Attachment B - Staff Report - PHO-1-21--Z-10-18-8 .pdf

Staff Report: PHO-1-21--Z-10-18-8 
 
APPLICATION #:  
PHO-1-21--Z-10-18-8 
 
LOCATION: 
Northwest corner of 27th Street and Baseline Road 
 
EXISTING ZONING: 
C-1 BAOD 
 
ACREAGE: 
10.31 
 
REQUEST: 
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance 
to the conceptual planting plan date stamped June 25, 2018. 
 
2) Deletion of Stipulation 1.a regarding the quantity and 
configuration of drive-through facilities.  
 
3) Deletion of Stipulation 1.b regarding the configuration of 
27th Street. 
 
4) Deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to 
elevations date stamped February 12, 2018. 
 
5) Modification of Stipulation 2.a regarding pitched roof 
elements. 
 
6) Modification of Stipulation 2.b regarding an equestrian 
corral area. 
 
APPLICANT: 
 
Cassandra Ayres, Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC 
 
OWNER: 
 
 
Baseline 25, LLC 
 
REPRESENTATIVE: 
Paul Gilbert, Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC 
 
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 
Denial as filed and approval with modifications and additional stipulations, as 
recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer. 
 
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION 
The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on July 21, 2021 and recommended a 
continuance to the August 18, 2021 agenda. The Planning Hearing Officer heard this 
case on August 18, 2021 and recommended denial as filed and approval with 
modifications and additional stipulations.

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 2 of 14 
 
 
 
 
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on July 13, 2021 and 
recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications by a vote of 10-1-1. 
 
BACKGROUND/REQUEST 
The subject site is located on 10.31 gross acres located at the northwest corner of 27th 
Street and Baseline Road and is zoned C-1 BAOD (Neighborhood Retail, Baseline Area 
Overlay District). This case was heard concurrently with PHO-2-21—Z-63-05-8 and PHO-
1-21—Z-59-18-8 which have not been appealed. The conceptual plans in all three cases 
depict the same development of a 15.54-gross acre site and comprise the subject 
properties.   
 
The proposed conceptual site plan depicts the subject site of the three companion cases 
developing in a unified fashion with a mixed-use development. A combination of five 
commercial, retail, and drive-through businesses are depicted along Baseline Road 
comprising approximately 19,098 total square feet, with individual establishments 
between 2,050 and 6,500 square feet. Behind the commercial development, adjacent to 
the Western Canal, is a multifamily residential complex containing 138 units at a density 
of 16.99 dwelling units per gross acre. Open spaces are distributed throughout the 
development with a variety of pedestrian, equestrian, and recreational amenities adjacent 
to the canal. Conceptual elevations were provided for the multifamily buildings only and 
depict a façade that integrates stone, pop outs, balconies, shade awnings, multiple 
window sizes and styles, and variation in the roofline and pitches. The proposal is 
compatible in scale and intensity with existing development in the surrounding area.  
 
The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 1, regarding general conformance to 
the conceptual planting plan date stamped June 25, 2018. The applicant stated the 
proposed use is allowed in the C-1 BAOD zoning district and the development will comply 
with the regulations of the BAOD. 
 
The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 1.a regarding the quantity and 
configuration of drive-through facilities. This stipulation was established to apply to the 
quantity and configuration of drive-throughs as depicted on the stipulated conceptual 
planting plan presented in the original rezoning case. The applicant stated that a limit on 
the number of drive-through restaurants was not appropriate as this is a use otherwise 
permitted by right, subject to performance standards, in this zoning district. The applicant 
stated that appropriate screening is provided and windows will face away from adjacent 
residential areas.  
 
The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 1.b regarding the configuration of 27th 
Street. Stipulation 1.b required the project to be developed in specific regard to the 
configuration of 27th Street and its alignment with the existing portion of 27th Street south 
of Baseline Road, as depicted on the stipulated plan. The applicant argued that this 
stipulation was originally proposed in the event a traffic signal were required at that 
intersection in the future and stated that the proposed development did not meet the 
signal warrants necessary to justify the installation of a traffic signal. They also stated that

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 3 of 14 
 
 
 
 
there is public opposition to the alignment. They stated that they believed the stipulation 
was a last-minute addition at the June 27, 2018 City Council meeting and requested 
deletion of the stipulation.  
 
The applicant stated that a door-to-door survey was completed within an 850-foot radius 
of the site and found residents supported the proposed development and no resident 
surveyed was in support of the realignment of 27th Street. The applicant noted that the 
result of this outreach was submitted to the Planning Hearing Officer (Exhibit M).  
 
At the hearing, the applicant discussed the recommended realignment and stated that 
CivTech, a traffic engineering firm, completed a study on the intersection that noted a 
realignment would not alleviate traffic concerns near the site. They stated the study noted 
the potential number of users of 27th Street would not necessitate a realignment or a 
traffic signal at the intersection of 27th Street and Baseline Road. This study was not 
made available to staff in the initial application or during the Planning Hearing Officer 
hearing.  They noted that the wait times to cross Baseline Road would not decrease due 
to a realignment and that a traffic signal at the intersection could increase cut-through 
traffic through the neighborhood south of the subject property and across Baseline Road. 
They stated that traffic accidents that have occurred at the intersection have largely been 
rear-end collisions and not due to the existing turn movements at the existing 
intersections. They stated that the realignment is not an exaction that meets the 
proportionality requirement as established by previous court cases and existing state 
statutes. 
 
The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to 
elevations date stamped February 12, 2018. They stated that the proposed elevations 
were for the multifamily portion of the site and that elevations were not proposed for the 
commercial sites because the potential users of the commercial pads have not been 
identified. 
 
The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 2.a regarding pitched roof elements. 
The applicant requested to modify this stipulation to apply to “some of the buildings in the 
development.” At the Planning Hearing Officer hearing, the applicant stated that this 
modification request was discussed at the South Mountain Village Planning Committee 
meeting and was recommended to be retained and that the applicant decided not to 
pursue the original proposed modification of this stipulation. 
 
The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 2.b regarding an equestrian corral 
area. The applicant stated in their narrative that there are potential liability issues 
regarding a privately owned and maintained corral for open public use. The applicant 
proposed alternative language that still requires equestrian related amenities while 
eliminating the specific requirement for a corral. 
 
PREVIOUS HISTORY 
On June 27, 2018, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-10-18-8, a 
request to rezone approximately 10.55 acres on the northwest corner of 27th Street and

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 4 of 14 
 
 
 
 
Baseline Road from R1-14 BAOD (One-Family Residence, Baseline Area Overlay 
District), R1-14 BAOD (Approved C-1 BAOD) (One-Family Residence, Baseline Area 
Overlay District, Approved Neighborhood Retail, Baseline Area Overlay District), and R1-
14 BAOD (Approved R1-10 BAOD) (One-Family Residence, Baseline Area Overlay 
District, Approved Single-Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) to  
C-1 BAOD (Neighborhood Retail, Baseline Area Overlay District), subject to stipulations. 
On the same day, the Phoenix City Council also approved companion General Plan 
Amendment Case No. GPA-SM-2-18-8 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map 
designation from Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre and Residential 5 to 10 
dwelling units per acre to Commercial for the subject site. 
 
Public correspondence received in response to the original rezoning case included 
concerns about the number of fast food restaurants in the area, increased traffic, and 
showed a desire for healthy restaurants and grocery stores. 
 
At the May 8, 2018 South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting, the applicant 
presented two conceptual street alignments for 27th Street and stated that they were 
continuing to work with staff on this issue. A nearby resident stated that a traffic light was 
not desired at the intersection. Multiple residents stated they did not wish to see fast food 
restaurants on the site, but desired shopping, healthy restaurants, and medical offices 
instead. The Committee ultimately recommended an additional stipulation requiring the 
alignment with the understanding that the specific design was yet to be approved by the 
City. The Committee also recommended two other stipulations that required no more 
than two drive-through facilities and that prior to any Planning Hearing Officer hearing, 
additional interested residents must be added to the notification.  
 
At the June 7, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended 
approval per the original staff recommendation primarily based on concerns regarding the 
Village Planning Committee’s recommendation and related public comments at the 
Commission meeting regarding enforceability of proposed restrictions on drive-through 
and restaurant uses.  At the hearing, concerns were raised regarding the alignment and 
nearby residents stated that a traffic light would not be preferred at this intersection, but 
rather at the intersection of 28th Street and Baseline Road. The desire for healthy 
restaurants was also a point of emphasis amongst the public at the hearing. The 
applicant stated that they had been working to identify healthy restaurants to bring to the 
site. 
 
Following this hearing, the applicant submitted a revised conceptual plan, date stamped 
June 25, 2018, that depicted the alignment of 27th Street to align with the existing portion 
south of Baseline Road. Staff reviewed this plan and subsequently issued a City Council 
Backup Memo dated June 27, 2018 which recommended general conformance to this 
plan with specific regard to the alignment as depicted.  
 
At the City Council Formal Meeting on June 27, 2018, a public hearing was opened 
regarding the rezoning case and General Plan Amendment. A review of the proposed 
conceptual plan was presented, and the City Council Backup Memo was summarized.

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 5 of 14 
 
 
 
 
The Backup Memo provided three modifications to the stipulations recommended by the 
Planning Commission, which are summarized below. The applicant stated that a 
compromise had been made with the neighborhood over their concerns and stated they 
had worked with staff regarding the stipulation language. The item was approved per this 
memo with the applicant in support. 
 
Stipulation 1 of the original rezoning case requires general conformance with the 
conceptual planting plan date stamped June 25, 2018 with specific regard to two 
components of that plan. The stipulated conceptual planting plan in the original case 
depicts six commercial buildings on the site, with the majority of the parking provided in 
the middle of the site. It includes five restaurants, two retail spaces, and two medical 
spaces. Stipulation 1.a calls for specific regard to the quantity and configuration of drive 
through facilities. Four drive-through restaurants are depicted on the conceptual planting 
plan that face away from the residential neighborhood to the east. Stipulation 1.b calls for 
specific regard to the alignment of 27th Street at the intersection on Baseline Road. The 
stipulated conceptual planting plan depicts the alignment of 27th Street aligning with 27th 
Street on the south side of Baseline Road. The alignment then progresses north and 
shifts to the northeast and connects to Darrow Street, which enters the Mountain Grove 
neighborhood. The street splits the development, and a drive-through restaurant pad is 
depicted east of 27th Street. Stipulation 11 requires that the developer notify interested 
community members in the case of a Planning Hearing Officer hearing to modify or 
delete stipulations. 
 
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS 
  
Public Correspondence  
Thirty-four letters were received regarding this request in addition to a petition signed by 
24 people. Concerns expressed in the correspondence include the following:  
 
• Opposition to the alignment of 27th Street 
o Increased traffic on 27th Street (13 letters); 
o Creation of additional safety hazards (12 letters); 
o Concerns regarding requirement for residents of Mountain Grove 
subdivision to the east to drive past commercial development to enter their 
community (13 letters); 
o Decrease in housing values (1 letter); 
o Decreased distance from restaurant uses (1 letter). 
 
• Support of the development 
o The proposal will alleviate existing safety concerns on the vacant properties 
(18 letters); 
o The proposal provides less commercial intensity than the original stipulated 
plan (21 letters); 
o Enhance attractiveness of area (15 letters).

