SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMERICOR SELF STORAGECASE NUMBE - Z2008025 AMERICOR SELF STORAGE.PDF

Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Commission Hearing Date: October 2, 2008
Board Hearing Date: December 3, 2008 (continued from November 6,
2008)
Case: Z2008025 — Americor Self Storage
Agenda Item: 2
Supervisor District: 3
Applicant: Earl, Curley & Lagarde, PC
Owner: 7060 East Thompson Peak Parkway, LLC
Request: Special Use Permit (SUP) for mini-storage facilities,
outdoor RV and boat storage along with truck
rentals in the C-0 CUPD/PAD zoning district
Site Location: West of Gavilan Peak Pkwy. and 1,478' north of
Daisy Mountain Dr. (in the Anthem Area)
Site Size: Approx. 7.5 acres of an 8.4 acre site
Density: N/A
County Island Status: N/A
County Plan: The Comprehensive Plan refers to the Anthem
Development Master Plan (DMP). The DMP
designates the site as Multi-Neighborhood
Commercial/Mixed Use Center (MNC/MUC). The
request is in concert with the approved DMP.
Municipal Plan: City of Phoenix — Undesignated land use
Municipal Comments: The City of Phoenix supports the requests
Support/Opposition: Staff has received correspondence and telephone
calls in support/opposition to the proposal with two
(2) in support and 204 in opposition.
A super majority vote has not been triggered (see
attached map and calculation).
December 3, 2008 BOS
P&Z Agenda Item: 2 - Case Z2008025
Page 1 of 3

Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
On-site CO-CUPD/PAD / Vacant
North: R-2 RUPD / Wash, then Deer Valley School District
East: R1-7 RUPD / Gavilan Peak Pkwy., Church, and
residential (Anthem Unit 6)
South: Rural-43 / Cross of Christ Lutheran Church
West: Rural-43 with a Special Use Permit (Z95-53) / Waste
Water Treatment Plant
Staff
Recommendation: Deny
Commission
Recommendation: Approve by a vote of 8-1 subject to staff
recommended stipulations 'a' through 'q', but with
modifications to stipulations 'I' and 'm' as follows:
I. This Special Use Permit shall expire 20-30 years from the date of approval by
the Board of Supervisors, or upon expiration of the lease to the applicant, or
upon termination of the use, whichever occurs first. A TIME EXTENSION MAY
BE REQUESTED FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRIOR TO THE
EXPIRATION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE USE TO CONTINUE
BEYOND THE INITIAL 30 YEARS. IF THE USE EXPIRES WITHOUT A TIME
EXTENSION OR THE USE IS TERMINATED, All of thc sitc improvcmcnts THE
OUTDOOR STORAGE FACILITIES shall be removed within 60 days of such
termination or expiration.
m. The applicant shall submit a written report outlining the status of the
development at the end of 5-25 years from the date of approval by the Board
of Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by staff to determine
whether the Special Use Permit remains in compliance with the approved
stipulations.
Additional
Comments: By a vote of 4-0, the BOS continued the request to
the December 3, 2008 BOS hearing to give the
applicant additional time to garner public support.
December 3, 2008 BOS
P&Z Agenda Item: 2 - Case Z2008025
Page 2 of 3

Planner: Rachel Applegate, Planner
Reviewed by: Terri S. Hogan, AICP, Principal Planner
Attachments: October 2, 2008 P & Z minutes (23 pages)
October 2, 2008 P&Z Packet (142 pages)
PowerPoint presentation by applicant (16 pages)
October 2, 2008 P&Z handouts (29 pages)
October 2, 2008 P&Z handouts (4 pages)
Support/Opposition received after P&Z (4 pages)
November 6, 2008 BOS report (3 pages)
November 6, 2008 Opposition Log (1 page)
November 6, 2008 BOS handouts (32 pages)
Opposition Log updated (5 pages)
Opposition / supermajority map and calculation (2 pages)
December 3, 2008 BOS
P&Z Agenda Item: 2 - Case Z2008025
Page 3 of 3

Zone Change Z2007065 District 4
Applicant: Earl, Curley & Lagarde, PC
Location: West of Gavilan Peak Pkwy. and north of Daisy
Mountain Dr. (in Anthem)
Request: Zone change from C-0 CUPD/PAD to C-2 CUPD/PAD
zoning district (approx. 8.4 ac.) — Americor Self Storage
Special Use Permit: Z2008025 District 4
Applicant: Earl, Curley & Lagarde, PC
Location: West of Gavilan Peak Pkwy. and north of Daisy Mountain
Dr. (in Anthem)
Request: Special Use Permit for mini-storage, RV and boat
storage, and ancillary truck rentals in the C-o
CUPD/PAD and or C-2 CUPD/PAD zoning district
(approx. 7.5 ac.) — Americor Self Storage
Ms. Rachel Applegate, Planner, presented this case to the Commission as
noted above. This request is for a zone change to Intermediate Commercial
(C-2) along with an associated Special Use Permit (SUP), Z2008025, for a
commercial mini-storage facility with outdoor RV and boat storage along with
truck rentals. The parcel is currently zoned Intermediate Commercial Office
(C-0) and consists of 8.4 acres with an SUP to encompass 7.5 acres. The site
is located approximately 1,478 ft. north of Daisy Mountain Dr. and Gavilan
Peak Pkwy in the Anthem Development Master Planned Community.
The site was designated as Multi-Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use Center
(MNC/MUC) which allows for retail employment office space and multi-family
residential uses. The rezone request does not include a precise Plan of
Development. Approximately 0.88 acres are designated as a pad for future
development.
The reason for the rezone is the applicants assertion that there it no market
interest in the subject site for Commercial Office. They SUP will include a
total of nine freestanding structures to be located throughout the site with a
total 726 rental units. A total of 53 spaces are proposed for the RV and boat
storage. There will be up to 15 rental trucks parked within the designated RV
and boat storage spaces. The rental truck component of the use will not
include fueling stations. The facility will have hours of operation seven days a
week from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with a 24 hours security pad to access outdoor
storage facilities. The facility will have approximately three to six employees.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 1 of 23

The applicant has complied with the Citizen Review Process with posting of
the property and notification to adjacent property owners. A public meeting
was held on May 1, 2008 at the Anthem Community Center. Two members of
the community attended the meeting. As of the printing of the staff report,
staff has received an additional 25 emails in objection to the proposal and one
email in support. The Anthem Community Council has submitted a letter
dated September 30, 2008 and an email dated October 1, 2008 in objection
to both cases. These documents have been provided to the Commission.
Anthem has had an extensive history of processing various amendments to
change the land use designations to accommodate what they consider to be
current growth and market trends. Anthem was originally projected to build
out in 20 years and was completed in approximately ten years during the time
when there was a high market demand for residential development. Staff is
concerned that the original vision of a "self sustained community" has slowly
eroded to the long term detriment of Anthem and the region. The reduction
of potential employment uses has created additional traffic congestion and air
quality problems.
Anthem started with 965.8 acres designated as MNC/MUC. In 2000, a
request was submitted to increase the land use to 1000.4 acres. In 2004,
another amendment was submitted to reduce 101.8 acres to Urban
Residential Low. Staff was amenable to the request since there was 333.3
acres within the Anthem Panhandle region to provide employment
opportunities.
Staff approved a minor amendment to reduce the size of the Village Center
which resulted in 844.7 acres. Anthem processed another Major Amendment
to change the 333.3 acres of the MNC/MUC within the Panhandle region to
Urban Residential Low Density. Staff was not supportive of the request due
to the removal of the only employment component of the DMP. At the
Commission hearing the applicant did agree to preserve 20 acres for
Commercial Office. Staff did acquiesce to the request because 20 acres was
preferable to the possible scenario of complete elimination of all such uses.
The BOS approved the request for the amendment which resulted in
reduction of the land use to 511.4 acres. This resulted in a reduction of
approximately 47 .05 % from the original acreage proposed with Anthem.
Within the existing 511.4 acres, there are a total of 7 multi-family residential
subdivisions which comprise a total of 146.55 acres or 28.65%. The existing
Commercial Office includes 5 parcels which total 25.32 acres and accounts for
4.95% of the land use designation. The existing Commercial Office accounts
for 0.47 % of the overall acreage of the Anthem DMP. The rezone request
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 2 of 23

will reduce the CO to 15.1 acres which will result in less than 0.30 % of the
overall acreage of Anthem. Please note there are no other Commercial Office
zoning districts within Anthem.
Staff is concerned that Anthem as originally promoted is no longer the mixed
use community as originally envisioned. Within the staff report are various
quotes from the Anthem DMP documents which promote the community as a
self sustained, mixed use of residential, commercial, employment, and office
space. Staff also has concerns about some of the assumptions outlined in the
applicant's market study which are detailed in the report and supplemental
material.
Staff has conducted an analysis and determined that the proposals do not
result in an improvement to the anthem DMP. The Board of Supervisor
adopted guidelines recommending DMPs have an employment ratio of 10
acres per 1,000 residents. Based upon the applicant's information, 12,000
residential units with the population of 32,400 residents, the minimum
requirement for Anthem should be approximately 324 acres of office or other
large scale professional (non-retail) employment uses.
The proposal of 15.1 acres only serves 1,500 residents. The addition of retail
should not be added at the expense of needed employment. Staff believes
that with respect to land use balance, Anthem has devolved from its approved
concept and does not provide a balance of land uses or the sustainability as
originally proposed. There is no justification provided by the applicant for the
requested C-2 zoning. The proposed mini-storage facility and ancillary truck
rental use can be accomplished with a Special Use Permit. The C-2 would
allow a series of retail uses (up to 91 other types of uses) which are beyond
the limitations of office uses. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of
the rezone, Z2007065, as outlined in the Staff Report. If the Commission
chooses to approve the request for the rezone, staff recommends stipulations
"a" through "f" as outlined below:
a. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the
Narrative Report entitled, "Narrative Report — Case #Z2007065
Rezoning Anthem Excess VVWTP Campus & Temporary Fire
Station Site from C-0 to C-2", consisting of five pages, dated
revised August 2008, and stamped received August 21, 2008,
except as modified by the following stipulations.
b. The following Maricopa County Department of Transportation
stipulation shall apply:
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEt I1NG
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 3 of 23

Recommend approval subject to a unit plan of
development.
c. Precise Plan of Development and any necessary subdivision
plats shall be processed prior to development.
d. Major changes to the narrative report shall be processed as a
revised application, with approval by the Board of Supervisors
upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Minor changes may be administratively
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Major changes to the project may require a new Citizen
Participation Process as determined by the Planning and
Development Department.
e. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval will be treated
as a violation in accordance with the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance. Further, noncompliance of the conditions of
approval may be grounds for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to take action in accordance with Chapter 3
(Conditional Zoning).
f. The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for
diminution in value if the County takes action to rescind
approval due to noncompliance with stipulations.
Staff also recommends denial of the Special Use Permit Z2008025.
If the Commission chooses to approve the request for the SUP staff
recommends stipulations "a" through "q" as outlined in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Pugmire commented that the question they are dealing with in
this case is the same issue that was addressed at the August 17, 2007
ZIPPOR meeting where the Commission discussed how to correctly designate
the right amount of office space. He asked staff if Anthem was essentially
built out.
Ms. Applegate indicated that it was.
Commissioner Pugmire questioned that if Anthem is basically built out, why
didn't the market say we need office space there. He asked staff to comment
on why the market has not responded to the need for office space as
anticipated.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 4 of 23

Mr. Matthew Holm, Principal Planner, responded that this was basically what
the applicant's market study concluded.
Commissioner Pugmire asked if this was the original market study for Anthem
or the one submitted for this application
Mr. Holm answered that it was the one submitted for this particular
application. Staff has reviewed the market study and has no questions relating
to the data or the numbers in the study. We simply question some of the
assumptions that were made to reach the conclusion that there is an
oversupply of employment uses within Anthem.
Commissioner Pugmire reiterated that his question was why the actual market
did not respond by affirming that because there are 32,000 people in Anthem
they need offices there and this is a good area to put one. He recognizes that
though we are doing our best, it seems that Anthem is left with this property
where the market says that in spite of the fact that they are built out and
have all these people, they don't have enough market use for offices.
Mr. Gerard commented that in his personal opinion, he is not sure the market
has said that. Though Anthem is reaching residential build out, the market
responding to the land use ratios is still occurring. The applicant has whittled
down their employment opportunities and has waited two years to see if
something would fill in at this location. From staff's standpoint, we don't want
to see the potential for employment removed even if they have an interim
use. That's why staff is not supportive of the rezone. It is our opinion that
what they want to accomplish can be accomplished with the Special Use
Permit on the existing zoning.
Commissioner Aster asked for clarification regarding the existing zoning and if
the applicants request was to change the zoning to C-2. He also asked if staff
was supportive of the SUP if the zoning were to remain C-0.
Mr. Gerard answered that while that is not what was stated in the staff report,
staff would be supportive of that scenario.
Commissioner Aster indicated that he would have some questions for the
applicant regarding employment but would wait until they had made their
presentation.
Commissioner Barney asked about the SUP and stated that having just done
one of these projects and knowing that the cost going into a storage facility is
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEE IING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 5 of 23

so significant, having a temporary use permit, which is what a SUP permit is,
makes it very difficult to finance and capitalize these types of projects. He
indicated that this is probably one of the primary reasons why there needs to
be some type of permanent entitlement which would be a zone change.
Mr. Gerard commented that our Zoning Ordinance requires a SUP for a mini-
storage facility. The straight zoning does not give you the allowance for this
type of facility.
Commissioner Barney further commented on the market study issue. He said
that there is no magic wand to wave and all of the sudden jobs pop up. This
is market driven and what drives it the most is location. It would be nice if
every neighborhood could be self contained. This is way more than a
neighborhood; it is a huge Master Planned Community. It would be nice if
everyone could be within 3 minutes of their employment location. The reality
is that people have to drive because there is such diversity in employment
opportunities.
He added that the bottom line is that across the Valley office products are in
trouble from a market standpoint. There is an over supply and an under
demand and that's for the good locations. Looking at the actual geography of
the site, this is a poor location. He said he would hate to be in a situation of
having to make an office viable there. The real question is about
sustainability. Looking at sustainability, this site is either going to be a vacant
field for a long time, which creates problems with sustainability and the
viability of the neighborhood, or if for some reason the bank decided to offer
the construction loan to build the office, you will end up with an empty office
building based on market conditions.. That isn't sustainable either. That
creates problems as well in terms of safety and crime.
Stephen Earl spoke on behalf of the applicant, Americor. He supplied copies
of his presentation to the Commission. He began by reminding the
Commission that he had also represented Del Webb when this project began
in 1995 and said that the quotes that staff referred to in there presentation
were prepared by him on behalf of Del Webb. He also stated that he
represented Pulte Homes.
Mr. Earl continued that he was currently representing Americor Development
who is a premier developer of high end storage facilities. This particular
facility is not the standard mini-warehouses that you think of that is located in
an old industrial area. The building looks much like an office building in
appearance and will be highly landscaped along Gavilan Peak. It has widows
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ME L I iNG
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 6 of 23

