the existing zoning districts to determine whether the current zoning regulations are consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.

A preliminary development plan heard by city council Feb. 5 highlighted the impacts of self storage facilities on the community. The proposed project was to build a 144,900 square foot, three-story indoor climate controlled Public Storage facility in the Whisper Creek subdivision in North West Arvada.

The proposed project came to council with a 4-2 vote against the project from the planning commission; and drew comments from 10 community members, all also against the project.

The project was rejected by council in a 6-1 vote and launched city staff to look into creating the moratorium.

No new requests are currently in filing.


Our Papers

Ad blocker detected

We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.

The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.