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 6 of 14 
 
 
 
 
• Petition Summary 
o Fulfills demand for new housing in area; 
o Provides new benefits for the existing community; 
o Proposed development will provide less of an impact to the surrounding 
neighbors compared to the original stipulated plan. 
 
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION 
 
Commercial 
 
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE 
 
 
 
Zoning 
Land Use     
  
On-site: 
 
C-1 BAOD 
Single-family detached, vacant 
 
North: 
 
R1-8 SP BAOD 
Canal, Golf course 
 
South: 
 
MUA HP BAOD,  
Event center, 
(Across Baseline Road)                       R1-8 BAOD             Single-family detached 
 
 
 
 
East: 
 
R-2 BAOD 
Single-family detached 
 
West: 
 
C-1 BOAD 
Vacant 
(Across 25th Street) 
 
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS 
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings: 
 
1) This case was heard as a companion case to PHO-2-21--Z-63-05-8 and PHO-1-
21--Z-59-18-8.  The conceptual site plan and building elevations are the same in 
these three cases.  The subject property in this case was originally envisioned to 
develop as a standalone commercial retail center and was stipulated to a site plan 
depicting a variety of drive-through restaurants and retail spaces in five individual 
buildings at a total of 58,140 square feet. 
 
The proposed conceptual site plan depicts the subject property of the three 
companion cases developing in a unified fashion with a mixed-use development.  
A combination of five commercial, retail, and drive-through businesses are 
depicted along Baseline Road comprising approximately 19,098 total square feet, 
with individual establishments between 2,050 and 6,500 square feet.  Behind the 
commercial development, adjacent to the Western Canal, is a multifamily 
residential complex containing 138 units at a density of 16.99 dwelling units per 
gross acre. Open spaces are distributed throughout the development with a variety 
of pedestrian, equestrian, and recreational amenities adjacent to the canal.  
Conceptual elevations were provided for the multifamily buildings only and depict a

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 7 of 14 
 
 
 
 
façade that integrates stone, pop outs, balconies, shade awnings, multiple window 
sizes and styles, and variation in the roofline and pitches.  The proposal is 
compatible in scale and intensity with existing development in the surrounding 
area.  General conformance to the proposed conceptual plans is recommended. 
 
2) Stipulation 1.a was intended to apply solely to the specific quantity and 
configuration of drive-throughs as depicted on the stipulated conceptual planting 
plan presented in the original rezoning case.  The stipulation is not relevant if this 
original plan is no longer stipulated.  The South Mountain Village Planning 
Committee recommended revised language prohibiting drive-through facilities. It is 
not recommended to adopt any stipulation language that prohibits uses otherwise 
permitted in a zoning district.  Therefore, the applicant’s request to delete this 
stipulation is recommended to be approved. 
 
3) Stipulation 1.b required the project to be developed in specific regard to the 
configuration of 27th Street and its alignment with the existing portion of 27th 
Street south of Baseline Road, as depicted on the stipulated plan.  The applicant 
argued that this stipulation was originally proposed in the event a traffic signal 
were required at that intersection in the future and stated that the proposed 
development did not meet the signal warrants necessary to justify the installation 
of a traffic signal.  They also stated that there is public opposition to the alignment.  
They stated that they believed the stipulation was a last-minute addition at the 
June 27, 2018 City Council meeting and requested deletion of the stipulation.  
 
It is not an accurate assessment to state that the stipulation was a last-minute 
addition at the City Council.  Discussion regarding this proposed alignment was 
continuous throughout the original rezoning case process.  The Street 
Transportation Department staff recommendation in the original rezoning case, 
dated March 16, 2018, stated that staff recommends the alignment to improve 
access to Baseline Road.  They did note that the intersection may be signalized if 
warrants were met, but this was not the sole intention of the recommendation.  In 
the applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting Summary for a community meeting held 
April 16, 2018, during processing of the case, they indicated that they discussed 
the proposed alignment with community members and stated that while 
discussions were ongoing with staff, they were optimistic that they could 
accomplish a design that included the alignment.  The Staff Report for Rezoning 
Case No. Z-10-18 dated May 1, 2018 referenced these discussions and noted a 
lack of certainty regarding the ultimate outcome of the alignment.  This lack of 
certainty was the primary reason why general conformance to the conceptual site 
plan date stamped February 12, 2018, which was the site plan included in the staff 
report, was not recommended at that time. At the May 8, 2018 South Mountain 
Village Planning Committee meeting, the applicant presented two conceptual 
street alignments for 27th Street and stated that they were continuing to work with 
staff on this issue.  The Committee ultimately recommended an additional 
stipulation requiring the alignment with the understanding that the specific design 
was yet to be approved by the City.  At the June 7, 2018 Planning Commission

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 8 of 14 
 
 
 
 
meeting, the Commission recommended approval per the original staff 
recommendation primarily based on concerns regarding the Village Planning 
Committee’s recommendation and related public comments at the Commission 
meeting regarding enforceability of proposed restrictions on drive-through and 
restaurant uses.  Following this meeting, the applicant submitted a revised 
conceptual plan, date stamped June 25, 2018, that depicted the alignment of 27th 
Street with the existing portion south of Baseline Road. Staff reviewed this plan 
and subsequently issued a City Council Backup Memo dated June 27, 2018 which 
recommended general conformance to this plan with specific regard to the 
alignment as depicted.  At the June 27, 2018 City Council meeting, the item was 
approved per this memo with the applicant in support. 
 
The applicant’s argument that the proposed development did not meet the signal 
warrants necessary to justify the installation of a traffic signal is unclear.  Street 
Transportation Department staff noted that they have not received a Traffic Impact 
Study that addresses signal warrant analysis for 27th Street and Baseline Road. 
The most recent study submitted for this location was in 2018 and did not include 
signal warrant analysis.  Further, this study was relevant to the original 
development proposal from the 2018 rezoning case.  No study has been provided 
that is relevant to the current development proposal, which is for a significantly 
different project.  Finally, as stated above, staff supports the alignment of 27th 
Street independent from the specific outcome of a traffic signal analysis at this 
intersection.  
 
The staff position regarding the proposed alignment has not changed over time. 
Regarding the current request, the Street Transportation Department has stated 
that they do not support the current site plan layout with specific regard to the 
depicted misalignment of 27th Street.  The Street Transportation Department 
supports the realignment of 27th Street with the existing portion of this street south 
of Baseline Road. Staff noted that the alignment of 27th Street would improve 
traffic safety in the surrounding area by removing overlapping vehicle turns, 
providing predictability and consistency in the street grid, and creating a potential 
location for a future traffic signal. 
 
For these reasons, the applicant’s request to delete the stipulation is 
recommended to be denied as filed and approved with a modification.  The 
modification provides new language that addresses the need to revise the site 
plan to depict the alignment of 27th Street which is not present on the proposed 
plan. 
 
4) Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to elevations is no longer required 
given the recommendation in this hearing regarding Stipulation 1.  The applicant’s 
request for deletion is recommended for approval. 
 
5) Stipulation 2.a requires all buildings to provide pitched roofs.  The applicant 
requested to modify this stipulation to apply to “some of the buildings in the

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 9 of 14 
 
 
 
 
development”.  This language lacks clarity as to how many buildings this could or 
should apply to.  The Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) already contains a 
design presumption regarding pitched roofs.  The original intent of this stipulation 
was to enhance the rural or agrarian character by making this presumption a 
requirement.  However, this property is now being developed in conjunction with 
two other adjacent companion rezoning cases.  Neither of these cases contain this 
stipulation and the BAOD will apply to all property in all three cases.  Therefore, 
the applicant’s request for modification is recommended to be denied as filed and 
approved as a deletion.  This will provide consistency between the stipulations in 
the three cases.  Note that the recommended deletion of Stipulation 2 and 2.a 
leaves Stipulation 2.b.  As Stipulation 2.b was not part of the applicant’s request, 
the text of this stipulation becomes the text of Stipulation 2 by default.  
 
6) New Stipulation 2.b (Original Stipulation 3.b) requires an equestrian corral area.  
(Note that Ordinance G-6478 regarding Rezoning Case No. Z-10-18-8 was 
mistakenly issued in legislative edit form.  The original Stipulation 2.b was 
renumbered as Stipulation 3.b.  In this PHO request it was advertised as 
Stipulation 2.b, which is also the new stipulation number based on this 
recommendation.)  The applicant argued that there are potential liability issues 
regarding a privately owned and maintained corral intended for open public use.  
Therefore, they proposed alternative language that still requires equestrian related 
amenities while eliminating the specific requirement for this to be a corral.  This is 
consistent with the original intent of the stipulation and is recommended for 
approval with minor modifications to clarify the requirements. 
 
7) Street Transportation Department staff recommended an additional stipulation 
regarding a pedestrian pathway to provide safe pedestrian access through the site 
to the public sidewalk on Baseline Road.  The stipulation is intended to provide 
safe pedestrian access to the commercial center as well as the bus stop on 
Baseline Road. An abandonment is anticipated along the 25th Street alignment 
where a sidewalk would have otherwise been required.  The stipulation is not 
prescriptive regarding the form of shading along this pathway.  Shade may be 
provided through a combination of landscaping and/or structural shade.  This 
additional stipulation is recommended for adoption. 
 
8) The South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommended a new stipulation 
requiring cross-access easements between all commercial and multifamily 
portions of the development and to the west.  However, the proposed conceptual 
plans are for a unified development that already depicts this access.  Significant 
deviation from the proposed plans would necessitate further public hearings in 
which this recommendation could be reassessed.  This stipulation is not 
recommended to be adopted. 
 
9) An additional stipulation is recommended to require the developer to execute a 
Proposition 207 waiver of claims.  This form is a requirement of the Planning 
Hearing Officer process and was not completed prior to the hearing.

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 10 of 14 
 
 
 
 
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS 
 
1. 
The development shall be in general conformance with the SITE PLAN 
AND ELEVATIONS conceptual planting plan date stamped MAY 26, 2021 
June 25, 2018, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by 
the Planning and Development Department, and with specific regard to the 
following: 
 
 
 
a. 
The quantity and configuration of drive-through facilities on the subject 
site. 
 
 
 
 
a. 
b. 
THE SITE PLAN SHALL BE MODIFIED TO ALIGN 27TH STREET 
WITH THE EXISTING PORTION OF 27TH STREET SOUTH OF 
BASELINE ROAD OR PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE AS APPROVED 
BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING AND 
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS. 
 
The configuration of 27th Street, which aligns with the existing portion 
of 27th Street south of Baseline Road. 
 
 
2. 
The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date 
stamped February 12, 2018, as modified by the following stipulations and 
approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
 
 
 
a. 
Pitched roof elements shall be incorporated in all buildings. 
 
 
 
 
b. 
All building elevations, including those facing or visible from the 
Western Canal, shall contain architectural embellishments and 
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, 
variation in window size and location, and/or other overhang canopies. 
 
 
3. 
The developer shall provide the following amenities and open public access 
to the amenities, as approved by the Planning and Development 
Department: 
 
 
 
a. 
A multi-use trail or shared-use path which provides connectivity 
between Baseline Road and the Western Canal, in accordance with the
MAG supplemental details. 
 
 
 
 
b. 
Equestrian corral AMENITY area containing hitching posts for horses, 
WATER FOR EQUINE CONSUMPTION, AND STRUCTURAL OR 
LANDSCAPED SHADING along the northern property align LINE 
adjacent to the Western Canal. 
 