and architectural flavoring that was approved by the Architectural Committee
of the Anthem Community Association.
Mr. Earl added that he wanted to address the emails that the Commission had
received over the last several days because they do highlight some concerns.
Based on the aerial photograph of the site, he pointed out that there are
some very unusual aspects of the location of this property. It is his belief that
a first class storage facility is not only very needed and is a good use for this
location; it may be the best and only use.
This site is the leftover parcel from the original Waste Water Treatment Plant
(WWTP). Through the middle of the site, there is an existing roadway with
an easement for the water and sewer lines that are located under it. Any
development has to be on either side of that road and any development that
would occur will overlook the VVWTP. Originally, this site was left vacant
because it was part of the expansion area for the VVWTP. He asked the
Commission to imagine what the human cry would be if he were seeking
approval for the second Phase of a VVWTP at this location which was its
intended use.
Mr. Earl referred back to the Anthem Panhandle case. Staff was very
concerned about the balance issue. The applicant agreed that because this
site was zoned Rural-43 and had been shown as a left over parcel that was
not being used for the expansion of the VVWTP, which they decided did not
need to be done, they rezoned the parcel to C-0 to see if they could attract
an office project to that location. They also zoned two other parcels in the
prime office area of Anthem located off of Anthem Way and Venture Way to
C-0. One of the original zoning strategies for Pulte and Del Webb at the time
that Anthem was built was to zone most of the non-residential areas to C-2,
because this zoning category allowed a broad range of retail and office
opportunities. He indicated that he would show the Commission photographs
of office buildings in C-2.
Mr. Earl continued by stating that staff does not address the issue of the
existing C-2 zoning because the market indicated that on those parcels, they
should build an office building therefore office buildings do exist in Anthem.
There are hundreds of thousands of sq. ft. of office space built and additional
C-0 zoning for hundreds of thousands of sq. ft. for future office buildings.
But for this parcel, when marketed it for office use, there were no takers, no
one even interested in going to the site. Because of where it is located, on
the curve of the road, because it had a ball field to the north and a church to
the south, and because it overlooked the WWTP with a road going through
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEE I iNG
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 7 of 23

the middle of it, anyone passing by would say they were not going to build an
office building and invest 20 million dollars in a property that overlooks the
WWTP and must be developed on either side of a road that splits the parcel in
half. Obviously, there have been no takers. Mr. Earl said that this is when Del
Webb and Pulte hired Elliott Pollack to study the issue which he would
comment on further.
The next photo he addressed was the actual site plan. Along the frontage of
the roadway is the main building. There is a roadway just to the north of it
that traverses the site and cuts through the middle of the parcel. The
neighborhoods that exist on the other side of Gavilan Peak Pkwy would be
buffered by this brand new building which has 25 to 35 ft. of landscaping. The
landscaping is part of Phase One and would be around the entire site. The
outdoor elements are all located behind the main building which looks like an
office building. This includes RV and boat storage. This is valuable here
because the CC8iRs for Anthem don't allow RV and boat storage on individual
lots. Some of the lots are very small so there is a need for storage at
Anthem.
There is an existing U-Haul faculty on the other side of the freeway which is
part of the Anthem Commerce Park. The Staff Report doesn't talk much
about the other side of the freeway because this property was annexed into
the City of Phoenix and is no longer in the County. However, it was part of
the original Master Plan for Anthem. That particular U-Haul facility is currently
over 90% leased and has recently been over 100% leased. It has had a
waiting list for all of its units and the outdoor storage facility, the RV and boat
storage, currently has a waiting list of over 60 people.
Mr. Earl added that because there is a specific need the President of the
Parkside HOA sent a letter some months ago indicating their support of the
proposed use. They cited the convenience of the location and the need for a
storage facility in the area, especially one that looks good and acts as a
buffer. This letter was provided to staff but was not mentioned in the staff
report.
Commissioner Aster acknowledged the recommendation of the Parkside
Community Association and asked how much area of Anthem they covered, if
they are just in that particular area where this facility is proposed.
Mr. Earl answered that they are immediately across Gavilan Peak Pkwy. They
are the neighbor most directly affected.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEE I iNG
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 8 of 23

The elevations that were approved by the Architectural Control Committee
were the next issue addressed by Mr. Earl. He pointed out that every side
facing any adjacent neighbor has the appearance of an office building.
Mr. Earl addressed a few of the issues that have been raised by the
neighborhood in recent emails. The first complaint was that this type of facility
could have storage of criminal contraband, meth labs, and other criminal
activities. He acknowledged that while such things theoretically could occur in
mini-warehouses and have been reported in other lower end facilities, this
owner, who has a virtually identical facility in Surprise, has never had a single
complaint about contraband being stored in these facilities. They have state of
the art security including cameras inside the facility and in very part of the
outside of the facility that are constantly recording activities Not only are
these illegal activities prohibited by virtue of the lease, but there is a specific
provision in the lease indicating that no renter has an expectation of privacy
as to their unit. The owner of the facility can open any unit inside of this
project at any time. They also have a cooperative agreement with the Police
Department in Surprise. These are extremely nice, air conditioned spaces in
the main building and go for a considerable amount of money. It is their
belief that while that is perhaps a realistic concern in some parts of the Valley,
it is not a realistic concern with something this nice and well built and with all
of the state of the art security systems they have in place.
Mr. Earl also addressed the question objectionable uses in the C-2 zoning
district. He agreed as staff pointed out that all of the storage facilities that
are being proposed could go under a Special Use Permit. The reason they
requested C-2 zoning is that a storage facility is essentially a commercial
operation. It is not really an office operation, even though this looks like an
office. They felt that it really belonged in a Commercial zoning category. But,
they agreed that the uses that the staff and the neighborhood were opposed
to should not be allowed. There are now deed restrictions imposed by Pulte
on the property that would not allow any kind of objectionable use, whether
it's adult uses, bars or cocktail lounges, or even the use of alcohol. In fact,
you couldn't do it anyway because you can't have those kinds of uses next to
a school, next to a church, or next to residential. They also felt that for a
storage facility of this kind, C-2 was the logical zoning district. However, they
understand staff's point of view that everything requested could be
accomplished with a SUP.
Mr. Earl reiterated that while it was stated that another storage facility was
not needed because there are other storage facilities in the area, these
facilities have recently been completely full with waiting lists for many months
for the storage of RVs and boats.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 9 of 23

Mr. Earl continued by addressing the issue of employment opportunities and
the fact that the Commission is concerned about what appears to be an
erosion of the original vision of Anthem. Staff has cited a number of
quotations from materials through the years. He stated that he was familiar
with each one of these changes through they years. He stated that Anthem is
one of the finest Master Planned Communities built anywhere and had in fact
won Master Plan of the Year award many times, both Nationally and in the
State. It has the finest open space and amenities package and is almost
second to none in the Valley. It became the trend setter. They have a 9
million dollar Community Center, lakes, a golf course, trains, parks and ball
fields. It has everything that you could want it a Master Planned Community.
It has the finest retail available for neighbors. It has a range of housing from
Country Club living all the way to high quality apartments and everything in
between.
Mr. Earl said that the complaint that the staff now has is that the developer
didn't provide sufficient office space. He does not agree. One of the
quotations that the staff makes from the original materials when the
development was called The Village at Desert Hills says that the development
is envisioned as a highly amenitized, self contained, multiple use, mixed
density community. They are saying that it's not self contained because
people have to leave for jobs. It certainly is multiple uses. But on the same
page, it says that The Village at Desert Hills is located within the States most
significant transportation corridor, 1-17 and thus within easy commuting
distance of the north Phoenix major employment core. In fact, when the case
was initially presented, it was pointed out that while the intent was to have
employment uses in this Master Plan, because it was at the north end of
Maricopa County, it was not likely to attract major regional employers that
wanted to have 360 degrees of housing all around them. Those were actually
locating in Deer Valley which is a major core in the City of Phoenix, about 12
miles to the south.
In the original materials provided to the Commission and Board, the commute
shed was addressed, which goes down and includes the Deer Valley Airport.
It was pointed out at the time that there was 9 million sq. ft. of office
employment related development planned for that core. Since that time, not
only has that core developed, but the City of Phoenix has also made
arrangements for USA8A to locate along the 1-17 corridor. That is 500,000
sq. ft. of jobs. Just recently, they adopted the new Gateway core which takes
in the area all the way up 1-17 to the Carefree Highway. That's another 500
acres which will produce millions of sq. ft. of additional job opportunities. We
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEE I1NG
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 10 of 23

knew then that there was a major core, that we were part of that regional
system, and that part of these would be in the commute shed.
Mr. Earl said that he recognized that a Master Planned Community should
have a scope of uses. They did seek to have office projects and there are a
number of office projects right at Anthem Way and Venture Way, which is
right at the entrance to the Master Plan. As you pass through the beautiful
gateway entrance, youll see a series of office buildings, including the one that
Pulte Homes and Del Webb occupied for a number of years. He referred to
photos of the various projects in the area. Some of them are zoned C-2, but
they are two story office buildings, even those zoned C-2. Staff isn't giving us
credit for them because they are not in a C-0 district, but they are
employment uses. He added that they don't get credit for the employment
related uses on the other side of the 1-17 Freeway in the staff report even
though that is part of the original Anthem Master Plan and that the Anthem
Commerce Park has a number of employment opportunities.
Mr. Earl briefly identified each office project. The Anthem Medical Plaza is
located on the north side of Anthem Way. It is almost entirely leased. It has
50,000 sq. ft. of medical related uses which are another amenity of the
Master Plan. They have Urgent Care facilities in Anthem along with strong
medical practice base. Another project is located on the south side. This
building was built within the last couple of years but unfortunately is 100%
vacant. The market has not been able to produce any tenants for this
building. This building was built and purchased in the same time frame that
we couldn't attract anyone interested in this proposed site, because this one is
in a prime location for office use right as you come into Anthem.
Commissioner Johnson asked if this building was open and available for
leasing.
Mr. Earl said it is open and available and in fact the original owners went
through bankruptcy because they couldn't get any tenants.
The next project he highlighted is located across the street and is where Pulte
has been. It has a lower vacancy factor. Right now it has 36,000 sq. ft. and
has a vacancy factor of 28%, some of which has occurred recently.
The next property is garden office project that has a variety of users including
a title office, a chiropractor and an accountant. It is almost entirely leased,
and has almost 50,000 sq. ft. of office related or employment uses.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 11 of 23

The next property unfortunately is at the south end of this same area. There
is vacant land between these projects. It was finished within the last six
months and has almost 60,000 sq. ft. and it's entirely vacant at this point.
Again it's struggling because of the lack of demand for office space in
Anthem.
Another property on the other side of the freeway in the Anthem Commerce
Park is another 28,000 sq. ft. office project that is 100% vacant. It's the
Keyes at Anthem. It is also struggling because of the lack of office demand.
The last property Mr. Earl addressed was the vacant land between all the
office projects. There is another 14 acres that could produce another 100,000
sq. ft. of office space should there ever be a demand for more office uses.
This is why they went to Elliott Pollack and asked him to do a market study.
They did a thorough analysis and said that there is an oversupply of the kind
of office that would be appropriate for Anthem and have literally millions of
sq. ft. of office potential in the core just 10 minutes away by drive on
Tramonto South.
Mr. Earl again said that they are only talking about eight acres, not 15 or 20.
They believe that given the proposed sites odd location at the entrance to the
WWTP, a storage facility seems like the best possible use. It overlooks the
VVWTP and the parcel is divided in half by the entryway. They couldn't
interest anyone in the site until Arnericor recognized that there is an extreme
need for some additional high quality storage. This seemed like the best
place.
Mr. Earl commented on stipulation "I" pertaining to the 20 year timefrarne.
He agreed with the comment by Commissioner Barney regarding the difficulty
in obtaining financing. Almost all financing for a project of this magnitude, 13
million dollars, requires at least 25 years of term on the loan. Given that it
takes one to two years to build and get through the process, they are
requesting a 30 year term. Other than that, they accept all the stipulations
that have been proposed by staff.
Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant to explain why he needed the
rezoning.
Mr. Earl answered that he understood the concerns raised by staff and added
that the only reason for requesting the zone change is because in virtually
every city in which he zones this kind of use, it requires C-2 and a SUP
because it's a commercial use. It's not an office use. The County is very
unusual in allowing a SUP in virtually every district. While they recognize this,
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 12 of 23

when you go to get financing and show the lender that you have the proper
permit, they ask for the underlying zoning. He felt it was problematic and
since this is a commercial use they should have underlying C-2 zoning. They
agree that staff is correct and that under the County's unique code, they could
accomplish everything they are proposing with a Special Use Permit.
Commissioner Aster indicated that he would have additional questions but
would defer until he heard from the public.
Chairman Smith asked if the applicant would highly object if we denied the
zone change and if they would still want to proceed with the SUP.
Mr. Earl stated yes in light of staff's assertion that they could live with the SUP
but not the zoning, and understanding the Commission's desire to not have
the C-2.
Commissioner Aster stated that in the emails he had reviewed the objections
had to do with C-2 as apposed to C-0 zoning and added that if the applicant
was amenable that is probably what would be done.
Mr. Earl reiterated that he did try to eliminate all of the objectionable uses
through the deed restrictions that have been filed against the property but he
understands that it is still a concern.
Chairman Smith called for a two minute recess at the request of
Commissioner Aster.
Donna Gutowski, Commercial Representative representing the Anthem
Community Council, spoke in opposition of these cases.
Ms. Gutowski stated that there were a couple of interesting things that were
said. One that she found extremely debatable is the erosion of the vision of
Anthem. Currently, Anthem is a healthy growing community. Not only
Anthem alone, but the New River/Desert Hills/north Phoenix area is all
combined together in this community. They are gong to be shown a
presentation of the ASU sustainable neighborhood in order to learn more
about how to make their neighborhood more sustainable.
There are currently two rental truck facilities in Anthem Commerce Park.
Neither of these is full to capacity. The Architectural Review Committee is
composed of one gentleman who is not a resident. She has had conversation
with him and will be having additional conversations about his ability to review
the designs of commercial buildings that he really has no vision of because he
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 13 of 23

does not live in the community. He has stated to her that the proposed
Wendy's was the most beautiful commercial project he has seen there. She
said that was a little laughable.
The Keyes at Anthem, which is one of the empty facilities that Mr. Earl had a
picture of, is in the Anthem Commerce Park. She believes that one of the
reasons they are vacant is because of the lack of signage. She has been
working with the City of Phoenix Planning and Zoning to get approval for
visible signage for the businesses located there. Currently, it is just a big box
building. It has no signs to direct you to what is inside unless you are going
there for a specific reason.
She asked the Commission to look at the vision as you are coming down 1-17
from beautiful northern Arizona, Table Mesa, past the Bradshaw Mountains.
You are literally entering the gateway to the Valley where Anthem and north
Phoenix lie. She doesn't believe this is the place for a storage facility as
visible as this business would be located right off the freeway. It is
sandwiched between the Boulder Creek High School and a religious facility
and it doesn't offer a creative use for the community. The employment is
debatable, and as an involved leader she in the Anthem, New River, and north
Phoenix communities. She has heard opinions from all of the active business
owners and the residents regarding a long term plan focused on maintaining
this area as a cultural tourism Mecca. With the planned rejuvenation of
Pioneer Village and the bountiful natural topography in the area, we have the
ability to cautiously develop a sustainable neighborhood and its growth at the
very beginning. If you think back to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve and
Scottsdale Mountain Preserve, at the beginning we could save millions of
dollars instead of trying to regain and replicate the gateway to the Valley at a
later time.
She added that the things that are proposed today are unfortunately going to
be the things we are going to look at tomorrow and in the future. They may
not be cohesive with the total vision that everyone out there shares.
Commissioner Barney asked Ms. Gutowski about the Keyes and if not having
signage is why they have remained vacant.
Ms. Gutowski said that there had been many small mom and pop businesses
where their advertising dollars are very limited. They can't afford the outside
advertising so visible signage is really their only means of sustaining their
business.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEL I1NG
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 14 of 23