 
 
 
c. 
Minimum of two shaded benches, along the northern property align

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 11 of 14 
 
 
 
 
adjacent to the Western Canal. 
 
 
 
 
d. 
Bicycle parking area containing a minimum of eight spaces. The 
bicycle parking area shall utilize inverted-U bicycle racks or a similar 
design that accommodates lock placement on both wheels and the 
frame. 
 
 
4. 
Any solid portion of a perimeter wall adjacent to the Western Canal shall not 
exceed a maximum height of three feet, as approved by the Planning and 
Development Department. 
 
 
5. 
No drive-through facility shall locate its drive-through window facing a 
residential use or Baseline Road, as approved by the Planning and 
Development Department. 
 
 
6. 
Drive-throughs shall be screened from view of public rights-of-way and 
residential uses with a landscaped berm or a combination of a wall and 
landscaped berm at least four feet in height, as approved by the Planning 
and Development Department. 
 
 
7. 
The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement 
(MUTE) along the north side of Baseline Road and construct a minimum 10-
foot wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement, in accordance with the 
MAG supplemental detail and as approved by the Parks and Recreation 
and Planning and Development Departments. 
 
 
8. 
The location of the bus stop along Baseline Road shall be approved by the 
Public Transit Department. 
 
 
9. 
THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE 
SHADED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE 
25TH STREET ALIGNMENT PROVIDING A DIRECT CONNECTION 
FROM THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 
TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG BASELINE ROAD, AS APPROVED 
OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 
DEPARTMENT. 
 
 
10. 
9. 
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the 
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, 
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved 
by the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall 
comply with all ADA accessibility standards. 
 
 
11. 
10. 
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, 
the developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 12 of 14 
 
 
 
 
a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow 
time for the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials. 
 
 
12. 
11. 
The developer shall notify the following individuals at a minimum 10 
calendar days prior to any Planning Hearing Officer request to modify or 
delete stipulations. The notice shall include the date, time and location of 
the hearing. 
 
 
 
a. 
Tanis Earle  
3602 East Vineyard Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
b. 
Sandy Bawden 
3232 East Vineyard Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
c. 
Kay Gunter 
1821 East Latona Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
d. 
Deandra Ervin 
2914 East Constance Way 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
e. 
Linda Martin 
7049 South Golfside Lane 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
f. 
Stephanie Watney 
834 East Beverly Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
g. 
Anthony Siglar 
2727 East Donnor Drive 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
h. 
Kenneth And June Wood  
2447 East Fremont Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
i. 
Melissa Hinkle 
7051 South 27th Way 
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 13 of 14 
 
 
 
 
 
j. 
Steve And Robin Martin  
8517 South 30th Way 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
k. 
Heather Cannon 
8032 South 27th Way 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
l. 
Hayime Monge 
7507 South 27th Terrace 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
m. Steven Pace 
2198 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, AZ 85016 
 
 
 
 
n. 
Linda Anquoe 
3923 East Carson Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
o. 
Kent June 
3917 East St. Catherine Avenue 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
p. 
Monique Bontrager 
6401 South 37th Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
q. 
Amy Schneider 
3232 East Maldonado  
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
 
r. 
Kim Figgins  
2918 East Dunbar Drive 
Phoenix, AZ 85042 
 
 
 
13. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER 
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A 
FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  THE WAIVER 
SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S 
OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 
REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.

Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
October 7, 2021 Planning Commission 
Page 14 of 14 
 
 
 
 
EXHIBITS 
A – Appeal Document (3 pages) 
B – Applicant’s Narrative (10 pages) 
C – Aerial Map (1 page) 
D – Zoning Map (1 page) 
E – Ordinance No. G-6478 from Rezoning Case No. Z-10-18-8 (8 pages) 
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-10-18-8 (1 page) 
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped May 26, 2021 (3 pages) 
H – Stipulated Conceptual Planting Plan date stamped June 25, 2018 (1 page) 
I – Proposed Elevations date stamped May 26, 2021 (4 pages) 
J – Stipulated Elevations date stamped February 12, 2018 (1 page) 
K – South Mountain Village Planning Committee Summary from July 13, 2021 (9 pages) 
L – PHO Summary for PHO-1-21--Z-10-18-8 (15 pages) 
M – Public Correspondence (39 pages)

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

BEUS GILBERT mcgroder 
PLLC 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
 
701 NORTH 44TH STREET 
PHOENIX, ARIZONA  85008-6504 
FAX (480) 429-3111 
 
PAUL E. GILBERT 
DIRECT (480) 429-3002 
E-MAIL:  PGILBERT@BEUSGILBERT.COM 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
100512.01 
 
 
June 21, 2021 
 
 
Via Hand Delivery 
 
City of Phoenix 
Planning and Development Department 
2nd Floor – Zoning Counter 
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
Re: 
Stipulation Modification Request (Case Nos. PHO-2-21 – Z-63-05-8, PHO-1-21 – 
Z-59-18-8, and PHO-1-21 – Z-10-18-8) - Amended 
This application seeks to modify stipulations from three separate zoning cases (Z-63-05, 
Z-59-18, and Z-10-18) for properties located at the northwest corner of 27th Street and Baseline 
Road.  The developers intend to 
assemble 
the 
ten 
parcels 
(collectively, the “Property”) subject 
to the above zoning cases and 
develop them as an integrated unit 
with 
commercial 
uses 
along 
Baseline Road and residential uses 
adjacent to the canal.   
 
Proposed Project 
 
The Applicant, Beus Gilbert 
McGroder, PLLC, is representing 
Baseline 25, LLC (“Baseline 25”), 
Baseline 
RITD, 
LLC, 
Vahik 
Sahakian, and LG Acquisitions, 
LLC (“LGA”) in this application. 
Baseline 25 is developing a retail 
component on the southern half of

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
the Property, and LGA is developing a residential component on the northern half of the Property.  
Importantly, this application does not seek to rezone the Property. All the uses are allowed under 
their current zoning (i.e., C-1).  However, as there were three separate zoning cases with three 
separate sets of stipulations, the developers need to modify some of the stipulations in the previous 
cases in order to develop the Property as a whole. Additional background on the developers and 
reasons underlying this application to modify certain stipulations are described in greater detail 
herein.  
 
Baseline 25, the developer of the retail portion adjacent to Baseline Road, is led by Randy 
Raskin, a long-time local developer of various commercial and residential projects in the south 
and southwest Valley.  Previous examples of some Mr. Raskin’s projects include, among others:  
• Estrella Mountain Village Center, a mixed use 85-acre project with a 13-acre LA 
Fitness-anchored retail development at the northwest corner of 51st Avenue and 
Baseline Road;  
• A Walmart Super Center and 60,000 square feet of shops at the southwest corner 
of 35th Avenue and Southern Avenue;  
• A Walgreens-anchored development with 65,000 square feet of shops at the 
northeast corner of 35th Avenue and Southern Avenue; 
• A mini-storage and Dunkin Donuts development at southwest corner of 19th 
Avenue and Baseline Road; 
• A 40-acre mixed-use development at the northwest corner of Dobbins and 51st 
Avenue; and 
• A Big Lots-anchored 103,000 square foot retail center redevelopment at the 
northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Baseline Road.    
 
 
LGA, which is helmed locally by Jay Ramos, develops industrial, retail, self-storage, single family 
projects, but focuses on Class A rental communities.  LGA has developed over 3,000 units since 
2015 and currently has 4,700 units in development or construction.  LGA Multifamily was 
recognized as one the nation’s leading developers in 2019 by the National Multi Housing Council.  
LGA’s markets include Dallas, Austin, Raleigh, and Phoenix. Each of LGA’s products is designed 
specifically for the environment and neighborhood in which it is developed. LGA believes that 
good design, focused on each location, yields better neighborhoods.   
 
 
The image of the proposed site plan below, a larger version of which is included in this 
application packet, represents the mix of retail and multifamily uses the developers are proposing.  
Importantly, the proposed development complies with material aspects of Section 651 of the 
Zoning Ordinance, the Baseline Area Overlay District (“BAOD”) that governs development of the 
properties.  In particular as described herein, the proposed development fulfills the purpose of the 
BAOD in that it “protects the rural, agricultural character of the area while allowing development 
in accord with the Baseline Area Master Plan.”

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
 
 
Multifamily – The properties are zoned C-1, which allows multifamily development under 
the R-3 zoning category (Section 615 of the Zoning Ordinance). Specifically, LGA is proposing 
to utilize the Planned Residential Development (“PRD”) option of the R-3 zoning category to 
construct 138 total units comprised of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units with a mix of surface parking 
and tuck-under garages.  The maximum density on the site using the PRD option is 17.40 dwelling 
units per acre with the bonus (15.23 without).  The multifamily portion is 8.12 gross acres with a 
unit count of 138, which results in a density of 16.99 dwelling units per acre.  Section 608.I.2 of 
the Zoning Ordinance provides guidance on additional amenities a developer can provide in order 
to achieve bonus density.  LGA needs 32 bonus points in order to achieve an additional 1.76 
dwelling units per acre. However, as shown on the proposed site plan, LGA is providing amenities 
that achieve 60 bonus density points, including but not limited to, a major entry feature into the 
multifamily development, accent material at the drive entry, furniture along the multi-use trail 
from Baseline to the Western Canal and along the Western Canal, and recreational amenities for 
the development.  
 
The multifamily portion complies with the BAOD, but in particular, the multifamily 
portion maintains the overall BAOD requirement that no structures exceed two-stories or 30 feet, 
and the BAOD requirement specific to multifamily development that a minimum of one-third of 
the buildings do not exceed one-story or 15 feet.  Three of the four buildings in the multifamily 
portion that abut the Western Canal are single story buildings.  The multifamily development 
includes a dog park, shaded seating along the Western Canal, exterior view fencing , pedestrian 
connectivity to both the retail portion and the Western Canal, appropriate landscaping, clubhouse

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
amenities, and maintains the multiuse trail easement along the eastern portion of the site that will 
provide pedestrian and equestrian connectivity between the Western Canal and Baseline Road.  
LGA is proposing a “prairie ranch house” architectural style as an homage to the rural, agricultural, 
and equestrian nature of the area. 
 
 
Retail – The retail portion of the site is intended to be developed with five pad sites that 
are compatible with the needs of the community, including a mix of service retail and restaurants, 
all of which are allowed in C-1.  Baseline 25 is in negotiations for development of four of the five 
pad sites.  Thus, upon approval of this application, four of the pad sites will be in a position to file 
their own site-specific development applications.  The developers are seeking a site plan 
substitution in connection with this application and are submitting proposed elevations for the 
multifamily portion.  However, since the individual pad sites will need to file their own site-
specific design and/or construction applications, the developers are not submitting proposed 
elevations in connection with this application in order to avoid a bombardment of stipulation 
modification requests.  Such an approach would not be a productive use of either the City’s or the 
neighbors’ time and resources.  
 
 
As stated above, since the properties are governed by three separate zoning cases, each 
with their own stipulations, the developers must seek a modification of some of the stipulations in 
each case in order to develop the site as an integrated, cohesive unit.  The stipulations the 
developers are seeking to modify from each case are discussed below.  
 
Case PHO-2-21 – Z-63-05-8 
 
Introduction 
 
On August 31, 2005, the then owner 
received approval from the City Council to 
rezone the property from R1-14 to C-1 to 
allow a neighborhood commercial shopping 
center.  On June 10, 2016, in case PHO-1-16 
– Z-63-05-8, the owner received approval to 
modify certain stipulations from the 2005 
zoning approval. Although the property was 
rezoned over 15 years ago, it remains vacant 
to this day.  As the property will now be part 
of a larger development comprised of the 
small piece immediately to the north and the 
property to the east, the developers must 
modify the following stipulations from PHO-1-16 – Z-63-05.

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
Requests 
 
Stipulation No. 1 - Modification – “That the subject property DEVELOPMENT shall be 
developed in general conformance to WITH the CONCEPTUAL site plan and elevations date 
stamped February 19, 2016 MAY 28, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations and as 
approved by the Development Services Department PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 
DEPARTMENT.”  
• Rationale – As the developers are seeking to incorporate the above property into a 
larger development, the February 19, 2016, site plan and elevations are no longer 
applicable.  The developers are merely seeking to substitute the existing approved 
site plan for one that will be approved in this application.  
Stipulation No. 2 - Deletion – “That the subject property be developed with only one access 
on 25th Street as approved by the Development Services Department.” 
• Rationale - Limiting access from 25th Street was only necessary because of the 
narrow frontage on Baseline Road when the property was going to be developed 
independently. As shown on the above site plan, the property will now be part of 
the larger development that will have primary access from 25th Street as well as a 
driveway between 25th Street and 27th Street for the retail portion, and primary 
access from 27th Street for the multifamily portion.  The multifamily portion will 
have secondary access from where 25th Street intersects with Baseline Road.  In 
addition to the foregoing, deleting Stipulation No. 3 is consistent with the 
abandonment of 25th Street as required in Case No. Z-10-18. 
Stipulation No. 3 - Deletion – “That the developer 
provide one point of cross access from the subject property to the 
commercial site located to the west of the site, as approved by 
the Planning and Development Department.”  
• Rationale – Providing cross access to the west 
was only necessary because of the narrow 
frontage on Baseline Road when the property was 
going to be developed independently. As shown 
on the above site plan, the property will now be 
part of the larger development that will have cross 
access easements for all pad sites as well as the 
multifamily portion providing for optimum 
circulation within the site.  In addition, although 
not required, the developers intend to seek the 
ability to use the private street to the west (yellow 
arrow in image to the left) that could provide an

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
additional point of ingress and egress that will mitigate traffic impacts on Baseline 
Road.  
 
Case PHO-1-21 – Z-59-18-8 
 
Introduction 
 
On January 9, 2019, the owner 
of the small residential piece just north 
of the above zoning case received 
approval from the City Council to 
rezone the property from R1-14 to C-1 
to combine the northern piece and the 
southern piece and incorporate the two 
into one commercial retail center.  The 
owner of this property had also 
previously acquired the property to the 
south so they are now owned by a 
single owner.  Although both rezoning 
cases were approved, no development 
has since occurred.  This zoning case 
included a site plan that ostensibly 
replaced and superseded the site plan 
and elevations from the 2005 rezoning case.  However, as no specific finding was made regarding 
the 2005 site plan, the Applicant is seeking the necessary modifications to both site plans in an 
effort to be clear and comprehensive. As the property will now be part of a larger development 
comprised of the small piece immediately to the north and the property to the east, the developers 
must modify the following stipulations.  
 
Requests 
 
Stipulation No. 1 - Modification – “THAT Tthe development shall be in general 
conformance with the conceptual site plan AND ELEVATIONS date stamped August 21, 2018 
MAY 26, 2021, as may be modified for compliance with the canal bank design guidelines in 
Section 507 Tab A of the Zoning Ordinance, BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS and AS 
approved by the Planning and Development Department, and with specific regard to the following: 
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT” 
• Rationale – As the developers are seeking to incorporate the above property into a 
larger development, the August 21, 2018, conceptual site plan is no longer 
applicable.  Moreover, the development will be developed in conformance with 
design standards for property adjacent to the Western Canal. The developers are

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
merely seeking to substitute the existing approved site plan for one that will be 
approved in this application.  
Stipulation No. 1.a - Deletion – “Pedestrian pathway to provide open public access to 
amenities on the adjacent property to the east to be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or 
colored concrete, or another material, other than those used to pave the parking surfaces and drive 
aisles.” 
• Rationale – Providing pedestrian pathways to be constructed of decorative 
materials to the property to the east was only included because of the narrow width 
of the property when it was going to be developed independently. As shown on the 
above site plan, the property will now be part of the larger development that will 
have pedestrian pathways and vehicular cross access easements for all pad sites as 
well as the multifamily portion providing for optimum circulation within the site.  
In addition, although not required, the developers intend to seek the ability to use 
the private street to the west (yellow arrow in image to the left) that could provide 
an additional point of ingress and egress and will mitigate traffic impacts on 
Baseline Road.    
Stipulation No. 1.b - Deletion – “Vehicular cross access to adjacent properties to the east 
and south, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.”  
• Rationale – Providing vehicular cross access to the properties to the east and south 
was only included because of the narrow width of the property when it was going 
to be developed independently. As shown on the above site plan, the property will 
now be part of the larger development that will have pedestrian pathways and 
vehicular cross access easements for all pad sites as well as the multifamily portion 
providing for optimum circulation within the site.  In addition, although not 
required, the developers intend to seek the ability to use the private street to the 
west (yellow arrow in image above) that could provide an additional point of 
ingress and egress and will mitigate traffic impacts on Baseline Road. 
Stipulation No. 3 - Deletion – “If the subject site develops as a stand-alone parcel and does 
not provide an alternative street frontage to that existing along 25th Street, then the developer shall 
be responsible for the dedication and construction of an offset cul-de-sac bulb at the northern 
portion of 25th Street, south of the Western Canal, as approved by the Planning and Development 
and Street Transportation Department.” 
• Rationale – This stipulation was only necessary because of the narrow frontage on 
Baseline Road if the property was going to be developed independently. As shown 
on the above site plan, the property will now be part of the larger development that 
will have primary access from 25th Street and a driveway between 25th Street and 
27th Street for the retail portion, and primary access from 27th Street for the 
multifamily portion.  The multifamily portion will have secondary access from 
where 25th Street intersects with Baseline Road.  In addition to the foregoing,

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
deleting Stipulation No. 3 is consistent with the abandonment of 25th Street as 
required in Case No. Z-10-18, which the developers intend to pursue. 
 
Case PHO-1-21 – Z-10-18-8 
 
Introduction 
 
On July 2, 2018, Baseline 
25 received approval from the City 
Council 
for 
a 
General 
Plan 
Amendment and rezoning case for 
property owned by Baseline 25 and 
Baseline RITD, LLC from R1-10 
and R1-14 to C-1 to allow for 
commercial and medical uses.  
Although approved approximately 
three years prior, the properties 
have not developed as anticipated 
in the rezoning case.  As the 
property will now be part of a larger 
development comprised of the 
properties 
to 
the 
west, 
the 
developers 
must 
modify 
the 
following stipulations. 
 
Requests 
 
Stipulation No. 1 - Modification – “THAT Tthe development shall be in general 
conformance with the conceptual planning SITE plan AND ELEVATIONS date stamped June 25, 
2018 MAY 26, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations and AS approved by the Planning 
and Development Department., and with specific regard to the following:” 
• Rationale – As the developers are seeking to incorporate the above property into a 
larger development, the June 25, 2018, conceptual planting plan is no longer 
applicable.  The developers are merely seeking to substitute the existing approved 
conceptual planting plan for one that will be submitted as part of this application. 
Stipulation No. 1.a - Deletion – “The quantity and configuration of drive-through facilities 
on the subject site.” 
• Rationale – As the developers are seeking to incorporate the above property into a 
larger development, which depicts the location and configuration of structures with 
drive-through facilities, this stipulation is no longer applicable.  Under the proposed

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
site plan, the retail portion is providing appropriate screening, and parking along 
the street side is provided in order to ensure that any retail buildings with drive-
through facilities have the windows facing away from residential areas and away 
from the perimeter street.  As indicated on the proposed site plan included with this 
application, no drive through windows face east toward any residential areas or 
south towards Baseline Road.  
Stipulation No. 1.b - Deletion – “The configuration of 27th Street, which aligns with the 
existing portion of 27th Street south of Baseline Road.” 
• Rationale – It is the developer’s understanding that the reconfiguration of 27th Street 
was proposed in the event a traffic signal were required at that intersection in the 
future.  However, the proposed development did not meet the signal warrants 
necessary to justify the installation of a traffic signal. Moreover, the residential 
neighbors immediately to the east of the Properties across 27th Street as well as the 
neighbors across Baseline Road to the south were, and are, opposed to the 
reconfiguration of 27th Street.  Thus, the City did not want to incur the expense 
associated with an unwarranted and unwanted traffic signal.  Nevertheless, it is the 
developer’s understanding that the reconfiguration of the 27th Street alignment was 
added at the last minute during the City Council hearing in this case over the 
objection of the applicant and the residential neighbors.  Accordingly, the 
developers request that this stipulation be deleted.  
Stipulation No. 2 - Deletion – “The development shall be in general conformance with the 
elevations date stamped February 12, 2018, as modified by the following stipulations and approved 
by the Planning and Development Department.” 
• Rationale – As the developers are seeking to incorporate the above property into a 
larger development, the February 12, 2018, elevations are no longer applicable.  It 
is not necessary to have a separate stipulation concerning elevations.   
Stipulation No. 2.a: Modification – “Pitched roof elements shall be incorporated in all 
SOME OF THE buildings IN THE DEVELOPMENT.” 
• Rationale – Although pitched roofs are a presumption in the BAOD, the developers 
of the retail portion are seeking some relief from that presumption but are providing 
increased standards of the quality of development consistent with the BAOD as is 
evident from the attached documents. In addition, some of the pad sites are 
incorporating pitched roof elements into their individual designs that will be 
submitted to the City in connection with those applications. Having alternative 
styles of roof elements provides architectural interest along the streetscape.  
Stipulation No. 3.b: Modification – “Equestrian corral area containing hHitching posts 
WITH ROOM for MULTIPLE horses, SHADED LANDSCAPING, AND WATER FOR 
EQUINE CONSUMPTION WILL BE PROVIDED along the northern property align LINE 
adjacent to the Western Canal.”

City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
June 21, 2021 
Page 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#849760v1<BeusGilbert> - Amended Narrative PHO-2-21 -- Z-63-05-8  
• Rationale – The request for a corral may have been well-intentioned, but the 
developers are cognizant of the potential liability associated with a corral on private 
property that is made available for public use.  However, although the corral will 
likely never be used, the developers also recognize the desire to maintain the rural, 
agricultural ambiance of the BAOD, and accordingly are not seeking to delete the 
stipulation entirely.  The developers are willing to provide an area that is consistent 
with the equestrian trials in the area, but seek to create an environment that is more 
safe and secure than an open corral.  
Conclusion 
The Applicant and the developers thank you for your time and consideration of this 
complicated request and look forward to an open dialogue regarding this application.   
The proposed zoning stipulation modification is accompanied by the following documents: 
1. Application Fee; 
2. Ownership Verification forms; 
3. Information Form;  
4. Property Owners Information; 
5. Site Plan (2 copies – 24” x 36”; 1 copy – 8 ½” x 11”); 
6. Parcel map with project area identified; 
7. Legal Description(s) 
8. Property Owner Notification Requirements; 
9. CD with electronic copies of submittal 
 
Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions, or if you need any 
additional information.  
 