Commissioner Barney said his issue was with the notion that signage is critical
to the viability of these businesses. With the Keyes being relatively close to
the freeway and this site being removed from the freeway, he is concerned
that the site is even more disadvantaged, because of its inability to have any
freeway exposure or the necessary signage. Also, it's not on a major arterial.
He asked how she would foresee the viability of the proposed site if it's going
to have a signage problem as well.
Ms. Gutowski answered that she would like to see the site developed into
something usable for the community not just as a place to put stuff. It sits
right next to a religious facility, in the middle of a neighborhood, and next to a
school. She said that when you think of offices, you don't have to think of big
box offices. You can build them to look like a downtown core. They don't
have to look like offices. She agreed that there are plenty of those and that
right now the market isn't filling them up.
Commissioner Barney asked what Ms. Gutowski would suggest that would
actually work.
Ms. Gutowski said she would perhaps suggest some sort of recreational
facility that the kids in the community could enjoy since its right in the back
yard of the school.
Commissioner Barney asked who would pay for that.
Ms. Gutowski answered that it would be whoever was going to develop it.
She added that they would certainly get their money back. It would be a
used facility.
Commissioner Barney said that he is involved with a recreation facility and it is
not a big money maker. It's a good amenity and a good thing for the
community, which is good if you can do it, but it's not a money maker.
Commissioner Barney said that it was stated that there are already storage
facilities in the area that have vacancies and that Ms. Gutowski said this was
one of the reasons for not having an additional storage facility. He asked Ms.
Gutowski about the office properties in the area such as the Keyes and the
Anthem Corporate Center, some being 100% vacant, and if there was an
office being proposed, would she be opposing that because there are
vacancies in the office spaces in the area.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 15 of 23

Ms. Gutowski said it would depend on how it would be built. She reiterated
that there are ways to build office facilities that can be useful to the
community as a whole without being just a big box.
Commissioner Barney said that the real question is that with this much
vacancy in the area in locations that are so much more ideal than the location
being discussed, how would she reconcile adding more surplus of this kind of
space?
Ms. Gutowski said she was not proposing just building offices there. You can
build a building that's multi-use.
Commissioner Barney stated that he is only saying that because of the current
zoning.
Ms. Gutowski said that they would have to rezone the property which is what
they are trying to do. She said she is all for someone making a living, she just
doesn't think that this facility in this particular spot is the place to do it. There
are already two U-Hauls across the way and there are two large storage
facilities in New River which is five minutes up the road.
Commissioner Barney added that there were already a lot of offices out there.
Ms. Gutowski said that she agrees that they do not need more office space;
they need more diversity in the area.
Mr. Ron Jerich spoke in opposition to both cases. He spoke both to his own
personal concerns and as a representative for the community.
He said that he wanted to make the Commission aware that prior to this year
the land in question contained a fire station and that this is the reason it
wasn't developed. The fire station has now been removed and replaced by a
new one.
As for his own personal comments, Mr. Jerich said that Anthem is obviously a
very successful Master Planned Community. Pulte and Del Webb set this land
aside as Office designation (C-0). It may or may not be a perfect fit for that
area right now, but a change to C-2 is definitely not desirable in that area
because that property sits between a church on the south side, a High School
on the north side, its strictly residential across the street and there is an
additional large church facility just across the street and to the south of the
proposed site. He is opposed to a change to C-2 in the particular area. It
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 16 of 23

certainly reduces the ability to have office space east of 1-17 and could
certainly be used for something more beneficial.
Chairman Smith asked Mr. Jerich to move on to his objections to the storage
facility because the Commission was in agreement with the C-2 issue.
Mr. Jerich said he wished to finish his comments. He voiced concern about
additional traffic in the school area and added that there are also several
storage facilities across 1-17 in the Anthem Commerce Park. For all those
reasons he does not see the need for a new storage facility and does not
believe it is a fit in that area.
Mr. Jerich also spoke on behalf of the Town and sited their concerns referring
to a memo from Donna Gloshen, President of the Anthem Community Council,
which is an elected board representing the residents and the commercial
aspects at Anthem. In the memo, Ms. Gloshen reiterated the Council's'
unanimous opposition to the proposed project. She also stated that she had
received numerous emails and telephone calls from residents who oppose this
facility. Their main concern was regarding what could be built at the site
were it to be given the requested C-2 zoning. Mr. Jerich added that they
perceive these to be bars, adult stores, repair shops etc.
Chairman Smith stated that the applicant has placed deed restrictions on the
property that would preclude these uses.
Mr. Jerich said that he understood that this had been mentioned in the
discussion but that once the door was opened, something could always go
awry. This was one of the major concerns of the residents.
Commissioner Jones asked for clarification about the location of the site and if
Mr. Jerich had stated that it was between two churches and a school.
Mr. Jerich answered that it was between a church to the south and a school
to the north and there was another church located to the southeast across
Gavilan Peak Pkwy.
Commissioner Jones asked if the ball field was actually a sporting facility
attached to the school.
Mr. Jerich answered that this was correct.
Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Jerich was opposed to both the rezone to
C-2 and the storage facility.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEL I LNG
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 17 of 23

Mr. Jerich answered that he was.
In rebuttal, Mr. Earl commented on the vision of the area as addressed by Ms.
Gutowski. He stated that he agreed that Anthem was one of the most
beautiful Master Planned Communities and was proud to be associated with it.
The entryway is one of the finest we have in the Valley. This particular site
however is not near that entryway. It is actually between the WWTP and the
freeway. The WWTP that exists there and has exited since the beginning of
Anthem, while it is not an ugly facility, it is a VVWTP. This site has a road that
goes to that WVVTP that can't be moved because it has the water and sewer
from the WWTP into the community below it. You have to build whatever you
are going to build on both sides of the road.
Mr. Earl said that it is true that there are ball fields for the High School to the
north. However, there is a wash that actually separates it from this parcel.
There is a church to the south. We did send out notices into the Parkside
area and also informed the Neighborhood Associations. The only two people
that came were the owners of the church. They had no objections to the use
when they found out how nice it was.
Mr. Earl stated that in terms of concerns regarding the additional traffic, as
the Commission knows, if the site were developed for an office building the
traffic would be up to five times higher than a self storage facility. One of the
least traffic users is storage facilities because there is not a lot of in and out
traffic plus they are hardly ever at peak hours. The real problem with traffic is
peak hours, especially with the school. The kids are going to school at peak
hours and there is virtually no traffic associated with this use.
He added that this really is one of the better uses as a buffer to
neighborhoods. When you think about its use, especially the way it has been
designed to look like an office building, very attractive and highly buffered in
terms of open space, and except for the C-2 versus the C-0 issue, this is a
very good use for this property at this location. This was an unused site for
many years. It is true that it had the temporary fire station on it, but that was
on the very front part. Other than that, it has been vacant all these years. It
was specifically vacant in the last three years in an attempt to try to market it
for office use.
Mr. Earl added that he thinks this is the appropriate land use and except for
the one stipulation regarding the time frame, they agree to all of the
stipulations.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 18 of 23

Commissioner Aster stated that he was disappointed that only two people
showed up at the public meetings given the vocal opposition by the Anthem
Community Council. The Parkside Community which is the area most closely
affected by the project seems to be in favor of it. He thinks there is some
opposition in terms of what the overall Council might want and the folks in the
immediate vicinity.
He further stated that he thinks it is an extremely good site plan. With the
location adjacent to the wastewater WWTP, given what else is in the area, the
WVVTP could have expanded to where this storage is proposed. It's buffered
from 1-17 by the WWTP. He added that he wished more of the people in
opposition would have shown up, but given what they have here, excluding
the issues of employment, he think that this particular facility at this particular
site is going to be a plus for the area.
Commissioner Aster asked the applicant if he was amenable to C-0 zoning.
Mr. Earl said that he certainly understands the concern raised by the
neighborhood and staff as well as by some of the Commissioners, that C-2
opens the door to terrible things. The wanted the C-2 zoning is because they
do not believe that even if this facility should someday be removed that this
would ever go back to an office use and therefore it does not make sense for
it to remain C-0. That's why we put in all the deed restrictions to prevent
these things if the C-2 zoning was granted. People shouldn't be worried
about that, but they understand the concern.
Commissioner Aster commented that if this is approved and it ever went
away, and the C-0 is in place, they can always come back for a rezone. He
would propose that it remain C-0 with the SUP attached to it.
Mr. Jerich asked to comment on Mr. Earl's rebuttal. He stated that the road
running through the property was not the main entrance to the WWTP. The
main entrance is located to the rear of the WVVTP.
He further commented that while only two people had shown up at the public
meeting, it was evident now from the number of enrolls received by staff that
the people are definitely opposed to the storage facility. The Commission was
given 25 emails in opposition and only one in favor.
Commissioner Aster stated that the few enrolls that he had read were in
opposition to the rezoning to C-2, not to the storage facility.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 19 of 23

Commissioner Aster asked staff to clarify how the motion should be stated to
have the underlying zoning remain C-0 with the SUP and since the request is
to change it, will there be a change in the stipulations for the zoning case.
Mr. Kuhfuss answered that they could just deny the case or the applicant
could withdraw the case. The stipulations would only matter if there were a
recommendation on the Commission's behalf to approve the case.
Commissioner Aster asked Mr. Earl is he wished to withdraw the case.
Mr. Earl answered that the more logical thing for the commission to do would
be to deny the rezoning.
Chairman Smith stated that he could then argue the case before the Board of
Supervisors.
COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Aster moved to recommend
denial of case Z2007065 per staff recommendation. Commissioner
Pugmire seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7 to 2.
Commissioners Barney and Bowers dissenting.
Commissioner Aster clarified the modification to stipulation "I" to change the
term of the SUP from 20 to 30 years as follows:
"I" This Special Use Permit shall expire 20-30 years from the date
of approval by the Board of Supervisors, or upon expiration of
the lcse to thc applicant, or upon termination of the use,
whichever occurs first. A TIME EXTENSION MAY BE
REQUESTED FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRIOR TO
THE EXPIRATION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE USE
TO CONTINUE BEYOND THE INITIAL 30 YEARS. IF THE USE
EXPIRES WITHOUT A TIME EXTENSION OR THE USE IS
TERMINATED, All of the site improvements THE OUTDOOR
STORAGE FACILITIES shall be removed within 60 days of such
termination or expiration.
Mr. Kuhfuss also requested a modification to stipulation "m" referencing the
status report as follows:
"m" The applicant shall submit a written report outlining the status
of the development at the end of 5-25 years from the date of
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The status report shall
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 20 of 23

be reviewed by staff to determine whether the Special Use
Permit remains in compliance with the approved stipulations.
COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Aster moved to recommend
approval of case Z2008025 subject to modified stipulations "a"
through "q". Commissioner Barney seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 8-1. Commissioner Brooks dissenting.
a. Development of the site shall comply with the site plan entitled,
"Request for a Special Use Permit for Self Storage Anthem",
consisting of 8 full-size pages, dated revised August 18, 2008,
and stamped received August 21, 2008, except as modified by
the following stipulations.
b. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the
narrative report entitled, "Narrative Report Z2008025 Special
Use Permit for Americor Self Storage Anthem", consisting of 4
pages, dated revised August 2008, and stamped received
August 21, 2008, except as modified by the following
stipulations.
c. Development of the site shall comply with the Landscape Plan
entitled, " Americor Investment Grp. Self Storage Anthem,
consisting of 1 full-size sheet, dated revised June 24, 2008, and
date stamped received July 21, 2008, except as modified by the
following stipulations. All trees shall be double staked when
installed.
d. A corrective plat or affidavit of correction will be required to
change the location of the utility easement prior to issuance of a
zoning clearance for the subject site.
e. The applicant/owner will be required to process a minor land
division of the 0.88 acre parcel within 30 days of BOS approval
of the SUP case Z2008025. The stipulation is based upon the
review completed by Drainage for the SUP application which
excluded the 0.88 acre region.
f. All transformers, back-flow prevention devices, utility boxes
and all other utility related ground mounted equipment shall
be painted to complement the development and shall be
screened with landscape material where possible. All HVAC
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 21 of 23

units shall be ground-mounted or screened with a continuous
parapet for commercial projects.
g. Prior to issuance of any permits for development of the site,
the applicant/property owner shall obtain the necessary
encroachment permits from the Maricopa County Department
of Transportation (MCDOT) for landscaping or other
improvements in the right-of-way.
h. All outdoor lighting shall conform to the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
Development and use of the site shall comply with
requirements for fire protection measures as deemed
necessary by the applicable fire department. Prior to issuance
of zoning clearance or Final Plat approval, the applicant shall
seek review and comment from the applicable fire protection
agency, and shall provide written confirmation that the site will
be developed in accordance with their requirements.
3. Prior to zoning clearance, developer(s) and/or builder(s) shall
establish emergency fire protection services, covering all real
property contained within the project area during course of
construction and shall obtain a 'will serve' letter substantiating
coverage from the appropriate Fire Department servicing the
site.
k. The applicant or his successor shall obtain approval of any
development plans from the Office of the Arizona State Fire
Marshal prior to any construction.
This Special Use Permit shall expire 30 years from the date of
approval by the Board of Supervisors, or upon termination of
the use, whichever occurs first. A time extension may be
requested from the Board of Supervisors prior to the
expiration of the Special Use Permit for the use to continue
beyond the initial 30 years. If the use expires without a time
extension or the use is terminated, the outdoor storage
facilities shall be removed within 60 days of such termination
or expiration.
The applicant shall submit a written report outlining the status
of the development at the end of 25 years from the date of
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 22 of 23

approval by the Board of Supervisors. The status report shall
be reviewed by staff to determine whether the Special Use
Permit remains in compliance with the approved stipulations.
n. Major changes to the Site Plan and narrative report shall be
processed as a revised application, with approval by the Board
of Supervisors upon recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Minor changes may be administratively
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Major changes to the project may require a new Citizen
Participation Process as determined by the Planning and
Development Department.
o. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval will be treated
as a violation in accordance with the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance. Further, noncompliance of the conditions of
approval may be grounds for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to take action in accordance with Chapter 3
(Conditional Zoning).
p. Noncompliance with the regulations administered by the
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department,
Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Drainage
Review Division, Planning and Development Department, or
the Flood Control District of Maricopa County may be grounds
for initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set
forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
q. The property owners and their successors waive claim for
diminution in value if the County takes action to rescind
approval due to noncompliance with stipulations.
EXTRACTS OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
CASE NUMBER: Z2007065 and Z2008025 Page 23 of 23