Very truly, 
 
BEUS GILBERT McGRODER PLLC 
 
 
 
Paul E. Gilbert 
 
PEG: CHA 
Enclosures as indicated

EXHIBIT C

ST
S 27TH WAY
S 25TH ST
PRIVATE

EXHIBIT D

24TH ST
ST
S 27TH WAY
S 25TH ST
PRIVATE

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT H

EXHIBIT I

EXHIBIT J

EXHIBIT K

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 5
Fatima Said asked if there is an incentive to developers to use WU code zoning 
and stated that the Chicanos Por La Causa rezoning PUD case should be 
considered as this project is displacing residents.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that WU code zoning does not have a density cap and 
requires enhanced street frontages that will help improve a project.
Greg Brownell stated that there is no real incentive for developers and does not 
foresee new park sites being built in the future.
Chairwoman Daniels likes WU code due to potential economic development 
opportunities and could see new projects being built along the Rio Salado and 
between 7th Avenue to 7th Street. She agrees that no new park sites will likely be 
built in the South Mountain Village.
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and discussed two 
questions that he had regarding this text amendment case:
Are there any land uses allowed today that would be considered legally non-
conforming if this text amendment is approved?
Will the rezoning process to seek WU code allow for public input?
Chairwoman Daniels thanked Mr. Paulin and asked staff for clarification on the 
questions.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that this text amendment case does not affect individual 
properties, only properties that would be seeking rezoning in the future. He also 
mentioned that public input will remain part of the rezoning process, including for 
WU code zoning.
Cases PHO-2-21—Z-63-05-8, PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8, and PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8
were heard concurrently.
7) PHO-2-21--Z-63-05-8: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation 
regarding a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 820 feet east of the northeast corner of 24th Street and Baseline 
Road. Request to modify Stipulation No. 1 regarding general conformance to the 
site plan and elevations date stamped February 19, 2016. Request to delete 
Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3 regarding maximum access points on 25th Street and 
cross access to the commercial site along the west.
8) PHO-1-21--Z-59-18-8: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation 
regarding a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located 
approximately 615 feet north of the northwest corner of 25th Street and Baseline

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 6
Road. Request to modify Stipulation No. 1 regarding general conformance to the 
site plan date stamped August 21, 2018. Request to delete Stipulation Nos. 1.a, 
1.b, and 3 regarding access to amenities to the east, vehicular cross access to 
adjacent properties, and conditional requirements to dedicate and construct 25th 
Street.
9) PHO-1-21--Z-10-18-8: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation 
regarding a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located 
at the northwest corner of 27th Street and Baseline Road. Request to modify 
Stipulation Nos. 1, 2.a and 2.b regarding general conformance to a conceptual 
planting plan date stamped June 25, 2018, pitched roof elements and equestrian 
corral area. Request to delete Stipulation Nos. 1a., 1.b and 2 regarding quantity 
and configuration of drive-through facilities, configuration of 27th Street, and 
general conformance to elevations.
Cases PHO-2-21—Z-63-05-8, PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8, and PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8
were heard concurrently.
One member of the public registered to speak on this item during the public 
meeting.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation 
regarding each of the three PHO cases. He discussed the location of the overall 
project site and individual PHO cases. The requested stipulation modifications by 
the applicant were shown for each case. He also showed previously approved 
site plans and/or building elevations, in addition to the new proposed site plan for 
the overall project site and building elevations.
Greg Brownell asked if staff provides a recommendation on the requested 
modifications. He prefers that no drive-throughs are approved for the site.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that staff does not provide recommendation on 
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) cases.
Chairwoman Daniels asked why no building elevations were provided for the 
commercial phase of the project.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the applicant can address this question.
Marcia Busching asked if a detailed review of the plans has been conducted.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that usually a development services pre-application 
meeting is conducted by the applicant to gather technical review comments on 
the site plan proposed and that PHO staff review the documents once submitted.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 7
Martin Hayime Monge Kotake lives east of the proposed development. 
Currently, the 27th Street alignment is dangerous and prefers that the street 
alignment remains as shown in the site plan approved in 2018.
Gene Holmerud discussed the 27th Street and Baseline Road alignment 
involving the topographical survey of the area.
Trent Marchuk asked about the conformance to the Baseline Area Overlay 
District (BAOD) in the site plan and referenced several potential conflicts. The 
drive-throughs should be eliminated and prefers that the pitched roofs stay in the 
stipulations.
Muriel Smith discussed the 27th Street alignment and previous concerns raised 
then about this.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the applicant might be able to address questions 
about their current layout and why it changed from the 2018 site plan.
Chairwoman Daniels discussed several aspects of the proposed stipulations 
pertaining to:
New site layout is an improvement, as it is adding new housing units to the 
area;
Discussed the public access and the changes to the overall site plan;
Pedestrian access for the multifamily should be provided to commercial 
areas;
25th Street no longer being a public street, now proposed as a private 
drive;
Pitched roof elements should be kept;
Equestrian corral area was discussed;
Would love to see Walkable Urban code elements added to the project;
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the multifamily portion of the site could be a gated 
community, as show in the site plan provided by the applicant. Furthermore, that 
25th Street is no longer proposed as a public street, but rather a private drive.
Paul Gilbert, with Beus Gilbert McGroder PLLC, introduced himself as the 
representative of the developer and introduced the project. The proposed site 
plan meets all of the required standards, while exceeding some standards such 
as open space, where 30-percent open space is provided to account for water 
retention. He introduced the project team, PHO case boundaries and discussed 
the conceptual site plan for the entire site. He showed the commercial and 
multifamily residential phases of the conceptual site plan. One-hundred thirty 
eight total units are proposed with a maximum density of 16.99 dwelling units per 
acre. The site plan complies with the BAOD requirements and discussed the

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 8
amenities proposed, including the corral area. He discussed the stipulation 
modification language proposed for each of the 3 PHO cases and stated that 
drive-through facilities are needed. The 27th Street alignment was addressed, 
adding that no traffic signal was warranted based on the traffic statement 
conducted. An overview of the enhanced notification and outreach was provided. 
Other aspects of the project such as pathways, health-safety enhancements, 
architecture and walls were discussed. He no longer is requesting modification of 
Stipulation No. 2.a on case PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 pertaining to pitched roof 
elements.
Carl Starry, with LG Acquisitions LLC, introduced himself as the developer for the 
residential phase of the project. He gave an overview of different multifamily 
development projects built in other cities. He reviewed the three lists created by the 
South Mountain Village Planning Committee and discussed why this property was 
selected. He discussed amenities, layout, access, public art, and the clubhouse.
Mr. Holmerud asked whether the multi-use trail along Baseline Road had been 
constructed. He asked for clarification on the electric charging station proposed.
Mr. Gilbert responded that the multi-use trail along Baseline Road will be provided.
Mr. Starry discussed the electric charging outline and possible locations for this 
within the community.
Twanna Ray asked for clarification on the number of individuals that were spoken 
to regarding this project.
Mr. Gilbert stated that within an 850-foot radius, over 600 people were contacted, 
and no issues were raised on the project. Approximately 2.5 weeks were spent 
doing the outreach.
Lee Coleman asked why some of the setbacks were not being met.
Cassandra Ayres, with Beus Gilbert McGroder PLLC, introduced herself and 
stated that they are asking for some of the parking to be allowed within the front 
setback along Baseline Road. Thus, a variance is proposed to be requested to 
address this aspect of the site plan.
Dr. George Brooks asked if the applicant met individually or as a group with 
surrounding neighbors, and if a neighborhood meeting was held.
Susan Bitter Smith, with Technical Solutions, introduced herself as part of the 
development team. Her group knocked on doors and assisted with the outreach for 
this project.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 9
Mr. Bojórquez added that no neighborhood meeting is required as part of PHO 
applications.
Mr. Marchuk asked if the site plan will need to comply with BAOD standards. He is 
concerned that some of the standards are not being met.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the site plan will have to comply with the BAOD 
standards.
Mr. Starry stated that their project will comply with BAOD standards, including 
walkways.
Mr. Gilbert responded that they will review the Zoning Ordinance once again.
Mr. Monge Kotake asked if a traffic statement will be required for this project and 
stated that his household was contacted, but no information about the project was 
left for him to follow up on.
Mr. Gilbert stated that the city did not require a traffic report, but one was 
conducted anyway about a year ago.
Mr. Bojórquez stated that he did not observe a stipulation from the 2018 rezoning 
case requiring a traffic statement to be submitted to the city at a later date.
Mr. Coleman discussed the intersection at 27th Street and Baseline Road.
Chairwoman Daniels allowed Ms. Jones to provide public comment on the cases.
JoLouise Jones, member of the public, introduced herself as a resident in the area 
and stated that traffic is bad along this intersection now. Traffic will worsen if this 
project is approved. The 27th Street alignment was approved in 2018 with the intent 
to develop a traffic signal light.
Mr. Gilbert stated that the current site plan reduces traffic counts as there is a 
reduction of commercial uses.
Mr. Monge Kotake stated that the traffic report is from a year ago and thus 
outdated now.
Mr. Coleman stated that aligning both sides of 27th Street north and south of 
Baseline Road would be challenging.
Chairwoman Daniels asked why the stipulation pertaining to 27th Street was 
added in the 2018 rezoning case.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 10
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the 2018 rezoning case minutes are included in the 
packet sent to all VPC members but cannot identify a specific reason while 
browsing the minutes from 2018.
Kassandra Alvarez asked if the applicant had spoken with the Street 
Transportation Department regarding the traffic.
Mr. Gilbert responded that he had contacted the traffic section and no traffic signal 
was required.
Ms. Busching would like to stipulate several elements including:
Cross-access agreement between the commercial and residential phases, 
plus the property along the west;
Maximum of one drive-through facility;
Applicant to work with the Planning and Development Department, Street 
Transportation Department and the community on the 27th Street alignment, 
thus keeping Stipulation No. 1.b on PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8;
Keep Stipulation No. 2.a on case PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8;
Greg Brownell, Kay Shepard and Kassandra Alvarez support these stipulations.
Mr. Gilbert would like flexibility to work out these issues with city staff.
Ms. Busching is concerned that the requested changes will not be addressed.
Mr. Holmerud is opposed to aligning 27th Street.
Mr. Marchuk agrees on aligning 27th Street and adding language pertaining to 
berms and the BAOD.
Mr. Brownell and Ms. Busching agree with Mr. Marchuk’s comments.
Mr. Holmerud disagrees with Mr. Marchuk on aligning 27th Street.
Lee Coleman and Shelly Smith left the meeting at 10:10pm, bringing the quorum to 
14 members.
MOTION – PHO-2-21—Z-63-05-8:
Ms. Busching motioned to deny case PHO-2-21—Z-63-05-8 as filed, approve
with modifications. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion to approve.
Stipulation modifications approved for PHO-2-21—Z-63-05-8:

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 11
Stipulation No. 1: That the subject property DEVELOPMENT shall be
developed in general conformance to WITH the CONCEPTUAL site plan and 
elevations date stamped February 19, 2016 MAY 28, 2021, as modified by the 
following stipulations and as approved by the PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 
DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT THAT NO MORE THAN ONE DRIVE-THROUGH 
FACILITY SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE DRIVE-THROUGHS SHOULD BE 
SCREENED FROM VIEW OF THE PERIMETER STREET WITH A 
LANDSCAPED BERM OR A COMBINATION OF A WALL AND 
LANDSCAPED BERM AT LEAST FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.
Stipulation No. 2 was deleted.
Stipulation No. 3: THERE SHALL BE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN 
CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL PAD SITES
AS WELL AS THE MULTIFAMILY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 
A PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT 
SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE COMMERCIAL PAD SITES WEST 
OF THE DEVELPPMENT IN ORDER TO CONNECT TO THE 
ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WEST OF THE PROJECT 
SITE.
VOTE – PHO-2-21—Z-63-05-8:
10-2-1, motion passed; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, 
Holmerud, Marchuk, Ray, Shepard, Smith, and Daniels in favor. Members Larios 
and Said in dissent. Member Monge Kotake abstained.
MOTION – PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8:
Ms. Busching motioned to deny case PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8 as filed, approve 
with modifications. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion to approve.
Stipulation modifications approved for PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8:
Stipulation No. 1: THAT Tthe development shall be in general conformance 
with the conceptual site plan AND ELEVATIONS date stamped August 21, 
2018 MAY 26, 2021, as may be modified for compliance with the canal bank 
design guidelines in Section 507 Tab A of the Zoning Ordinance, BY THE 
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS and AS approved by the Planning and 
Development Department, and with specific regard to the following: 
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Stipulation No. 1.a: THERE SHALL BE PEDESTRIAN CROSS ACCESS 
EASEMENTS TO ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PADS ALONG THE SOUTH 
AND WEST OF THE PROJECT SITE.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 12
Stipulation No. 1.b: THERE SHALL BE VEHICULAR CROSS ACCESS 
EASEMENTS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL PAD SITES AS WELL AS THE 
MULTIFAMILY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A VEHICULAR 
CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE 
COMMERCIAL PADS SITES WEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER 
TO CONNECT TO THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WEST OF 
THE PROJECT SITE.
Stipulation No. 3 was deleted.
Joseph Larios left the meeting at 10:20pm, bringing the quorum to 13 members.
VOTE – PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8:
11-0-2, motion passed; Members Aldama, Alvarez, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, 
Holmerud, Marchuk, Ray, Shepard, Smith, and Daniels in favor. None in dissent.
Members Monge Kotake and Said abstained.
Fatima Said left the meeting at 10:25pm, bringing the quorum to 12 members.
MOTION – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8:
Ms. Busching motioned to deny case PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 as filed, approve 
with modifications. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion to approve.
Stipulation modifications approved for PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8:
Stipulation No. 1: THAT Tthe development shall be in general conformance 
with the conceptual planning SITE plan AND ELEVATIONS date stamped 
June 25, 2018 MAY 26, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations and 
AS approved by the Planning and Development Department., and with 
specific regard to the following:
Stipulation No. 1.a: NO DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES SHALL BE 
PERMITTED.
Stipulation No. 1.b: The configuration of 27th Street, which aligns with the 
existing portion of 27th Street south of Baseline Road, OR OTHER
ALTERNATIVES AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND 
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND STREET TRANSPORTATION 
DEPARTMENT.
Stipulation No. 2 was deleted.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Minutes – July 13, 2021
Page 13
Stipulation No. 2.a: Pitched roof elements shall be incorporated in all 
buildings.
Stipulation No. 3.b: Equestrian corral area containing hHitching posts WITH 
ROOM for MULTIPLE horses, SHADED LANDSCAPING, AND WATER FOR 
EQUINE CONSUMPTION WILL BE PROVIDED along the northern property 
align LINE adjacent to the Western Canal.
New Stipulation No. 12: THERE SHALL BE VEHICULAR AND 
PEDESTRIAN CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL 
PAD SITES AS WELL AS THE MULTIFAMILY PORTION OF THE 
DEVELOPMENT. A PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR CROSS ACCESS 
EASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE COMMERCIAL PAD 
SITES WEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO CONNECT TO THE 
ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WEST OF THE PROJECT SITE.
VOTE – PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8:
10-1-1, motion passed; Members Aldama, Alvarez, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, 
Marchuk, Ray, Shepard, Smith, and Daniels in favor. Member Holmerud in 
dissent. Member Monge Kotake abstained.
10)Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.
None.
11)
Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or future 
agenda items.
Mr. Brownell suggested that an agenda item be added for next month’s meeting to 
discuss the creation of a subcommittee for the South Mountain Village Planning 
Committee.
Ms. Alvarez stated that South Mountain Community College (SMCC) is reopening 
and having in-person services in the upcoming semester.
Mr. Holmerud stated that the earbuds used by Mr. Bojórquez during the meeting 
may not be transmitting sound into the microphone.
12)Adjournment.
Ms. Shepard moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Holmerud seconded the motion.
All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 10:36 pm.

EXHIBIT L

REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION 
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer 
Bradley Wylam, Planner I, Assisting 
 
August 18, 2021 
ITEM NO: 10
DISTRICT 8
SUBJECT:
Application #:
PHO-1-21--Z-10-18-8 (Continued from 7/21/21 agenda)
Location:
Northwest corner of 27th Street and Baseline Road
Existing Zoning: 
C-1 BAOD 
Acreage: 
10.31
Request:
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general 
conformance to the conceptual planting plan date 
stamped June 25, 2018.
2) Deletion of Stipulation 1.a regarding the quantity and 
configuration of drive-through facilities. 
3) Deletion of Stipulation 1.b regarding the configuration of 
27th Street. 
4) Deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance 
to elevations date stamped February 12, 2018. 
5) Modification of Stipulation 2.a regarding pitched roof 
elements. 
6) Modification of Stipulation 2.b regarding an equestrian 
corral area. 
Applicant:
Cassandra Ayres, Beus Gilbert McGroder PLLC 
Owner:
Baseline 25, LLC
Representative: 
Paul Gilbert, Beus Gilbert McGroder PLLC
ACTIONS
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer 
recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and additional 
stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The South Mountain 
Village Planning Committee heard the request on July 13, 2021 and 
recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications by a vote of 10-1-1. 
DISCUSSION
Paul Gilbert, representative with Beus Gilbert McGroder, gave an overview of the 
project team and property location. He reviewed the South Mountain Village 
Planning Committee meeting on August 10, 2021, which resulted in a

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 2 
 
recommendation for approval with modifications for Case Nos. PHO-2-21—Z-63-
05-8 and PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8 and denial as filed, approval with modifications 
for Case No. PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8. He stated the proposed uses are allowed in 
the C-1 BAOD zoning district and stipulation modifications are needed to allow 
development per the proposed conceptual site plan for each case. He stated the 
proposed conceptual site plan depicts 138 multifamily residential units at a 
density of 16.99 dwelling units per gross acre on the northern portion of the 
combined site with 5 commercial pads to provide retail or restaurants on the 
southern portion of the combined site. He stated that the proposed site plan 
complies with the regulations of the Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) and is 
compatible with the rural, agricultural, and equestrian character of the 
surrounding area.
Mr. Gilbert stated that the applicant is opposed to the South Mountain VPC 
recommendation regarding the realignment of 27th Street with the existing 
portion of 27th Street south of Baseline Road, limiting the number of drive-
throughs permitted on the site, and providing pedestrian and vehicular access to 
the commercial property to the west. He stated that the applicant completed a 
door-to-door survey within an 850-foot radius of the site and found residents 
supported the proposed development and no resident surveyed was in support of 
the realignment of 27th Street. He noted that they have submitted letters from the 
public generally showing support for the development and letters of opposition 
regarding the existing stipulated realignment of 27th Street. He also noted that a 
petition of 24 people was provided that supports the proposed development 
generally. He discussed the recommended realignment and stated that CivTech, 
a traffic engineering firm, completed a study on the intersection that noted a 
realignment would not alleviate traffic concerns near the site. He stated the study 
noted the potential number of users of 27th Street would not necessitate a 
realignment or a traffic signal at the intersection of 27th Street and Baseline 
Road. He noted that the wait times to cross Baseline Road would not decrease 
due to a realignment and that a traffic signal at the intersection could increase 
cut-through traffic through the neighborhood south of the subject property and 
across Baseline Road. He stated that traffic accidents that have occurred at the 
intersection have largely been rear-end collisions and not due to the existing turn 
movements at the existing intersections. He stated that the realignment is not an 
exaction that meets the proportionality requirement as established by previous 
court cases and existing state statutes. He addressed the VPC recommendation 
regarding drive-throughs and stated that a limit on the number of drive-through 
restaurants was not appropriate as this is a land use otherwise permitted by right, 
subject to performance standards, in this zoning district. He stated that the VPC 
recommended a stipulation regarding vehicular and pedestrian access to the site 
to the west, but conditions on this adjacent site do not allow for cross access and 
the stipulation is both impractical and unenforceable. He stated that the VPC also

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 3 
 
recommended a stipulation regarding pedestrian and vehicular access between 
the commercial and residential portions within the subject site, which the 
applicant supports. 
Mr. Gilbert gave an overview of the proposed stipulation modifications on PHO-2-
21—Z-63-05-8 regarding general conformance to the conceptual site plan and a 
deletion of stipulations regarding 25th Street access and cross access to the 
commercial site to the west. He gave an overview of the proposed stipulation 
modifications on PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8 and noted a comment from a VPC 
member that supported the multifamily housing design depicted on the 
conceptual site plan. He stated that the proposed deletion of Stipulation 1.a and 
1.b regarding pedestrian and vehicular cross access would be addressed 
through the proposed conceptual site plan. He gave an overview of the proposed 
stipulation modifications on PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8. He stated the limitations on 
drive throughs and stipulation regarding the alignment of 27th Street should be 
deleted per the rationale discussed earlier. He stated that modification to 
Stipulation 2.a was discussed at the VPC meeting and recommended to be 
retained and that the applicant had decided to not pursue the original proposed 
modification of that stipulation.  He stated Stipulation 3.b regarding equestrian 
corral areas is requested to be modified to change the language to allow for more 
reasonably sized and feasible equestrian facilities. 
JoJo Jones, Mountain Grove community member, stated there are existing 
issues in the traffic movements at the 27th Street and Baseline intersection. She 
expressed concerns regarding increased traffic on 27th Street related to the 
proposed multifamily residential development in addition to the commercial 
portion of the development. She stated that the previous developer agreed that a 
realignment would be necessary, but that this disagreement during the original 
rezoning case had largely centered around who would be responsible for the 
improvements. 
Rhonda Neff, Mountain Grove community member, stated she is opposed to the 
realignment of 27th Street and stated that the proposed realignment would 
require residents of Mountain Grove to enter their neighborhood from within the 
proposed commercial development. She stated that property values and public 
safety would be decreased by entering through the proposed commercial 
development. She stated the applicant has responded to the concerns raised by 
the surrounding community after the original rezoning case regarding the 
realignment. She stated that she spoke to her neighbors that mentioned that they 
would consider selling their properties if 27th Street was realigned per the staff 
recommendation due to concerns with property values and public safety. She 
stated that she understood the legal concerns from the applicant regarding the 
limitation on drive-through uses, although she hoped there would be sit-down 
restaurants included within the development. She stated that regardless of the

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 4 
 
final alignment, 27th Street would likely see increased traffic with any 
development on the subject site, but that should be expected.  
Mr. Gilbert stated that concerns regarding increased traffic are understood but 
noted that the entrance near the current alignment of 25th Street would be the 
main entrance to the development and allow for trucks and other vehicles to 
enter at this location rather than at 27th Street. He stated that most residents in 
the surrounding area support the plan as proposed and oppose the realignment 
of 27th Street.  
Trent Marchuk, member of the South Mountain VPC, stated that the purpose of 
the VPC’s recommendation regarding limiting the number of drive-throughs is in 
response to the South Mountain Village Character Plan which noted a lack of 
healthy restaurants in the area. He discussed the Village’s recommendation 
regarding the realignment of 27th Street and the suggestion to allow the 
applicant to explore alternative options and noted that the original stipulation 
regarding the realignment of 27th Street asked the developer to work with the 
Street Transportation Department to come up with potential options for the 
realignment. He noted that the rationale behind the applicant’s disagreement with 
the recommended cross access to the site to the west made sense and that he 
supported their request. 
Mr. Gilbert stated that the presence of drive-throughs does not guarantee that the 
restaurants themselves are solely unhealthy restaurants and noted two 
restaurants they are in discussions with regarding the site. He noted that the 
BAOD does not contain limitations on the number of drive-through restaurants 
permitted on a site and only addresses design guidelines for these uses. 
Adam Stranieri, Planning Hearing Officer, agreed that the BAOD does not limit 
the number of drive-throughs, but does include design guidelines for drive-
throughs including screening and grouping of pads. He noted that the Street 
Transportation Department does not support the request to delete the stipulation 
regarding the realignment of 27th Street in PHO-1-21--Z-10-18-8. He asked the 
applicant if they believed the CivTech study would provide information that would 
potentially alter the recommendation made by the Street Transportation 
Department regarding the realignment. Mr. Gilbert stated he believed the results 
of that study could potentially change their recommendation, but he would not 
want to continue the case at this time to wait for this analysis. He noted he 
supported how the VPC worded the stipulation in their recommendation to allow 
the developer to work with the Planning and Development and Street 
Transportation Department to come to a decision. Mr. Stranieri stated that the 
CivTech documents have not been received by staff and that he would not make 
a recommendation based on a study that neither he nor Street Transportation 
Department staff had reviewed, particularly if the applicant wished to have a

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 5 
 
decision during this hearing. He stated he would be moving forward using the 
recommendation from the Street Transportation Department regarding the 
realignment with a modification to include the South Mountain Village 
recommendation regarding the option for alternative alignments.  He noted that 
the intent with the recommended modification was not to allow the applicant to 
avoid the realignment, but rather allow flexibility in how the alignment would be 
implemented.
Mr. Stranieri stated that public correspondence was received prior to the hearing. 
This included a petition with 24 signers that indicated support for the 
development but did not address the alignment, 21 letters of support for the 
development that did not address the alignment, and 12 letters in opposition to 
the alignment which highlighted safety hazards and concerns about residential 
access to Mountain Grove. He stated that a letter submitted by Rhonda Neff also 
highlighted many points made during her comments earlier in the hearing. He 
stated that a letter from Marcia Busching, South Mountain VPC member, was 
received which expressed communication issues with the applicant and noted a 
desire to see the VPC recommendation upheld.
Recommendation regarding PHO-2-21--Z-63-05-8 
Mr. Stranieri stated PHO-2-21—Z-63-05-8 is located on the southwestern side of 
the proposed conceptual site plan and includes both residential and commercial 
portions of the development. He stated that the complete multifamily residential 
complex provides 138 units at a density of 16.99 dwelling units per gross acre 
and noted that conceptual elevations were submitted for the residential portion 
but not the commercial portion. He stated the elevations depict a variety of 
desirable architectural features and recommended general conformance. He 
stated that the scale and intensity is compatible with the surrounding area and 
the character intended by the BAOD. He stated that Stipulation 2 regarding one 
access point on 25th Street is no longer applicable due to the proposed 
abandonment of 25th Street and the lack of single-family units to the east, which 
the stipulation was originally intended to address. He stated that Stipulation 3 
regarding one point of cross access to the site to the west is recommended to be 
deleted due to circumstances regarding development of the neighboring 
property. He stated that the VPC recommendation regarding limitations on the 
number of drive-through restaurants will not be approved because it would 
improperly prohibit uses otherwise allowed by right in the zoning district. He 
noted that the recommendation regarding screening of drive-throughs is 
established by the BOAD as a design presumption, but it could be included as a 
stipulation to create a requirement and provide consistency with the existing 
stipulations in Z-10-18-8.

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 6 
 
Recommendation regarding PHO-1-21--Z-59-18-8 
Mr. Stranieri stated PHO-1-21—Z-59-18-8 is located at the northwestern side of 
the proposed conceptual site plan and includes a residential portion of the 
development. He stated that the complete multifamily residential complex 
provides 138 units at a density of 16.99 dwelling units per gross acre and noted 
that conceptual elevations were submitted for the residential portion but not the 
commercial portion. He stated the elevations depict a variety of desirable 
architectural features and recommended general conformance. He stated that 
the scale and intensity is compatible with the surrounding area and the character 
intended by the BAOD. He stated Stipulations 1.a and 1.b were intended to 
provide connectivity with the property to the east from Z-10-18-8 and that the 
unified proposed conceptual site plan between the cases alleviates the concerns 
regarding connectivity. He stated that the request to delete Stipulation 3 
regarding a conditional requirement to dedicate and construct 25th Street if the 
property was developed as a stand-alone parcel is recommended to be approved 
because the conceptual site plan shows a unified development and the applicant 
would pursue abandonment of 25th Street. He stated that the VPC proposed 
modifications of Stipulations 1.a and 1.b would not be required because the 
property lines are internal and cross-access would be reviewed as part of the 
conceptual site plan review process. 
Recommendation regarding PHO-1-21--Z-10-18-8 
Mr. Stranieri stated PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 is located on the eastern side of the 
proposed conceptual site plan and includes both residential and commercial 
portions of the development. He stated that the complete multifamily residential 
complex provides 138 units at a density of 16.99 dwelling units per gross acre 
and noted that conceptual elevations were submitted for the residential portion 
but not the commercial portion. He stated the elevations depict a variety of 
desirable architectural features and recommended general conformance. He 
stated that the scale and intensity is compatible with the surrounding area and 
the character intended by the BAOD. 
Mr. Stranieri stated that the deletion of Stipulation 1.a regarding the quantity and 
configuration of drive-throughs is recommended to be approved. He stated the 
stipulation was originally proposed by staff to stipulate to the configuration of 
buildings on the original site plan, but that this had been altered through the 
original rezoning hearing process. He stated that deletion of Stipulation 1.b 
regarding the realignment of 27th Street is not supported by the Street 
Transportation Department. He stated that the Street Transportation Department 
noted the realignment of 27th Street is intended to support and improve traffic 
safety in the surrounding area.  He noted that there are numerous conflicting turn 
patterns at the intersection with Baseline Road and that the alignment would

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 7 
 
provide predictability, alignment with the grid, and allow for a potential traffic 
signal at the intersection. He stated there is no Traffic Impact Study addressing 
signal warrant analysis and that the most recent study submitted in 2018 does 
not reference the current proposed land uses.  
Mr. Gilbert stated that the applicant would meet with the Street Transportation 
Department to discuss the findings of the CivTech study. Mr. Stranieri noted that 
the South Mountain VPC recommended modification of the stipulation to allow 
the applicant to work with staff to address options for the realignment. He stated 
that the modification should not allow the applicant to continue the misalignment 
of 27th Street. Cassandra Ayre, representative with Beus Gilbert McGroder, 
stated the VPC recommendation allows alternative options to address traffic 
issues without stipulating the realignment. She stated that the CivTech report 
provides options for flexibility, which could be worked through with the Planning 
and Development and Street Transportation Departments. Mr. Stranieri stated 
that the recommended modification to Stipulation 1.b would address the need to 
revise the site plan to depict the realignment of 27th Street.
Mr. Stranieri stated that he would recommend the deletion of Stipulation 2.a 
regarding pitched roof elements to provide consistency with the two companion 
cases. He stated that pitched roof elements are already a design presumption of 
the BAOD and could be addressed through the Ordinance. He also noted that it 
may be unclear to have different standards applied within the site to the same 
buildings.  He stated that the modification of Stipulation 2.b regarding an 
equestrian corral would be recommended to be modified to allow for some 
flexibility in the type of amenities to be provided. He stated the original intent was 
to provide equestrian amenities to support the active equestrian lifestyle and 
trails along the canal.  
Mr. Stranieri stated that the Street Transportation Department recommended an 
additional stipulation regarding a safe, shaded pedestrian pathway through the 
site to connect the residential portion of the site to the sidewalk along Baseline 
Road. He noted that this pathway should be provided in the area with the current 
alignment of 25th Street.  He noted that if 25th Street was developed, a public 
sidewalk would otherwise have been provided here.  Mr. Gilbert sought 
clarification that the type of shade would be flexible and allow either trees or 
structural shade. Mr. Stranieri confirmed that the type of shading would not be 
stipulated and would allow for flexibility. 
 
FINDINGS
1) This case was heard as a companion case to PHO-2-21--Z-63-05-8 and 
PHO-1-21--Z-59-18-8.  The conceptual site plan and building elevations 
are the same in these three cases.  The subject property in this case was

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 8 
 
originally envisioned to develop as a standalone commercial retail center 
and was stipulated to a site plan depicting a variety of drive-through 
restaurants and retail spaces in five individual buildings at a total of 58,140 
square feet.
The proposed conceptual site plan depicts the subject property of the 
three companion cases developing in a unified fashion with a mixed-use 
development.  A combination of five commercial, retail, and drive-through 
businesses are depicted along Baseline Road comprising approximately 
19,098 total square feet, with individual establishments between 2,050 
and 6,500 square feet.  Behind the commercial development, adjacent to 
the Western Canal, is a multifamily residential complex containing 138 
units at a density of 16.99 dwelling units per gross acre. Open spaces are 
distributed throughout the development with a variety of pedestrian, 
equestrian, and recreational amenities adjacent to the canal.  Conceptual 
elevations were provided for the multifamily buildings only and depict a 
façade that integrates stone, pop outs, balconies, shade awnings, multiple 
window sizes and styles, and variation in the roofline and pitches.  The 
proposal is compatible in scale and intensity with existing development in 
the surrounding area.  General conformance to the proposed conceptual 
plans is recommended. 
 
2) Stipulation 1.a was intended to apply solely to the specific quantity and 
configuration of drive-throughs as depicted on the stipulated conceptual 
planting plan presented in the original rezoning case.  The stipulation is 
not relevant if this original plan is no longer stipulated.  The South 
Mountain Village Planning Committee recommended revised language 
prohibiting drive-through facilities. It is not recommended to adopt any 
stipulation language that prohibits uses otherwise permitted in a zoning 
district.  Therefore, the applicant’s request to delete this stipulation is 
recommended to be approved. 
 
3) Stipulation 1.b required the project to be developed in specific regard to 
the configuration of 27th Street and its alignment with the existing portion 
of 27th Street south of Baseline Road, as depicted on the stipulated plan.  
The applicant argued that this stipulation was originally proposed in the 
event a traffic signal were required at that intersection in the future and 
stated that the proposed development did not meet the signal warrants 
necessary to justify the installation of a traffic signal.  They also stated that 
there is public opposition to the alignment.  They stated that they believed 
the stipulation was a last-minute addition at the June 27, 2018 City 
Council meeting and requested deletion of the stipulation.  
 