ONE
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission STOP
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department S OP
Cases: Z2007065
Z2008025
Meeting Date: October 2, 2008
Agenda Items: 1) 4
2) 5
Supervisor District: 3
Title of Projects: 1) Anthem Rezone
2) Americor Self Storage
Applicant: Earl, Curley & Lagarde, PC
Owner: 7060 East Thompson Peak Parkway, LLC
Requests: 1) Zone Change from C-0 CUPD/PAD to C-2 CUPD/PAD
2) Special Use Permit for mini-storage facilities, outdoor
RV and boat storage along with truck rentals in the
C-0 CUPD/PAD zoning district
Site Location: West of Gavilan Peak Pkwy. and 1,478' north of Daisy
Mountain Dr. (in the Anthem Area)
Site Size: 1) 8.4 acres
2) Approx. 7.5 acres of an 8.4 acre site
Density: N/A
County Island Status: N/A
County Plan: The Comprehensive Plan refers to the Anthem
Development Master Plan (DMP). The DMP designates the
site as Multi-Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use Center
(MNC/MUC). The request is in concert with the approved
DMP.
Municipid I an: City of Phoenix — Undesignated land use
Municipal Cominonts: The City of Phoenix supports the requests
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 1 of 51

Supp/rt: • Anthem Parkside Community Association
Opposition: Three e-mails in opposition to the request
Recommendations: 1) Deny
2) Deny
Project Summaries:
1. The requests include a Zone Change (Z2007065) and Special Use Permit
(Z2008025) for one (1) parcel located west of Gavilan Peak Pkwy. approx.
1,478' north of Daisy Mountain Dr. and Gavilan Peak Pkwy. within Anthem.
The site contains approx. 8.4 acres and is currently zoned Commercial Office
(C-0 CUPD/PAD). The subject site was originally excess land from the
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and subject to a rezone from Rural-43
SUP to C-0 CUPD/PAD to accommodate a BOS approved stipulation as
proposed by Anthem associated with a change in land use designation for the
Panhandle region with case DMP2004006. The applicant i5 requesting to
change the zoning of the parcel to Intermediate Commercial (C-2 CUPD/PAD)
with no precise Plan of Development, along with the SUP, which does include
a precise plan. The reason for the rezone to C-2 CUPD/PAD is due to no
market interest in the subject site for Commercial Office.
2. The request for the Special Use Permit (SUP) includes proposed uses
associated with commercial mini-storage, outdoor RV and boat storage, along
with truck rentals. The SUP will consist of an area approx. 7.5 ac. of an 8.4
gross ac. site. The site plan displays an area to the northeastern region of the
parcel as a separate pad to be developed in the future.
3. The proposed development will include a total of nine (9) freestanding
structures to be located throughout the site. The individual rental units will
consist of varying dimensions of 5' x 5', 5' x 10', 10' x 10', 10' x 15', 10' x 20',
10' x 25', and 12' x 30'. A total of 726 units are proposed for storage.
4. The outdoor storage component for the project includes regions designated
for RV's and boats, which consist of a total of 53 spaces. Of the spaces
provided, a total of 23 parking spaces will be uncovered with dimensions of
12' x 40'. These spaces will be located at the northwestern region of the site.
Located at the western region of the site are 6 uncovered parking spaces with
dimensions 12' x 30'. The remaining 24 spaces with dimensions of 12' x 45'
will be covered parking spaces to be located at the northwestern half of the
project.
5. Truck rentals are proposed for the facility to include up to fifteen (15) rental
trucks. The trucks will be parked at the northwestern region of the site within
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 2 of 51

the designated RV and boat storage spaces as depicted on the site plan. The
facility will not include fueling stations for the rental trucks.
6. Storage building 1 will be a two story 67,568 sq. ft. building with an elevation
of 24' and will include climate control. The building will include a 2,000 sq. ft.
office on the 1st floor with storage units on the 1 st and 2nd floors. Two wall
signs are proposed along the northern and eastern elevations. The site plan
identifies 359 sq. ft. per sign, for a total wall signage area of 718 sq. ft.
Architecturally, the building will be designed to be compatible with the Anthem
design standards and is proposed to visually appear as an office building. The
building will have undulating facades, shade structures and will be constructed
of split-face block, metal accents, stucco, and decorative tiles. Colors will
include earth tones such as charcoal, brown, and green.
7. Storage building 2 will be a single story 13,400 sq. ft. building with an
elevation of 16' to consist of an internal walkway for 56 storage units and 25
adjacent metal roll up units. The building will include a total of 81 rental units.
Storage building 3 will be a single story 3,200 sq. ft. building with an elevation
of 16' to consist of 16 metal roll up units. Building 4 will be a single story
10,080 sq. ft. metal building with an elevation of 13' with 28 roll up units.
Building 5 will also be a single story with an elevation of 16' to consist of 20
roll up units. Buildings 1 — 5 will be located on the southern region of the 30'
wide access roadway into the Waste Water Treatment Plant (VVWTP). A
security access gate is shown on the site plan to be located at the driveway
entrance into the southern region of the facility.
8. The northwestern region of the site will consist of covered and uncovered
parking spaces for RVs, boats, and additional four buildings for mini-storage.
The northern half will include two (2) separate entry and exit gates directly
north of the 30' access drive. Building 6 will be single story with an elevation
of 16' and will contain a total of 22 units. Building 7 will be single story with
an elevation of 13' and is proposed as a metal building to include two (2)
doors for access to the interior storage units with a total of 76 units. Building
8 will be single story with an elevation of 16' with a total of 34 units. Building
9 will be single story with an elevation of 16' with a total of 11 units.
9. Circulation to the site will be from an existing access road easement which
connects to Gavilan Peak Pkwy. The access road was established for the
Wastewater Treatment Plant located to the southwest of the subject site and
was recorded with document number 99-0099030. The easement is paved
and has separate entrance/exits to Gavilan Peak Pkwy. Building 1 will include
12 standard parking spaces with parking dimensions of 10' x 20' which
exceeds the standard of the MCZO and 1 handicap parking space with
dimension of 11' x 20'. The project also includes designated loading spaces to
the west of building 1 to consist of a total of 6 spaces with various dimensions
Agenda Items: 4 8i 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 3 of 51

of 10' x 20' to 12' x 50'. The RV and boat storage component for the site will
include a drive up wash bay and dump/air system.
10. A 3' high CMU block wall is proposed to screen the visitor parking located to
the north of the office. The screen wall will be 102' lineal feet, and is proposed
with a future 8' x 8' monument sign. No information was provided regarding
the 64 sq. ft. monument sign. The project will also include an 8'-8" high CMU
wall to secure the interior regions of the site with approx. 898'-2" lineal feet.
The CMU wall will be smooth and split face block with brown and charcoal
colors. Landscaping for the site will comply with the designated Anthem
Design Guidelines and will include the following: Mesquite, Blue Palo Verde,
Desert cassia, and Purple trailing Lantana to name a few.
11. The facility will have hours of operation seven days a week from 7 am to 7 pm
with a 24-hour security pad to access the outdoor storage facilities. The use
will employ approx. 3 — 6 employees during business hours. The facility will be
secured with solid CMU fencing, site lighting throughout the site, and security
cameras. The report states the site will be a safe and secure environment for
both the internal and external uses proposed. The facility will be constructed
in a single phase. The applicant has requested 20+ years for the SUP
entitlement.
12. Public water and wastewater disposal will be provided by the Arizona-
American Water Company. Fire service will be provided by Daisy Mountain
Fire Department with police protection by the Maricopa County Sheriffs' Office.
uLlic Participation Summaries:
13. The applicant has complied with the Maricopa County Citizen Review Process for
both zoning cases with the required posting of the property and notification by
first class mail to the adjacent property owners within 300' of subject parcel and
interested parties. The Citizen Participation Plan included notifying the property
owners within 300' of the request, public posting the property, and contact
information if any issues or concerns needed to be addressed. A Citizen
Participation meeting was held on May 1, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. at the Anthem
Community Center Pioneer Room to address both zoning cases. Two (2)
members of the community attended the meeting which included
representatives of the properties to the south and the west of the subject site.
The attendees were provided information regarding the project. The report
states two calls were received regarding the application. A letter of support was
included with the report from Dennis Thrush, President of the Anthem Parlcside
Community Association. As of the writing of the report, staff has received three
e-mails in opposition to the request.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 4 of 51

Background:
14. April 5, 1995: The Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved DMP 94-06, the
Anthem Development Master Plan (DMP), subject to stipulations which are not
included here for brevity.
15. February 21, 1996: The BOS approved Z95-53, a request to rezone to Single
Family Residential, establish a Neighborhood Unit Plan of Development, and a
Wastewater treatment facility as a Special Use Permit, subject to stipulations
which are not induded here for brevity.
16. December 3, 1997: The BOS approved Z95-53a, the Anthem Plan of
Development, and designated it as a Protected Rights Development Plan.
17. October 18, 2000: The BOS approved DMP200008, an amendment to the
Anthem DMP and Z2000098, an amendment to the Anthem Plan of
Development which reduced the density of the project, realigned an arterial
roadway, addition of a clubhouse, reduction in the size of the water campus and
modification to stipulations. Approved stipulations not included here for brevity.
18. June 161 2004: The BOS approved DMP2003010, an amendment to the
Anthem DMP, to change 102.1 acres from Multi-Neighborhood
Commercial/Mixed Use Center (MNC/MUC) to Urban Residential/Very Low
Density (UR/VL) subject to the following stipulations:
a. Development shall comply with the Development Master Plan document
entitled "Development Master Plan Amendment for Anthem", prepared
by Earl, Curley, & Lagarde, and Stanley Consultants, Inc., dated April
16, 2004, and stamped received May 10, 2004.
b. Major changes to the Anthem Development Master Plan with regard to
use and intensity must be processed as a revised application with
approval by the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation of the
Commission. The Maricopa County Planning and Development
Department may administratively approve minor changes to the
Anthem Development Master Plan.
c. All other stipulations to the Anthem Development Master Plan, as set
forth in prior approvals, shall remain in effect, except for stipulation "e"
of DMP200008, which shall be modified as follows:
No density transfers between Anthem's perimeter boundaries and any
adjacent properties outside the DMP shall be approved. No more than
9,603 total dwelling units, including both single-family and multi-family
units, will be permitted within the County-portion of Anthem. To help
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 5 of 51

ensure compliance, the cumulative number of single and multi-family
dwelling units, in relation to the identified limit, shall be identified on all
plats. " -
acrcs commonly rcfcrrcd to as thc "JACKA ANNEX".
19. June 16, 2004: The BOS approved Z2003125, a request to rezone from C-2 PD
PAD to R1-6 RUPD, R-4 NUPD to R1-6 RUPD, C-2 PD to R-4 RUPD, and C-2 PD
to R-3 RUPD subject to stipulations which are not included here for brevity.
20. February 17, 2005: The BOS approved DMP2004006, an amendment to the
Anthem DMP to change the land use designation from Multi-Neighborhood
Commercial/Mixed Use Center (MNC/MUC) to Urban Residential/Very Low
Density (UR/VL) for the Anthem Panhandle, subject to the following stipulations:
a. Development shall be in accordance with the submitted narrative report
entitled "Development Master Plan Amendment for Anthem", dated
revised November 23, 2004 and stamped approved November 30, 2004
— in conjunction with the provisions included in the previously approved
narrative reports for DMP DMP 94-6B, DMP200008 and
DMP2003010, except as modified by the following stipulations. A
revised Anthem Development Master Plan document incorporating the
approved amendments and conditions of approval shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department for acceptance within 60
days of the date of approval by the Board of Super-visors.
b. The developer shall coordinate with the Arizona State Land Department
and City of Phoenix to make connections between the North Valley
Parkway and Gavilan Peak Parkway.
c. The following Maricopa County Department of Transportation
stipulations shall apply:
1. Provide a total full-width of 130 feet of right-of-way on
Gavilan Peak Parkway to the southern boundary of the
development.
2. Provide a minimum of two (2) accesses to each
development phase and construct a divided roadway
(Gavilan Peak Parkway) for access to the parcel.
3. Document changes in land use to residential and update
Traffic Impact Study (11S) prior to preliminary plat
submittal.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 6 of 51

d. The developer shall provide an at-grade crossing of the Maricopa Trail
running east/west at Deadman Wash at the proposed extension of
• Gavilan Peak Parkway running north/south.
e. If future freeway noise impact studies warrant mitigation measures,
Maricopa County shall not be responsible for constructing and
maintaining any required noise walls or other forms of noise
abatement.
f. All other stipulations to the Anthem Development Master Plan, as set
forth in prior approvals, shall remain in effect as may be applicable.
g. Prior to approval of the first final plat in the Panhandle area, the
applicant shall submit an application to rezone from C-2 to C-0 the
north half of Parcel 4A (7 ac.) and Parcel 4B (8 ac.), located on Venture
Court, south of Anthem Way, and shall thereafter process this
application through the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the applicant
agrees to work with Arizona American (to amend the existing Special
Use Permit area for the Water Campus to remove the excess property
on the west side of Gavilan Peak Parkway) and also work with the
Daisy Mountain Fire District (to relocate the temporary fire station
currently located in this same area to its permanent location) in order
to enable these parcels totaling approximately 5 acres to be submitted
and processed for C-0 zoning for employment related uses.
21. February 171 2005: The BOS approved Z2004075, a rezone from Rural-43 to
R1-18 RUPD, R1-10 RUPD, and R1-6 RUPD with a PAD overlay for the Anthem
Panhandle, subject to the following stipulations:
a. The Z2004075 approval supercedes all previous versions of the Anthem
Plan of Development as approved under Z 95-53A, Z 95-53Q, Z2000098
and Z2003125. All development within Anthem shall comply with zoning
as per the revised Anthem Plan of Development document listed in
stipulation Ib' below. Approvals and stipulations for all previous site
specific precise site plans remain in effect as may be applicable.
b. Development shall be in accordance with the submitted narrative report
entitled "Amendments to the Plan of Development.. Anthem", dated
revised November 23, 2004 and stamped received November 30, 2004 -
in conjunction with the provisions included in the previously approved
narrative reports for Z 95-53A, Z 95-53Q, Z2000098 and Z2003125,
except as modified by the following stipulations. A revised Anthem Plan of
Development document incorporating the approved amendments and
conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning and
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 7 of 51

Development Department for acceptance within 60 days of the date of
approval by the Board of Supervisors.
c. Development of any property for office, commercial or multi-family uses
shall undergo Precise Plan of Development review and approval prior to
development. Information regarding the proposed development
standards shall be submitted as part of the application materials.
d. Guest quarters/accessory dwelling units shall be permitted in only
Country Club 1 and Country Club 2 Villages of Anthem, and shall be
limited to no more than 50% of the lots within the respective Village.
All guest quarters/accessory dwelling units shall comply with Article
1002.9 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, and details regarding
size, location, design and all other requirements shall be submitted for
staff review and approval at the time of submittal of a preliminary plat
for any phase or portion of the Country Club 1 and Country Club 2
Villages.
e. The entire area of the Anthem Development Master Plan shall be
subject to a Planned Area Development (PAD) Overlay Zone. This
allows for flexible zoning district boundary lines, which will be
illustrated on and set with Final Plat or Precise Plan of Development
approvals.
Major changes with regard to use and intensity to the Plan of
Development, including but not limited to the conditions of approval or
RUPD development must be processed as a revised application with
approval by the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation of the
Commission. Minor changes may be administratively approved by the
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
g. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval will be treated as a
violation in accordance with the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
Further, noncompliance of the conditions of approval may be grounds
for the Commission to take action in accordance with the Maricopa
County Zoning Ordinance.
h. Continued monitoring and analysis of potential roadway connections
shall be done in cooperation with Maricopa County Department of
Transportation.
All Commercial zones in Anthem are subject to a Commercial Unit
Planned Development (CUPD) Overlay Zone. The CUPD will allow relief
from buffer/screen wall requirements except as outlined in the Anthem
Design Guidelines incorporated as an element of the Anthem Plan of
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 8 of 51

Development document referenced in stipulation `13' above. The CUPD
will otherwise allow commercial development in conformance with the
Anthem Design Guidelines. A Precise Plan of Development is required
for any commercial development.
All Residential zones in Anthem are subject to a Residential Unit
Planned Development (RUPD) Overlay Zone. The RUPD supercedes any
previous Neighborhood Unit Planned Development (NUPD) Overlay
Zone that may have been established. The RUPD is subject to
development standards listed in the following chart.
Development R1-35 R148 R1-10 R1-8 'R1-7 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-4
Standard RUPD RUPD RUPD RUPD RUPD RUPD RUPD RUPD RUPD
Min. Front 28' 20' 14' 14' 14' 14' 14' 14' 14'
Setback
Min. Rear 28' 17.5' 17.5' 17.5' 17.5'
Setback
Min. Side 14' 7' 4.9' 4.9' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5'
Setback
Min. Street- 14' 10.5' 7' 7' 7' 7'
Side Setback
Distance 10.5' 10' 10' 10' 10' 7'
Between
Buildings
Mm. LOt Vkir'kith 1013' 84' 56' 56' 49' 42' 42' 42' 42'
Min. tot Area 24,500 9,775 7,000 5,600 4,900 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200
(sq. ft.)
Avg. Lot Area / 35,000 18,000 10,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 4,000 3,000 2,000
D.U. (sq. ft.)
Max, Lot 26% 50% 48% 45.5% 51% 52% 65% 65% 65%
Coverage
Max. Building 39' 39' 39' 39' 39' 39' 39' 40' 40'
fleight (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3)
(Stories)
k. Single-family development in the R-3 RUPD and R-4 RUPD zoning
districts are limited to a maximum building height of 30' and 2 stories.
Multi-family development in the R-3 RUPD and R-4 RUPD zoning district
are limited to 39' and 2 stories east of Gavilan Peak Parkway, and 40'
and 3 stories west of Gavilan Peak Parkway.
L Casitas and side-loaded garages in the R1-18 RUPD zoning district may
observe a 14' front setback.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 9 of 51

m. Flag lots shall be permitted within the R1-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-7,
R1-6, and R-2 (all RUPD) zoning districts, subject to the following
standards:
I. The minimum width of the pole portion of the flag lot shall be 20'.
II. The maximum length of the pole portion of the flag lot shall be
150'.
III. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks shall apply to the flag
portion of the flag lot
IV. The front of any flag lot shall be the narrowest side of the flag
portion of the lot which is closest to the pole.
V. Each flag lot shall have direct access to a public or private street.
n. Key lots shall be permitted within the R1-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-7,
R1-6 and R-2 (ALL RUPD) zoning districts, subject to the following
standards:
I. Driveways of key lots shall be located on the opposite side of the
front yard from the property line boundary shared with the
affected corner lot.
II. Lot walls of the affected corner lots may sit at a zero setback to
both the rear and street-side lot line but shall be angled so as
not to adversely affect visibility from the key lot's driveway. Said
angle shall be at least 45 degrees and shall begin at least five-
feet from a point that would otherwise be the intersection of the
plane of the walls.
III. Subdivision lot layout may otherwise provide for a sight-distance
triangle for the benefit of the key lot
o. Building disturbance envelopes shall be required for all development in
hillside areas of 10% - 15% slope. Building envelopes are to designate
the area that may be disturbed for all residential structures and amenities
in the rear yard (i.e. pools, decks, ramadas, turf and retaining walls).
Envelopes shall be determined at the time of Subdivision Plat or Precise
Plan of Development Except for the driveway, the balance of the lot
outside this envelope shall be retained in its natural state. These areas
may be enhanced with native or near-native vegetation. Slopes of 10%
or greater shall be delineated on all plans.
p. No development shall be permitted on hillside slopes of 15% or greater.
These areas shall be set aside as natural open space areas. Slopes of
15% or greater shall be delineated on all plans.
Agenda Items: 4 8i 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 10 of 51

q. All development in Anthem shall be subject to the Anthem Design
Guidelines induded in the Anthem Plan of Development document
referenced in stipulation lb' above.
r. A blanket waiver is granted to the requirement of the Maricopa County
Subdivision Regulations for dedication and associated improvements of
arterial routes along section line alignments and collector routes along
mid-section line alignments.
s. Parcel 6 shall be developed at a residential density of not less than fifteen
(15) dwelling units per acre.
t. There shall be a minimum 100' natural open space buffer between the
edge of the Interstate-17 right-of-way and the lot lines of any residential
lots.
u. Maricopa County will not be responsible for any future sound mitigation
measures for development along Interstate-17.
v. All applicable stipulations of Anthem Development Master Plan,
DMP2004006, shall be in effect.
w. The Anthem Plan of Development, Z2004075, is a Protected
Development Rights Plan.
x. Prior to approval of the first final plat in the Panhandle area, the
applicant shall submit an application to rezone from C-2 to C-0 the
north half of Parcel 4A (7 ac.) and Parcel 4B (8 ac.), located on Venture
Court, south of Anthem Way, and shall thereafter process this
application through the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the applicant
agrees to work with Arizona American (to amend the existing Special
Use Permit area for the Water Campus to remove the excess property
on the west side of Gavilan Peak Parkway) and also work with the
Daisy Mountain Fire District (to relocate the temporary fire station
currently located in this same area to its permanent location) in order
to enable these parcels totaling approximately 5 acres to be submitted
and processed for C-0 zoning for employment related uses.
y. In the Panhandle area, the applicant shall use muted desert colors and
tones consistent with the surrounding environment for all structures,
buildings and walls.
z. Open projections, such as patio covers, are allowed to project 5' into
the required rear yard.
Agenda Items: 4 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 11 of 51

22. April 18, 2005: A compliant was received by the Code Enforcement Division
regarding the operation of a Construction Yard existing on site. The Code
Enforcement Division assigned case number V200500701.
23. May 6, 2005: An application for a Conditional Use Permit, CU2005023 was
received for a Construction Yard.
24. July 11, 2005: The Conditional Use Application case number CU2005023 was
closed due to inactivity.
25. November 2, 2005: A new application for a Conditional Use Permit,
CU2005057 was received.
26. October 26, 2005: Ownership of parcel identified as Anthem Arizona per MCR
deed 051610141.
27. December 20, 2005: A Civil Hearing was held with the owner of the parcel
Anthem Arizona regarding inactivity for violation case V200500701.
28. December 21, 2005: The BOS approved Z2005092 a request for a rezone
from C-2 CUPD to C-0 for Anthem C-0 (North) which consist of 15.1 acres as
stipulated per DMP2004006 and Z2004075. Subject to the following stipulations:
a. Development of the site shall be generally consistent with the narrative
report/zoning exhibit, entitled "Letter of Explanation/Narrative for
Rezoning Parcels 4A and 4B; Amendment to Application Z2005092
consisting of a bound document with twelve (12) pages, dated (revised)
September 19, 2005 and stamped received September 20, 2005 except
as modified by the following stipulations. Within 30 days of approval by
the Board of Supervisors, the applicant shall provide a revised narrative
report/zoning exhibit for review and approval by the Planning and
Development Department, to include clarification of the proposed
zoning district boundaries, and that the site will be subject to a CUPD
overlay, and not a PD overlay.
b. A precise Plan of Development and any necessary subdivision plats
shall be required prior to development.
c. All trees shall be double-staked when installed.
d. A continuous parapet shall screen all roof-mounted equipment.
e. All transformers, back-flow prevention devices, utility boxes and all
other utility related ground mounted equipment shall be painted to
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 12 of 51

complement the development and shall be screened with landscape
material where possible. All HVAC units shall be screened.
f. Development of the site shall include half-street improvements
(including paving, gutter and sidewalk) to ultimate width for Venture
Dr. along the perimeter of the site.
g. All interior streets within the proposed development are to be constructed
to minimum County standards.
h. Prior to issuance of any permits for development of the site, the
applicant/property owner shall obtain the necessary encroachment
permits from the Maricopa County Department of Transportation
(MCDOT) for landscaping or other improvements in the right-of-way.
i. All outdoor lighting shall conform with the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.
Development and use of the site shall comply with requirements for fire
hydrant placement and other fire protection measures as deemed
necessary by the applicable fire department. Prior to issuance of zoning
clearance, or final plat if a there is a related subdivision, the applicant
shall seek review and comment from the applicable fire protection
agency, and shall provide written confirmation that the site will be
developed in accordance with their requirements.
k. Prior to zoning clearance, developer(s) and/or builder(s) shall establish
emergency fire protection services, covering all real property contained
within the project area during course of construction and shall obtain a
'will serve' letter substantiating coverage from the appropriate Fire
Department servicing the site.
Major changes to the zoning exhibit and narrative report shall be
processed as a revised application, with approval by the Board of
Supervisors upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Minor changes may be administratively approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Major changes to the project
may require a new Citizen Participation Process as determined by the
Planning and Development Department.
m. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval will be treated as a
violation in accordance with Chapter 14 (Violation and Penalty) of the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. Further, noncompliance of the
conditions of approval may be grounds for the Planning and Zoning
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 13 of 51

Commission to take action in accordance with Chapter 3 (Conditional
Zoning).
29. February 8, 2006: A Conditional Use Permit, CU2005057 was issued for a
Construction Yard.
30. April 11, 2006: The violation case V200500701 was closed due to the issuance
of the Conditional Use Permit for the existing Construction Yard.
31. June 27, 2006: An Administrative Amendment to the Anthem DMP case
DMP2005015 was approved by Staff which changed the excess WWTP land use
designation of the parcel from Special Use Permit to Multi-Neighborhood
Commercial/Mixed Use Center (MNC/MUC) subject to the following stipulation:
a. Development and use of the subject site shall comply with the Letter of
Explanation for DMP2005015 entitled "Rezoning Narrative for excess
VVWTP area and temporary Fire Station site," consisting of 5 pages, 9
exhibits, and 2 tables, dated revised May 4, 2006, and stamped received
May 6, 2006. All other stipulations approved by the Board of Supervisors
for the Anthem Development Master Plan shall remain in effect.
32. October 181 2006: The BOS approved Z2005115, a request to rezone from
Rural-43 to C-0 CUPD for commercial office subject to the following stipulations:
a. Development of the site shall be generally consistent with the narrative
report/zoning exhibit, entitled "Letter of Explanation Z2005115;
Rezoning Narrative for excess WWTP and temporary Fire Station site"
consisting of a bound document with eighteen (18) pages, including nine
(9) color zoning exhibits, dated (revised) July 11, 2006 and stamped
received July 11, 2006 except as modified by the following stipulations.
b. Within sixty (60) days of approval by the Board of Supervisors, the
applicant shall provide an AutoCAD or Shape file with legal descriptions
to amend the existing Special Use Permit for the Waste Water
Treatment Plant region to the Planning and Development Department.
c. A precise Plan of Development and any necessary subdivision plats
shall be required prior to development.
d. Major changes to the zoning exhibit and narrative report shall be
processed as a revised application, with approval by the Board of
Supervisors upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Minor changes may be adminislrdtively approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Major changes to the project
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 14 of 51

may require a new Citizen Participation Process as determined by the
Planning and Development Department.
e. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval will be treated as a
violation in accordance with Chapter 14 (Violation and Penalty) of the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. Further, noncompliance of the
conditions of approval may be grounds for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to take action in accordance with Chapter 3 (Conditional
Zoning).
33. April 261 2007: A pre-application meeting held with the applicant to discuss
rezone of property from C-0 to C-2.
34. June 11, 2007: Application submitted to rezone subject site from C-0
CUPD/PAD to C-2 CUPD/PAD with case Z2007065.
35. December 18, 2007: Special Warranty Deed recorded conveying subject site
from Anthem Arizona LLC to Americor Investment Group Inc. with recording
number 071322731.
36. December 18, 2007: Special Warranty Deed recorded conveying subject site
from Americor Investment Group, Inc. to Anthem Self Storage, LLC. with
recording number 071322732.
37. March 18, 2008: Secondary set of revisions received for the Zone Change
application Z2007065.
38. March 18, 2008: Application received for a Special Use Permit for Americor —
zoning case Z2008025.
39. April 151 2008: Technical Advisory Committee meeting held with the applicant
to provide 1st review comments for the SUP application Z2008025. Applicant
advised at the TAC meeting that the owner would amend the application to
include truck rentals.
40. May 181 2008: Application received for a SUP Z2008025 for mini-storage and
RV/boat storage.
41. 113y 231 2008: Commercial Special Warranty Deed recorded conveying subject
site from Anthem Self Storage, LLC. to 7960 East Thompson Peak Parkway, LLC
with recording number 080459178.
42. June 3, 2008: Secondary submittal received for SUP application Z2008025.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 15 of 51

43. July 181 2008: Third set of revisions received for the Zone Change application
Z2007065.
44. July 21, 2008: Third set of revisions received for the SUP application.
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
45. On-site: CO-CUPD/PAD / Vacant
North: R-2 RUPD / Wash, then Deer Valley School District
South: Rural-43 / Cross of Christ Lutheran Church
East: R1-7 RUPD / Gavilan Peak Pkwy., Church, and residential
(Anthem Unit 6)
West: Rural-43 with a Special Use Permit (Z95-53) / Waste Water
Treatment Plant
[2008 Aerial photograph of adjacent land uses.]
Gartlan Peak
Parkway
.Caisy < ri,lourrtasn
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 16 of 51

[2008 aose up aerial photograph of site with proximity to Waste Water Treatment Fadlity.]
[Zoning Districts surrounding the site.]
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 17 of 51