It is not an accurate assessment to state that the stipulation was a last-
minute addition at the City Council.  Discussion regarding this proposed 
alignment was continuous throughout the original rezoning case process.

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 9 
 
The Street Transportation Department staff recommendation in the 
original rezoning case, dated March 16, 2018, stated that staff 
recommends the alignment to improve access to Baseline Road.  They did 
note that the intersection may be signalized if warrants were met, but this 
was not the sole intention of the recommendation.  In the applicant’s 
Neighborhood Meeting Summary for a community meeting held April 16, 
2018, during processing of the case, they indicated that they discussed 
the proposed alignment with community members and stated that while 
discussions were ongoing with staff, they were optimistic that they could 
accomplish a design that included the alignment.  The Staff Report for 
Rezoning Case No. Z-10-18 dated May 1, 2018 referenced these 
discussions and noted a lack of certainty regarding the ultimate outcome 
of the alignment.  This lack of certainty was the primary reason why 
general conformance to the conceptual site plan date stamped February 
12, 2018, which was the site plan included in the staff report, was not 
recommended at that time. At the May 8, 2018 South Mountain Village 
Planning Committee meeting, the applicant presented two conceptual 
street alignments for 27th Street and stated that they were continuing to 
work with staff on this issue.  The Committee ultimately recommended an 
additional stipulation requiring the alignment with the understanding that 
the specific design was yet to be approved by the City.  At the June 7, 
2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended 
approval per the original staff recommendation primarily based on 
concerns regarding the Village Planning Committee’s recommendation 
and related public comments at the Commission meeting regarding 
enforceability of proposed restrictions on drive-through and restaurant 
uses.  Following this meeting, the applicant submitted a revised 
conceptual plan, date stamped June 25, 2018, that depicted the alignment 
of 27th Street with the existing portion south of Baseline Road. Staff 
reviewed this plan and subsequently issued a City Council Backup Memo 
dated June 27, 2018 which recommended general conformance to this 
plan with specific regard to the alignment as depicted.  At the June 27, 
2018 City Council meeting, the item was approved per this memo with the 
applicant in support. 
The applicant’s argument that the proposed development did not meet the 
signal warrants necessary to justify the installation of a traffic signal is 
unclear.  Street Transportation Department staff noted that they have not 
received a Traffic Impact Study that addresses signal warrant analysis for 
27th Street and Baseline Road. The most recent study submitted for this 
location was in 2018 and did not include signal warrant analysis.  Further, 
this study was relevant to the original development proposal from the 2018 
rezoning case.  No study has been provided that is relevant to the current 
development proposal, which is for a significantly different project.  Finally, 
as stated above, staff supports the alignment of 27th Street independent 
from the specific outcome of a traffic signal analysis at this intersection.

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 10 
 
The staff position regarding the proposed alignment has not changed over 
time. Regarding the current request, the Street Transportation Department 
has stated that they do not support the current site plan layout with 
specific regard to the depicted misalignment of 27th Street.  The Street 
Transportation Department supports the realignment of 27th Street with 
the existing portion of this street south of Baseline Road. Staff noted that 
the alignment of 27th Street would improve traffic safety in the surrounding 
area by removing overlapping vehicle turns, providing predictability and 
consistency in the street grid, and creating a potential location for a future 
traffic signal.
For these reasons, the applicant’s request to delete the stipulation is 
recommended to be denied as filed and approved with a modification.  
The modification provides new language that addresses the need to revise 
the site plan to depict the alignment of 27th Street which is not present on 
the proposed plan.
 
4) Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to elevations is no longer 
required given the recommendation in this hearing regarding Stipulation 1.  
The applicant’s request for deletion is recommended for approval.
 
5) Stipulation 2.a requires all buildings to provide pitched roofs.  The 
applicant requested to modify this stipulation to apply to “some of the 
buildings in the development”.  This language lacks clarity as to how many 
buildings this could or should apply to.  The Baseline Area Overlay District 
(BAOD) already contains a design presumption regarding pitched roofs.  
The original intent of this stipulation was to enhance the rural or agrarian 
character by making this presumption a requirement.  However, this 
property is now being developed in conjunction with two other adjacent 
companion rezoning cases.  Neither of these cases contain this stipulation 
and the BAOD will apply to all property in all three cases.  Therefore, the 
applicant’s request for modification is recommended to be denied as filed 
and approved as a deletion.  This will provide consistency between the 
stipulations in the three cases.  Note that the recommended deletion of 
Stipulation 2 and 2.a leaves Stipulation 2.b.  As Stipulation 2.b was not 
part of the applicant’s request, the text of this stipulation becomes the text 
of Stipulation 2 by default.  
 
6) New Stipulation 2.b (Original Stipulation 3.b) requires an equestrian corral 
area.  (Note that Ordinance G-6478 regarding Rezoning Case No. Z-10-
18-8 was mistakenly issued in legislative edit form.  The original 
Stipulation 2.b was renumbered as Stipulation 3.b.  In this PHO request it 
was advertised as Stipulation 2.b, which is also the new stipulation 
number based on this recommendation.)  The applicant argued that there 
are potential liability issues regarding a privately owned and maintained

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 11 
 
corral intended for open public use.  Therefore, they proposed alternative 
language that still requires equestrian related amenities while eliminating 
the specific requirement for this to be a corral. This is consistent with the 
original intent of the stipulation and is recommended for approval with 
minor modifications to clarify the requirements.
7) Street Transportation Department staff recommended an additional 
stipulation regarding a pedestrian pathway to provide safe pedestrian 
access through the site to the public sidewalk on Baseline Road.  The 
stipulation is intended to provide safe pedestrian access to the commercial 
center as well as the bus stop on Baseline Road. An abandonment is 
anticipated along the 25th Street alignment where a sidewalk would have 
otherwise been required.  The stipulation is not prescriptive regarding the 
form of shading along this pathway.  Shade may be provided through a 
combination of landscaping and/or structural shade.  This additional 
stipulation is recommended for adoption. 
 
8) The South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommended a new 
stipulation requiring cross-access easements between all commercial and 
multifamily portions of the development and to the west.  However, the 
proposed conceptual plans are for a unified development that already 
depicts this access.  Significant deviation from the proposed plans would 
necessitate further public hearings in which this recommendation could be 
reassessed.  This stipulation is not recommended to be adopted. 
 
9) An additional stipulation is recommended to require the developer to 
execute a Proposition 207 waiver of claims.  This form is a requirement of 
the Planning Hearing Officer process and was not completed prior to the 
hearing. 
 
STIPULATIONS 
1.
The development shall be in general conformance with the SITE PLAN 
AND ELEVATIONS conceptual planting plan date stamped MAY 26, 2021 
June 25, 2018, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by 
the Planning and Development Department, and with specific regard to 
the following:
 
 
a.
The quantity and configuration of drive-through facilities on the subject 
site. 
 
 
a.
b.
THE SITE PLAN SHALL BE MODIFIED TO ALIGN 27TH STREET 
WITH THE EXISTING PORTION OF 27TH STREET SOUTH OF 
BASELINE ROAD OR PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE AS APPROVED 
BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING AND 
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 12 
 
The configuration of 27th Street, which aligns with the existing portion 
of 27th Street south of Baseline Road.
 
2. 
The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date 
stamped February 12, 2018, as modified by the following stipulations and 
approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
 
 
a.
Pitched roof elements shall be incorporated in all buildings. 
 
 
b.
All building elevations, including those facing or visible from the 
Western Canal, shall contain architectural embellishments and 
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, 
variation in window size and location, and/or other overhang canopies.
 
3. 
The developer shall provide the following amenities and open public 
access to the amenities, as approved by the Planning and Development 
Department: 
 
 
a.
A multi-use trail or shared-use path which provides connectivity 
between Baseline Road and the Western Canal, in accordance with 
the MAG supplemental details.
 
 
b.
Equestrian corral AMENITY area containing hitching posts for 
horses, WATER FOR EQUINE CONSUMPTION, AND 
STRUCTURAL OR LANDSCAPED SHADING along the northern
property align LINE adjacent to the Western Canal. 
 
 
c. 
Minimum of two shaded benches, along the northern property align 
adjacent to the Western Canal.
 
 
d.
Bicycle parking area containing a minimum of eight spaces. The 
bicycle parking area shall utilize inverted-U bicycle racks or a similar 
design that accommodates lock placement on both wheels and the 
frame. 
 
4. 
Any solid portion of a perimeter wall adjacent to the Western Canal shall 
not exceed a maximum height of three feet, as approved by the Planning 
and Development Department.
 
5. 
No drive-through facility shall locate its drive-through window facing a 
residential use or Baseline Road, as approved by the Planning and 
Development Department.

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 13 
 
6. 
Drive-throughs shall be screened from view of public rights-of-way and 
residential uses with a landscaped berm or a combination of a wall and 
landscaped berm at least four feet in height, as approved by the Planning 
and Development Department.
7. 
The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement 
(MUTE) along the north side of Baseline Road and construct a minimum 
10-foot wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement, in accordance with 
the MAG supplemental detail and as approved by the Parks and 
Recreation and Planning and Development Departments.
8. 
The location of the bus stop along Baseline Road shall be approved by the 
Public Transit Department.
9.
THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE 
SHADED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE 
25TH STREET ALIGNMENT PROVIDING A DIRECT CONNECTION 
FROM THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 
TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG BASELINE ROAD, AS 
APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 
DEPARTMENT.
 
10.
9. 
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the 
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, 
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved 
by the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall 
comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
 
11.
10. 
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, 
the developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within
a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow 
time for the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
 
12.
11. 
The developer shall notify the following individuals at a minimum 10 
calendar days prior to any Planning Hearing Officer request to modify or 
delete stipulations. The notice shall include the date, time and location of 
the hearing. 
 
 
a.
Tanis Earle 
3602 East Vineyard Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
b.
Sandy Bawden 
3232 East Vineyard Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 14 
 
 
 
c. 
Kay Gunter
1821 East Latona Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
d.
Deandra Ervin
2914 East Constance Way
Phoenix, AZ 85042
e.
Linda Martin
7049 South Golfside Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
f. 
Stephanie Watney
834 East Beverly Road
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
g.
Anthony Siglar
2727 East Donnor Drive 
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
h.
Kenneth And June Wood  
2447 East Fremont Road
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
i. 
Melissa Hinkle 
7051 South 27th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
j. 
Steve And Robin Martin  
8517 South 30th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
k. 
Heather Cannon
8032 South 27th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
l. 
Hayime Monge 
7507 South 27th Terrace 
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
m.
Steven Pace 
2198 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, AZ 85016

Planning Hearing Officer of August 18, 2021 
Application PHO-1-21—Z-10-18-8 
Page 15 
 
 
 
n.
Linda Anquoe 
3923 East Carson Road
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
o.
Kent June
3917 East St. Catherine Avenue 
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
p.
Monique Bontrager
6401 South 37th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
q.
Amy Schneider
3232 East Maldonado 
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
 
r.
Kim Figgins 
2918 East Dunbar Drive 
Phoenix, AZ 85042
 
13.
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER 
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A 
FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  THE 
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY 
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE 
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
 
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length of time 
through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an individual with a 
disability. This publication may be made available through the following auxiliary aids or 
services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer diskette.  Please contact the 
Planning and Development Department, Tamra Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648 
or TTY use 7-1-1.

EXHIBIT M