Adopted Plans:
46. Maricopa County "Eye to the Future 2020" Comprehensive Plan: The
Comprehensive Plan refers to the Anthem Development Master Plan (DMP).
47. Anthem Development Master Plan (DMP): The DMP designates the site
as Multi-Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use Center (MNC/MUC), which
allows for retail, employment, open space, and multiple-family residential land
uses. The request is deemed to be in conformance with the stipulations of
case DMP2004006.
Utilities and Services:
48. Water: Arizona-American Water Company (AAWC)
Wastewater: Arizona-American Water Company (AAWC)
School District: Deer Valley Unified School District
Fire: Daisy Mountain Fire District (DMFD)
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
49. Comprehensive Planning: Staff is not supportive of the request for a zone
change and SUP for the subject site per comments provided on June 20, 2007
and March 24, 2008. Staff analyzed the applications and determined the
proposals will not result in an improvement to the Anthem DMP. Summarized
below are the issues raised by Comprehensive Planning with the pending
applications.
Zone Change and SUP:
• BOS adopted DMP Guidelines recommends DMP have an employment ratio
of 10 acres per 1,000 residents.
• Per the applicant, Anthem contains 12,000 residential units with an approx.
population of 32,400 residents.
• Minimum requirements for Anthem are approx. 324 acres of office or other
large-scale professional (non-retail) employment uses.
• 15 acres of professional employment results in Anthem with a 95% below
the Maricopa County recommended minimum standard.
• The balance of the 15 acres are intended to serve only 1,500 residents.
• Apparent to staff that Anthem does not meet the County's minimum
standard but is significantly below the standard.
• Additional retail should not be added to the expense of needed employment.
• No compelling argument for the need of additional C-2 zoning which allows
for potentially incompatible uses such as adult businesses, auto and boat
sales, theaters, and other large-scale commercial establishment as opposed
to less intense neighborhood of C-1 or C-S.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 18 of 51

50. Current Planning: Based upon the issues associated with the intent of the
DMP, staff is not supportive of the rezone or SUP request. Upon review of the
SUP site plan and recorded plat, the proposed building 1 is located above the
utility easement recorded per 00-0516092 with an existing transformer. The
applicant has indicated the utility easement and transformer will be relocated. In
order to track the change with the recorded easement, staff has included a
stipulation which will require a corrective plat or an affidavit of correction prior to
issuance of zoning clearance.
51. Drainage Review: Assodated with the SUP application, the Drainage Report
and grading and drainage plans did not include the 0.88 acre region at the
northern region of the site. Based upon the exclusion of this region, staff will
include stipulation requiring the applicant to process a split to exclude the 0.88
ac. region from the parent parcel. Discussion with the Drainage and applicant,
both parties are amendable to the proposed stipulation.
Staff Analysis:
52. The request for the Zone Change and SUP has brought forward a substantial
amount of issues associated with the intent of the Anthem DMP. Staff is
concerned with yet another request to create a reduction in the amount of land
designated for employment which has resulted in Anthem transitioning to a
bedroom community with residential and intermediate commercial zoning. Over
the years Anthem has processed a series of amendments to change the land use
designations to accommodate current market trends without consideration of
future land uses and the future sustainability of the Anthem.
53. Anthem has been marketed and promoted to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors as a "self-sustained community". The
reality associated with Anthem is that through the years Anthem has been a
DMP with approved modifications and adjustments to serve the current market
trends. Anthem is identified as a "bedroom community" which clearly does not
provide a balance of land uses or the sustainabik as originally promoted.
54. The request to rezone the parcel is based upon the applicant stating the
parcel has been marketed for several years (24 months) without any interest
in the site for employment uses. According to the applicant, the location of the
parcel is not considered an attractive location for office type uses due to the
parcel situated at the front entrance of the (WWI?). The report also expands
upon the request by stating the rezone is to increase the amount of allowed
service uses at the parcel beyond the base commercial office zoning district
standards to intermediate commercial. The report also states the commercial
storage will fill a critical need for convenient storage uses to serve the Anthem
area. The Anthem marketing consultant determined the rezoning of parcels
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 19 of 51

4A/4B to commercial office has fully satisfied the demand for employment
zoning in the Anthem area.
55. During the completion of the 1st review of the SUP application, staff was
advised that the owner was interested in including truck rentals as part of the
application. Staff advised the applicant that the proposed use is beyond the
limitations of the commercial storage and would require the applicant to
amend the narrative report to request compliance with 1301.1.44. The
pending request to rezone the property to C-2 does allow truck rental as a
use. The mini-storage and outdoor RV/boat storage requires a SUP and is not
allowed as a by-right use in the existing C-0 CUPD/PAD or proposed C-2
CUPD/PAD zoning. Staff conducted another analysis of the proposed truck
rentals and determined the use is considered an ancillary use and could be
included as part of the SUP. Based upon this analysis, there is no need for the
associated rezone case to C-2 CUPD/PAD. Staff advised the applicant of the
allowance of the ancillary use and requested to proceed with the rezone to C-
2 CUPD/PAD. The applicant commissioned a market study from Elliott D.
Pollack & Company to analyze the office supply and demand in the area which
has been included as an attachment and analyzed by staff in the report.
56. A reduction in the amount of land designated as MNC/MUC and a reduction in
the amount of properties designated for commercial office will result in
contribution to additional traffic, air pollution, and congestion on Interstate 17.
Residents within Anthem travel outside the community for employment
opportunities. Staff recommendation for denial on both cases is based upon a
series of issues related to the sustainability of the Anthem and the original
concept of a self-sustained community as promoted by Anthem. In order to
provide background information associated with staff's recommendation of
denial, this section of the staff report has been separated into various topics for
analysis.
History of Zoning Designation for Subject Site
57. The subject site was originally excess land from the Arizona-American Waste
Water Treatment Plant and was originally zoned Rural-43 SUP. The subject
site was subject to a stipulation to rezone the property from Rural-43 SUP to
C-0 associated with a request by Anthem to change the land use designation
and zoning of the panhandle region with DMP2004006 and Z2004075. The
purpose of the amendment was to change the land-use designation of five (5)
parcels with a total of 333.3 acres from Multi-Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed
Use Center (MNC/MUC) to Urban Residential/Very Low density (UR/VL) and
associated zone changes for future residential development within the
Panhandle. Staff recommended indefinite continuance of DMP2004006 to
allow the applicant to modify the project and garner staff support. The
request to change the MNC/MUC land use designation of the 333.3 acres,
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 20 of 51

would have directly impacted the amount of acreage designated as MNC/MUC
with a net loss reduction in the amount of properties to be utilized for
employment uses. The applicant provided staff with a stipulation rezoning 15
acres of commercial office/employment uses located within Anthem. Staff
accepted the stipulation to rezone the parcels to commercial office zoning in
order to maintain land with the MNC/MUC designation for future office
employment uses. The DMP and associated rezone cases were approved with
stipulations `g' and 'x' for the parcels with identical language as shown below:
Prior to approval of the first final plat in the Panhandle area, the
applicant shall submit an application to rezone from C-2 to C-0 the
north half of Parcel 4A (7 ac.) and Parcel 48 (8 ac.), located on Venture
Court south of Anthem Way, and shall thereafter process this
application through the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the applicant
agrees to work with Arizona American (to amend the existing Special
Use Permit area for the Water Campus to remove the excess property
on the west side of Gavilan Peak Parkway) and also work with the
Daisy Mountain Fire District (to relocate the temporary fire station
currently located in this same area to its permanent location) in order
to enable these parcels totaling approximately 5 acres to be submitted
and processed for C-0 zoning for employment related uses.
58. December 21, 2005 the BOS approved Z2005092 a request to rezone 15.1 ac.
located within Anthem East Side Mixed Use Parcels from C-2 CUPD/PAD to C-
O CUPD/PAD as per the designated stipulations associated with the
development of the Panhandle region. An Administrative Development Master
Plan Amendment (DMP2005015) was approved by staff to change the excess
VVVVTP land (subject site) from SUP to MNC/MUC. The temporary fire station
location on the subject site was designated as MNC/MUC; therefore, the
Administrative Amendment did not include this region as part of the request. A
zone change (Z2005115) was approved by the BOS on October 18, 2006,
which changed the Rural-43 zoning to C-0 CUPD/PAD per the designated
Panhandle stipulations. Shown on the next page is the current zoning district
map with the existing Commercial Office zoning districts. Please note there are
no other locations within Anthem with Commercial Office zoning districts.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 21 of 51

[Existing C-0 CUPD/PAD zoning districts.]
Historical CfrInges with Anthem land •
59. Anthem has an extensive history of processing various amendments in order to
change the land use designations to accommodate what they consider to be
current growth and market trends. Anthem was originally projected to build out
in 20 years and was completed in approx. 10 years. The development of the site
was during the high market demand for residential development and was
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 22 of 51

extremely successful in processing subdivisions in record time. The vision of a
self-sustained community has slowly been altered and adjusted to accommodate
market trends without consideration of future problems for the Anthem
community. Amendments and changes to the DMP are the results of current
needs; no consideration of how to sustain the community 5, 10, or 20 years
from now have been addressed. With the increased demand in creating
sustainable communities, Anthem fails at a large level. With the reduction of
potential office for employment, residents within Anthem are forced to leave the
community to find jobs, thus creating additional traffic and pollution. While staff
agrees that not all Anthem residents would be employed within the Anthem
community, even if there were land zoned for that use, if the C-0 land is
removed, there will be no other choice. This section of the report follows
Anthem from the initial design through various amendments and the final
proposal which shows a substantial decline in the amount of the MNC/MUC and
the limited amount of commercial office zoned parcels for development
60. A graphic image of the Anthem DMP displays a total of 965.8 ac. designated as
MNC/MUC dated June 19, 2000. A Major Amendment (DMP200008) was filed by
Anthem to amend the DMP to reduce residential density, adjust arterial
roadways, and reduce the size of the water campus while increasing the area
intended for mixed use. This amendment resulted in an increase of 34.6 ac. as
MNC/MUC for a total of 1,000.4 ac. The BOS approved the amendment on
October 18, 2000. Shown on the following two pages are graphics displaying the
existing DMP land use designations and the increase in the MNC/MUC.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 &. Z2008025
Page 23 of 51

[Existing DMP Exhibit A — Dated June 19, 2000. MNC/MUC 965.8 ad.)
•Rural Reskietta11.I0
.10-1) 0441 •
Wu* Rssidentiii
603.1 L.
Urar fissidwitNePi
ID-41 raa.5 Act
ic-61 lithen Resitienualla,41:„ rm.! •A4
11,1v2 Wrarlreatruni: •
fae Act
West &tie rf.H7
• Pt*arit M13
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 24 of 51

[Proposed DMP Exhibit C — Dated June 19, 2000. MNC/MUC 1,000.4 ac.]
Urbirt Residential/10
10-51 MI AL.)
VNC/KIC 0=4 AO
e Wt atr4it
Ac
61. Anthem requested another Major Amendment DMP2003010 approved by the
BOS on June 16, 2004 to change the land use designation of 101.8 ac. from
MNC/MUC to Urban Residential/Low at the northwestern region of the site to
develop additional residential lots. Staff was amendable to the amendment to
accommodate R1-6 zoning based upon the existing 333.3 acres of MNC/MUC
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 25 of 51

within the panhandle region to provide employment opportunities. The image
shown below displays the proposed amendment.
[Proposed DMP Amendment — Dated March 1, 2004. Reduction of MNC/MUC of 155.4 ac.]
62. Anthem requested a Minor Amendment (DMP2002002) approved by staff on
August 26, 2004 to reduce the size of the Village Center commercial parcel from
20.5 to 10.7 acres. A mapping error discovered in 2004, showed 84 acres having
been changed from MNC/MUC to UR/L. The image on the next page displays the
change in the MNC/MUC designation.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 &. Z2008025
Page 26 of 51

Proposed DMP Exhibit C— Dated March 1, 2004. Reduction of MNC/MUC to 844.7 ac.]
:i14 Rural i$44
Stistan 10-Z =I Residetti
Urban (Di f8S3 Resitirtz' INery LDW.
0 Vitithouse.
63. Anthem requested another Major Amendment (DMP2004006) to change 333.3
acres of MNC/MUC within the Panhandle region of the site to UR/VL. The
amendment was approved by the BOS on February 17, 2005. Staff was not
supportive of the request due to the removal of the only employment
Agenda Items: 4 81. 5 -- Z2007065& Z2008025
Page 27 of 51

component of the DMP. The applicant could not or would not preserve any of
the panhandle region for employment uses. At the Commission hearing the
applicant did agree to pursue C-0 for 20 acres. Staff did acquiesce to the
request because the 20 acres was preferable to the possible scenario of a
complete elimination of all such uses. Shown below are images of the proposed
amendment along with a graphic displaying the existing amount of 511.4 ac. of
MNC/MUC. The original proposal of the MNC/MUC land use designation
accounted for 965.8 with reduction of 47.05% to then current 511.4 ac.
designated as MNC/MUC.
[Proposed DMP Amendment Exhibit B — Da September 24, 2004. Reduction of MNC/MUC to 511.4 ac.]
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 28 of 51

[Proposed DMP Exhibit C — Dated September 24, 2004. A total of 511.4 ac. designated as MNC/MUC.]
C !2€ f411
;east Isl-E 271.2 kamitriaatt.vai, isd
hofiZA4IX i5r4
Waste Atios Twrael
722 0,0
Wm: Cy a= Sark Nem ai —Tr 4.3 :Ad
%Oust
64. Within the MNC/MUC land use designation, there are a total of seven (7)
approved and recorded multi-family subdivisions which comprise a total of
146.55 acres of the 511.4 acres designated as MNC/MUC. The parcels consist of
the following zoning districts: R-2 RUPD, R-3 RUPD, and R-4 RUPD. The multi-
family accounts for 28.65% of the properties designated within the MNC/MUC.
The existing commercial office zoning districts which include a total of five (5)
parcels comprise a total of approx. 25.32 ac. which account for 4.95% of the
511.4 MNC/MUC properties. The existing commercial office zoned parcels
accounts for 0.47% of the overall acreage of the Anthem DMP. The request to
rezone the excess VVWTP land will reduce the commercial office to 15.1 acres
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 29 of 51

which is less than 0.30% of the overall acreage of the Anthem DMP. Please note
there are no other intermediate commercial office zoning districts located within
the unincorporated regions of Anthem. The graphic shown on the below displays
the location of existing multi-family subdivisions with the designated zoning
districts.
[Multi-family subdivisions within the MNC/MUC land use designations.]
Agenda Items: 4 8r. 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 30 of 51

Zoning Districts
65. The proposed zoning district map dated June 19, 2000 did not include a request
to rezone the parcels to commercial office, only intermediate commercial zoning
was proposed at the time. The C-2 zoning accounted for 321.7 acres which
accounted for less than 6.49% of the site. The graphic also displayed approx.
394.7 acres which were not included as part of the rezone request. The original
• zoning proposal included additional land within the Anthem Village Center, and
extensive parcels along Anthem Way and Interstate 17.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 31 of 51

[Proposed Zoning District Map — Dated June 19, 2000.]
11-4 7.1 Mlf 11§9 Id C-2 PD
U ki DOD In-D RFD m
313 Al
— C-2 urit0 PO
Itr-7 5047,41 PAP) D-111 xr 111.2
r cis NUF0 id
R-2 NVIVRURV: 134 k
R-2 RUPD/RUPD: lin Ai::
k;;FL,?..:JF:), V2 4):
j 27;1 At KM Ar
iZED/RUPD
-6 Nkt11114:
R1-7UPDFflVb 3714 Ac
Ri-e NUPDTRUPTI 1,52M Ac
66. The proposed zoning district map as provided with the rezone application
displays the existing zoning along with the proposed change to intermediate
commercial zoning. Commercial Office as shown the map excludes the excess
WWTP acreage with a total of 15.1 acres which is less than 1% of the Anthem
area.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 32 of 51

[Proposed Zoning District Map - submitted with rezone (Z2007065) application.]
Proposed Rezoning to C-2
(101 gross acres - Approximately 8 acres usable)
67. The table shown below represents the adjustments in residential and
commercial zoning districts as presented in 2000 and the current proposal to
intermediate commercial. The figures as presented account for an increase in
residential and a decrease in the amount of commercial zoning for Anthem.
Zoning District 2000 2008 Reduction % of change
(land in acres) (land in acres) or Increase
Rural-43 337.2 483.3 +146.1 + 43.3%
Parcels not rezoned 394.7 - 394.7
R1-35 NUPD/RUPD 218.7 212.1 - 6.6 - 3.01 %
R1-18 NUPD/RUPD 2273 233.1 + 5.8 + 2.55 %
R1-10 NUPD/RUPD 1,071.8 763.1 - 308.7 - 28.80 %
R1-8 NUPD/RUPD 25.6 46.9 + 21.3 + 83.20 %
R1-7 NUPD/RUPD 372.4 386.9 +14.5 + 3.89 %
R1-6 NUPD/RUPD 1,520.1 2,133.5 + 613.4 + 40.35 %
R-2 NUPD/RUPD 334.4 382.6 +48.2 + 14.41 %
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 - Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 33 of 51

R-3 NUPD/RUPD 43.8 24.5 - 19.3 - 44.06 % %
R-4 NUPD/RUPD 64.9 68.8 + 3.9 + 6.00
C-2 CUPD/PAD 321.7 189.3 -132.4 - 41.15 %
C-0 CUPD/PAD 15.1 +15.1
SUP 22.3 15.1 -7.2 - 32.28 %
Total 4,954.9 4,954.3
Promises
68. Anthem was promoted and envisioned as a highly amenitized, self-contained,
multiple use, mixed density community with the tradition and excellence by Del
Webb as established by master planned communities throughout the Country.
Promotion of innovation in planning and design to achieve a socially,
economically, and environmentally healthy community. This type of project
followed the Maricopa County Association of Governments (MAG) study in 1995
classified as "urban form". Per the MAG study as stated with the Introduction
and Purpose of Request the study identifies the visible pattern for future growth
is a "corridor-based" development.
69. Anthem was promoted from the initial start of the project to be a self-sustained
community with various amenities and employment uses. During the years,
Anthem has requested numerous amounts of amendments to change the
MNC/MUC land use designations within Anthem for additional residential
development. The proposed changes to Anthem throughout the years have
resulted in staff trying to bring forward the issues associated with Anthem
becoming a "bedroom community" with the population within Anthem having to
commute out of Anthem for jobs. As shown with the land use designations
through the years, it's clear that Anthem has become exactly what Maricopa
County deters in Development Master Plans. Staff is concerned that the original
proposal, promises, and designs of Anthem as originally promoted to the
Commission and the Board is no longer the mixed use community as originally
envisioned and promoted. Listed below are quotes from various documents
which promoted Anthem as a self-sustained community.
Original Narrative Report (December, 1994) Page 1
"The Villages at Desert Hills is envisioned as a highly amenitized, mixed-use
community consistent with the tradition of excellence Del Webb has
established in its master-planned communities throughout the country."
DMP for the Villages at Desert Hills (December 27, 1994) Page 1
"Few opportunities exist in the metropolitan area for viable new self-contained
communities. Various Valley development projects call themselves 'new'
communities, but for the most part they are nothing more than new
subdivisions with no significant impact on metropolitan development patterns.
The opportunity to provide a full range of visual and recreational amenities
along with residential and employment uses on a strategically located scenic
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 34 of 51

property, while protecting and enhancing environmental features is, at best,
atypical in area development."
"The Villages at Desert Hills is a 5,661 acre self-contained, master planned
community proposed by Del Webb Lakeview Corporation. The Villages at
Desert Hills is designed to offer a broad range of housing types,
retail/commercial services, employment uses and open space/recreational
opportunities that accentuate the natural beauty of the area.
DMP for the Villages at Desert Hills (December 27, 1994) Page 11
"A large portion of the 938-acre burned area (which is void of amenities, lacks
environmental constraints and is adjacent to 1-17) is planned for a mix of
commercial, employment and moderate-density residential uses."
Development Sustainability Report, Page 1
"Del Webb Lakeview Corporation (Del Webb) is proposing to master plan The
Villages at Desert Hills site as a self-contained community with a mix of
residential, commercial, employment, open space and recreation uses.
Development Suitability Report, Page 1
"The central position of The Villages at Desert Hills within the planning area
coupled with its location on a regionally significant transportation corridor, I-
171 makes this project the ideal site to provide the entire planning area with a
range of land uses necessary to support this important region of Maricopa
County."
Development Suitability Report, Page 3
"Few opportunities remain in the metropolitan area for viable new
communities that are more than new subdivisions. The opportunity to provide
The Villages at Desert Hills self-contained community with residential,
employment and retail uses and a full range of visual and recreational
amenities, while protecting important environmental features in a
comprehensive fashion is a-typical in area development "[emphasis added]".
Such a self-contained community requires the combination of significant
acreage, viable residential densities and a mix of service and employment
uses.
"Consultant research shows that The Villages at Desert Hills can support more
than three times as much retail and service uses as typical one-house per acre
development located on the site. These establishments will create a significant
number of new jobs for the area and related revenues to the County."
Development Report, Page 9
"In addition to decreasing costs for infrastructure and services, increased
employment and shopping opportunities will contribute to both private income
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 -- Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 35 of 51

generation in the area as well as to State and County tax revenues to pay for
ongoing public services."
Development Suitability Report, Page 10
"The Villages at Desert Hills is a socially and fiscally responsible project that
provides a spectrum of living and working opportunities for a range of
household types."
Development Suitability Report, Page 10
"The Villages at Desert Hills is designed as a fully contained community. In
addition to avoiding negative impacts of low density sprawl and thus achieving
the above-cited benefits, The Villages at Desert Hills concentrates the traffic,
business activities and residential uses on the site without forcing negative
interaction with the surrounding area "[emphasis added]". With the
development of the proposed self-contained community, many important
aspects of the status quo can be preserved..."
"The Villages at Desert Hills is designed as a highly 'amenitized' mixed-use
community..."
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative (December 27, 1994), Page 9
"The Villages at Desert Hills is a socially, environmentally, and fiscally
responsible project that provides a spectrum of living and working
opportunities..."
Introduction and Purpose of Request (August 18, 1999) Page 2
Delivery of Promised DMP Benefits
"In approving the Anthem Development Master Plan, the Board of Supervisors
recognized that few opportunities exist in the metropolitan area for viable new
self-contained communities. The opportunity on a strategically located property
to provide a full range of residential, commercial and employment uses along a
visual and recreational amenities, while protecting environmental features and
existing residential uses was recognized as a distinct benefit afforded by the
Anthem DMP".
"Inevitable growth along the 1-17 Freeway corridor accommodated in a
masterplanned, self-contained community with a mix of residential, commercial,
employment, recreation and open space uses that avoids continued sprawl of
scattered housing with no services."
"Self-sustaining community projected to generate revenue from property and
sales taxes to pay for public services."
Agenda Items: 4 81. 5 — Z2007065 8/. Z2008025
Page 36 of 51

Environmental, Socio-Economic and Regional Impacts of the Development on
the Surrounding Area (October 18, 2000) Page 18
"The projections for property tax and other revenues generated by Anthem
indicate that the County's road maintenance and other costs will be more than
offset by the production of revenue from the project."
Environmental, Socio-Economic and Regional Impacts of the Development on
the Surrounding Area (October 18, 2000) Page 19
"In addition to providing the above-referenced infrastructure, public facilities and
funding, Anthem will increase employment and shopping opportunities in the
area contributing to both private and income generation as well as to state and
county tax revenues, which in turn pay for ongoing public services. According to
figures obtained from the County, in terms of the overall property tax base and
property tax generation, the Anthem masterplanned community will provide
substantially more revenue directly to the County (not including the school
district or the special county funds such a s flood control district, community
college, library, etc.) than either a continuation of the existing settlement pattern
or a potential alternative of randomly developed, unrelated subdivisions.'
• Balanced Development
"Anthem is a socially and fiscally responsible project that provides a spectrum of
living and working opportunities for a range of household types. Continued
development of the area with only ultra-low density housing creates an
imbalance, which does not positively benefit the overall common good of the
region and the County. For Example:
• Although ultra-low density development is a desired and appropriate land
use for certain designated areas, It is also a "high consumption" land use
pattern. When used exclusively over large areas of land, it can restrict the
land supply and economic feasibility for other vital or socially beneficial
community uses (such as parks, schools, public trails and facilities, and
other recreational opportunities), as well as employment or commercial
uses which are critical to the economic health of the County.
Consequently, it is more difficult and inefficient for the County to provide
needed services to such areas.
• Ultra-low density development restricts the range of housing
opportunities for the broad spectrum of society, and thus reduces the
labor supply, which makes an area less desirable to prospective new
employers.
• Ultra-low density housing limits the size and composition of the market
for retail goods and services, thereby discouraging the provision of retail
shopping and services in dose proximity as well as related employment in
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 - Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 37 of 51

the region. In turn, this has the effect of lengthening trips for
employment, service and recreational needs.
Implementation of the Anthem Protected Development Rights Plan will enable
the County to avoid these negative impacts. The master plan concentrates
traffic, neighborhood shopping, recreational and residential uses on the site
without forcing negative interaction onto the surrounding area."
70. The above listed statements are from various Anthem documents with the
promotion of a "self-contained" community to a project now cited by the
applicant as a region which does not possess the assets and characteristics that
contribute to employment generation. Amendments to the project, slowly
altered the original vision. With a reduction in commercial office acreage within
Anthem, the project fails to meet the design standards as reviewed by the
Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors for a mixed use
Development Master Plan. Staff fully understands that changes in market
conditions can and do occur, but not to the extent that is argued by the
applicant.
71. Development Master Plans are considered a preferred way of development in
the County. DMPs promote standards of prudent and sustainable development.
Creative designs along with a high level of commitment to ensure adequate
facilities and infrastructure are provided. The following features are outlined for
DMPs:
• Mixed land use opportunities and a range of housing types.
• Mixed housing densities that are transitioned with spatial, structural,
and visual buffers.
• Multi-modal transportation opportunities to reduce automobile
dependency and increase access and mobility.
• Flexible standards for roadway design, transit facilities, pedestrian
circulation, and bicycle lanes.
▪ Employment opportunities that contribute to a community's
economic base while increasing the residents to jobs balance.
• Open space preservation to enhance economic value, visual
character, wildlife and vegetation preservation, and residents'
overall quality of life.
Availability of urban services such as water and sewer systems,
police and fire protection, schools (except in retirement
communities), parks, and libraries (if needed and not available
within a reasonable distance).
• Creative and innovative designs
Agenda Items: 4 & 5— Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 38 of 51

Elliott D. Pollack & Company Study Summary
72. . Anthem commissioned an Office Supply and Demand Analysis from Elliott D.
Pollack & Company to analyze the office supply and demand within the area.
The results from the analysis specify the decrease in the amount of residential
units built, a reduction of 4,500 units from the designated approved zoning
densities; therefore, an over supply of employment related land uses are
situated at better locations within Anthem than at the subject property.
Existing office buildings and other related employment uses in Anthem will
result in a significant over supply of office space. The subject site is ill-suited
for office uses and the better use would serve a high quality, secured storage
facility. The Elliott D. Pollack analysis report has been included as an
attachment with the staff report.
73. The Elliott D. Pollack report prepared for Anthem by Del Webb dated June 2007
states they were retained to conduct an office market analysis for Anthem. The
analysis included a review of the existing and planned local office market as well
as build out for office space. The analysis includes an overview of the Metro
Phoenix office market. The report states there are two (2) types of office
building characteristics which are identified as "local-serving" and "region-
serving". The local serving office space is defined in the report as small
professional firms providing services to the nearby population. The report
identifies services to include such uses as real estate agencies, title insurance,
mortgage companies, attorneys, accountants, doctors, and dentists. The region-
serving is defined as locations for regional headquarters and a variety of other •
services such as banking, finance, and insurance. The report states the region-
serving uses typically provide services beyond the city. Amenities and proximity
to labor force along with transportation access are typical of region-serving. The
report provides information on how these two (2) uses are dassified for the
Anthem analysis. Region-serving is not defined in regards to square footage, and
per capita for the designated use. Shown below is a table which provides
information on how the local-serving and region-serving categories have been
identified within the report.
- Z • erykgg
Small Professional firms Regional headquarters
Less than 50,000 sq. ft. in size
8.4 sq. ft. for every person in Maricopa County
2.4 sq. ft. for every person in Maricopa County (medical)
Total of 10.8 per capita for local-serving
Source: Office Supply/Demand Analysis — Elliott D. Pollack & Company June 2007
74. At build out, Anthem will have approximately 10,500 homes. This figure is less
than what was originally planned due to construction of lots with lower densities.
The analysis utilizes 10,500 homes and multiplies it against the 2.7 residents per
unit with a projected population of 28,350. The analysis report utilizes the
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 39 of 51

population figure and multiples it against the 10.8 per capita for the local-serving
to yield 306,180 square feet for local-serving office space. Show below is a table
with the calculations provided by the study. The study is based upon properties
within the City of Phoenix and unincorporated regions of the County.
1)(fibek/ktiiitly
Population 10,500 lots x 2.7 = 28,350 population
Demand for office space 28,350 x 10.8 = 306,180 sq. ft.
Population figure based upon Anthem within City of Phoenix jurisdiction and unincorporated
Maricopa County.
Source: Office Supply/Demand Analysis - Elliott D. Pollack & Company June 2007
75. The analysis states there is approx. 272,000 sq. ft. of office space in Anthem
which includes buildings both complete and under construction. The figure
represents 90% of the expected demand for office space. This figure coupled
with a potential supply of 157,000 sq. ft. of office space on 14.7 acres zoned C-
O, vacant land in the City of Phoenix and potential over supply is 45% higher
than the expected demand (137,000 sq. ft.). The figures computed for the
current inventory, under construction, and potential sq. ft. does not account
specifically for commercial office (C-0) zoned properties but accounts for
intermediate commercial (C-2) zoning along with properties in the City of
Phoenix jurisdiction. Shown below is a table as provided within the analysis
report with the projected oversupply of office space for Anthem.
Offic#15aBland at Build Out
Anthem
Office Demand (in SF)
Demand Factor Demand
Population (SF per Capita) (SF)
28,350 10.8 306,180
Office Supply (in SF) SF
Current Inventory - Occupied & Vacant SF1 152,718
Under Construction 119,000
Total Current Inventory 271,718
Potential Additional SF (From Vacant Sites) 1 171,718
Total 443,436
Over (Under) Supply 137,256
Additional Supply with Flex-Industrial Buildings
Current Space Occupied by Office Uses 38,996
Available Vacant space if Occupied by Office Uses2 34,612
Potential Office Supply from Vacant Land Inventory2 12,980
Total Additional Office Supply Potential 86,588
Indudes office buildings in Anthem, east and west of I-
17
2 1f occupied at 20% rate by office uses
Source: Office Supply/Demand Analysis - Elliott D. Pollack & Company June 2007
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 40 of 51

76. In a memorandum from Rick Merritt with Elliott D. Pollack & Company dated
April 8, 2008, the demand calculation has been updated to include calculations
up to 100,000 sq. ft. with an adjustment in the demand factor to 16.8. The
memorandum states the demand increases to 476,000 sq. ft. Shown below is
the table as identified within the memorandum.
attire Demand at Build Out
Anthem
Office Demand (in SF)
Demand Factor Demand
Population (SF per Capita) (SF)
28,350 16.8 476,280
Office Supply (in SF) SF
Current Inventory — Occupied & Vacant SF1 152,718
Under Construction 119,000
Total Current Inventory 271,718
Potential Additional SF (From Vacant Sites)' 171,718
Total 443,436
Over (Under) Supply (32,844)
Additional Supply with Flex-Industrial Buildings
Current Space Occupied by Office Uses 38,996
Available Vacant space if Occupied by Office Uses2 34,612
Potential Office Supply from Vacant Land Inventors? 12,980
Total Additional Office Supply Potential 86,588
Potential Over (Under) supply including Flex 53,744
Buildings
1 Includes office buildings in Anthem, east and west of I-
17
2 If occupied at 20% rate by office uses
Source: Office Supply/Demand Analysis — Elliott D. Pollack & Company Apnl 8, 2008
77. Flex industrial buildings located within the City of Phoenix jurisdiction have the
potential for office uses located on the west side of Interstate 17. The analysis
states 39,000 sq. ft. of flex space is occupied by office uses or about 20% of the
total flex sq. ft. If this figure remains constant a total of nearly 87,000 sq. ft. of
flex space could be occupied by office uses. The availability of the flex space
contributes to the over supply of potential office space. The analysis report
states the original projection of 14,000 units to 10,500 units a reduction of 25%,
the amount of land zoned for office purposes has not commensurately. A lower
build out will proportionately affect demand for retail as well as local serving
office uses.
78. The conclusion of the analysis states the inventory of office space which is
currently built or under construction within Anthem is slightly less than the
forecasted demand for the community at build out with land already zoned for
office uses. The analysis also indicates that according to real estate brokers
working in the area the demand for office is limited and there exists a sizable
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 41 of 51

inventory of C-2 zoned land that can accommodate office uses. Due to the
remote location, the population of Anthem creates limited demand for local-
serving office uses. The report states, "The requirement of the County to
balance employment with population in a master planned community is a wise
policy, but must be used with reason". The report states the location of
Anthem is far from the available labor pool, major employers are not willing to
locate in the community. The conclusion section of the study also provides the
following statement:
"Not all communities will possess the assets and characteristics that contribute
to employment generation. Zoning and planning policies oriented toward
forcing a mix of employment and residential uses on every master planned
community will not work within the local real estate market. The fact that
there is limited office development in Anthem after ten years of development
activities is testimony to this conclusion. Planning policies need to take into
account the proximity of residential communities to centers of employment as
means of promoting a reasonable jobs to housing balance".
79. The analysis references other locations outside of Anthem which are suitable
for industrial and office development. Employment centers include the
Interstate 17 corridor and Deer Valley Airport. These employment centers are
less than 15 miles from Anthem which is a reasonable commute for most
valley residents. The employment base in the Deer Valley Airport area grows,
Anthem will become a more attractive housing alternative for residents
working in the Interstate 17 and Loop 101 vicinity.
80. The existing and future supply of office space which excludes the 10.9 acre
parcel is sufficient to more than meet the demand for services from Anthem
residents at build out. The report states all of Anthem's office tenants are
local-serving, meaning that they primarily offer services to the nearby
population. The report also expands on the Metro Phoenix Office Market which
has not been summarized within this section of the report since this
information analyzes office within other jurisdictions.
81. The Study also includes an Office Inventory within Anthem which identifies
buildings located within unincorporated Maricopa County and the business
park within the City of Phoenix. The flex buildings in the business park are
utilized by office tenants. Shown below is a copy of the table for Office & Flex
Space in Anthem dated June 2007.
Office & Flex Space in Anthem
June-07
East of 1-17 West of 1-17 Total
Office Office Flex Office Flex
Acres SF Acres SF Acres SF Acres SF Acres SF
Existing 15.0 131,918 2.4 20,800 31.3 361,495 17.4 152,718 31.3 361,495
Buildings
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 42 of 51

Under 13.7 119,000 1.0 14,652 13.7 119,000 1.0 14,652
Construction
Vacant Land 14.7 1.1 6.0 15.8 6.0
Total 43.3 250,918 3.5 20,800 38.3 376,147 46.8 271,718 38.3 376,147
Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co., Kammrath & Associates, Maricopa County Assessor
82. The study indicates there is nearly 15.8 acres of vacant land in Anthem which
are zoned for office uses. This vacant land could yield an additional 172,000
sq. ft. Six acres of vacant flex land which would yield 65,000 sq. ft. No
indication in the report of where the 15.8 and 6.0 acres are located within
Phoenix or Maricopa County. Summaries of the build out potential has been
included below.
Summary of Office & Flex Build-Out Potential
Anthem
Office Flex Grand
Total
Existing 152,718 361,495 514,213
Under Construction 119,000 14,652 133,652
Vacant Land Yield 171,953 64,904 236,858
Total 443,671 441,051 884,723
Source: Elliott D. Pollack fik Co., Pulte Homes, Maricopa County
Assessor
• 83. The study indicates there are 102 businesses identified as occupied office and
flex space. The breakdown for uses of the 102 businesses includes 39 for
medial office, 13 financial, 10 real estate which comprise 61% of all office and
flex tenants. 20% of flex-industrial occupants are office users. Flex
designation can be utilized for various purposes to include light industrial and
office uses. If the 20% of flex occupants continue with office uses there is a
potential for an additional 48,000 sq. ft. of flex space that could be utilized for
office. This figure could be higher or lower depending upon leasing conditions.
Anthem has good regional access adjacent to Interstate 17. Anthem Way
interchange is located 14 miles north of the Loop 101 which limits Anthem's
ability to attract larger office tenants. The Anthem Way interchange is located
11 miles north of Happy Valley Rd. where employers are starting to locate
with offices and industrial buildings. The Deer Valley Airport is emerging as a
major regional business center will preclude the development of large office
uses in Anthem.
Planning St7)ff Analysis of Elliott D. Pollack Company Stvdy
84. One the primary arguments provided by the applicant is that there is an
abundance in the amount of employment already built or available in the
Anthem area. This information is based upon the review and analysis conducted
by Elliott D. Pollack & Company. Staff reviewed the analysis and prepared an
analysis to the information contained within the report which does not
substantiate the abundance of office employment located within Anthem. A copy
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 -- Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 43 of 51

of the analysis conducted by staff has been included as an attachment to the
staff report.
85. Staff was unable to confirm the statistics and assumptions within the report
since we do not have access to such data. Since the report was commissioned
by the applicant, there is possibility of the statistics to be used and viewed in
a way to support the applicant's position of an oversupply of office space
within Anthem. The study focuses on properties which are located within the
City of Phoenix and unincorporated regions of the County. The analysis
conducted by staff presents information dealing only with the unincorporated
regions of the County regarding development, agreements, and stipulations
associated with the DMP within the County.
86. The study attempts to provide a limitation on the square footage for local-
serving uses with "less than 50,000 sq. ft." but fails to provide the basis for this
determination or what figures are utilized to calculate the change from local to
region-serving uses. Staff believes this figure of less than 50,000 sq. ft. aid in
bolstering the applicant's attempt to support their request for the rezone of the
property to intermediate commercial. By establishing a limitation on the sq. ft.
for the local-serving office market, the study justifies an "oversupply" of local-
serving office. If the figures were to include administrative and medical office
buildings up to 100,000 sq. ft. the figures would increase to 18.77 sq. ft. thus
resulting in a local-serving office demand of 532,130 sq. ft. or 74% greater than
the study's recommendation. The increase would also result in an shortage of
88,694 sq. ft. The "potential office" were developed for retail commercial use,
the shortage would increase to 260,412 sq. ft. Shown below are the figures
computed by staff.
Office Demand Anthem—Staff Analysis
Office Demand (in SF)
Demand Factor Demand
Population (SF per Capita) (SF)
28,350 18.77 532,130
Office Supply (in SF) SF
Current Inventory — Occupied & Vacant SF 152,718
Under Construction 119,000
Total Current Inventory 271,718
Potential Additional SF (From Vacant Sites) 171,718
Total 443,436
Over (Under) Supply (88,694)
Source: Planning and Development Analysis — August 28, 2007
87. The report addresses that region-serving employment was not interested in
locating in Anthem. The position by the County is that the commercial office is
intended for local serving uses, not designated to bring in only large scale
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 &. Z2008025
Page 44 of 51

employers or headquarters. Commercial retail and office uses are intended to
provide goods and services to the local market of the DMP.
88. The report not only utilizes properties within the City of Phoenix but also the
"potential" for future office development. The study utilizes the potential office
into the contribution for oversupply. The base intermediate commercial zoning
district (C-2) does allow for office uses along with a series of other uses as a by
right. The concern is that if an office use which is currently in the C-2 zoning
district ceases to operate, the base zoning will allow a series of uses which is
beyond the limitation of an office use. The study includes a listing of various
businesses which are retail in use not office uses. The position from staff is that
these retail services are vital to Anthem, but these are not office uses and
therefore the intermediate commercial can not be counted as potential office
uses. We can not assume that office uses will occur or be maintained on the
intermediate commercial zoned parcels or within the Phoenix flex-industrial
space. These figures should not be accounted for in the numerical calculation.
An assumption is made in the study that office uses will occur in the C-2 or
Phoenix flex-industrial space.
89. The report includes justification for a reduction of office product by stating the
number of residential units dropped to 10,500 the amount of land zoned and
used for office purposes has not changed commensurately. Staff disagrees with
the statement based upon two primary reasons: 1) the original zoning was
Rural-43; therefore, the amount of land zoned for office would, and obviously
not be reduced — commensurately or otherwise. 2) There has been a significant
amount of conversions of land originally planned for office and other non-
residential uses to residential uses.
90. Anthem consists of 96% zoned for residential uses, while less than 0.5% is
zoned for office employment uses. The DMP is below the County's land use
standards by 91% and with the request to eliminate the existing commercial
office acreage, Anthem will be at 95% below the standards. Staff is unable to
understand the justification provided by the applicant in regards to excessive
employment uses.
91. The base zoning of the intermediate commercial allows up to 91 other types of
uses beyond office. It is not clear how an assumption can be made that offices
uses developed in C-2 or not converted to a retail commercial use in the future.
92. Staff analysis includes a recommendation to initiate a zone change for all parcels
within the C-2 CUPD/PAD zoning districts that contain office uses in order to
change these parcels to C-0 CUPD/PAD. The recommendation by staff will help
the validity of the assumptions of office uses have and will locate in the C-2
zoning district. Secondary, this could be processed as a commission initiative so
there would not be a cost to the applicant. The recommendation by staff would
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 45 of 51

guarantee additional office uses and services in order to aid in mitigation of
traffic impacts in the area, mitigate air quality issues, and provide a balance of
land uses.
93. Based upon the analysis by staff, there currently are no existing commercial
office buildings within the C-0 zoning districts which have been constructed.
These sites are currently under construction due to the recent approvals of
the Plan of Developments by the BOS. Parcels 4A and 4B of the Anthem East
Side Mixed Use includes the potential for 141,497 sq. ft. of commercial office
space. Parcel 4A consists of 6.65 acres for the Anthem Corporate Center. The
Plan of Development for this project was approved by the BOS on October 31,
2007 which includes two (2) double story buildings with a total of 98,426 sq.
ft. Reliance Office Condominiums Plan of Development was approved by the
BOS on April 4, 2007 and is located on parcel 5B which consists of 7.77 acres.
The project will include the construction of five (5) single story office buildings
with a total of 43,071 sq. ft. The projected office employment sq. ft. within
the unincorporated region of the County accounts for 141,497 sq. ft. The
excess WWTP land has not been processed with a Plan of Development.
94. Staff has received two e-mails in opposition to the request. The concerns
include that residents have not read or heard of any of the details of the
project and that the residents are not aware if hazardous materials are going
to be stored in the facility which is in close proximity to homes and the high
school. The proposed use of mini-storage is inappropriate, and could devalue
the property and community as a whole. The correspondence also states that
the builder never communicated to them that there could be the possibility of
a mini-storage facility. The east side of Interstate 17 is not an industrial type
of area
Recommendation:
95. Staff recommends the Commission motion for denial of Z20070t r. for the
following reasons:
• The proposal will not provide a balance of employment related land uses
in Anthem.
• The proposal does not meet the intent of the Anthem DMP.
• Anthem is below the minimum balance of land uses.
• The associated use for the mini-storage, RV and boat storage, and truck
rentals can be accommodated in the existing C-0 CUPD/PAD zoning
district with a SUP.
96. If the Commission chooses to approve the request, then staff offers the
following stipulations:
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 46 of 51

a. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the Narrative
Report entitled, "Narrative Report — Case #Z2007065 Rezoning Anthem
Excess WVVTP Campus & Temporary Fire Station Site from C-0 to C-2",
consisting of five pages, dated revised August 2008, and stamped
received August 21, 2008, except as modified by the following
stipulations.
b. The following Maricopa County Department of Transportation stipulation
shall apply:
1. Recommend approval subject to a unit plan of development.
c. Precise Plan of Development and any necessary subdivision plats shall be
processed prior to development.
d. Major changes to the narrative report shall be processed as a revised
application, with approval by the Board of Supervisors upon
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Minor
changes may be administratively approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Major changes to the project may require a
new Citizen Participation Process as determined by the Planning and
Development Department.
e. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval will be treated as a
violation in accordance with the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
Further, noncompliance of the conditions of approval may be grounds
for the Planning and Zoning Commission to take action in accordance
with Chapter 3 (Conditional Zoning).
The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution
in value if the County takes action to rescind approval due to
noncompliance with stipulations.
97. Staff recommends the Commission motion for den a of Z2008025 for the
following reasons:
• The proposal will not provide a balance of employment related land uses
in Anthem.
• The proposal does not meet the intent of the Anthem DMP.
• Anthem is below the minimum balance of land uses.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 47 of 51

98. If the Commission chooses to approve the request, then staff offers the
following stipulations:
a. Development of the site shall comply with the site plan entitled, "Request
for a Special Use Permit for Self Storage Anthem", consisting of 8 full-size
pages, dated revised August 18, 2008, and stamped received August 21,
2008, except as modified by the following stipulations.
b. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the narrative report
entitled, "Narrative Report Z2008025 Special Use Permit for Americor Self
Storage Anthem", consisting of 4 pages, dated revised August 2008, and
stamped received August 21, 2008, except as modified by the following
stipulations.
c. Development of the site shall comply with the Landscape Plan entitled,"
Americor Investment Grp. Self Storage Anthem, consisting of 1 full-size
sheet, dated revised June 24, 2008, and date stamped received July 21,
2008, except as modified by the following stipulations. All trees shall be
double staked when installed.
d. A corrective plat or affidavit of correction will be required to change the
location of the utility easement prior to issuance of a zoning clearance for
the subject site.
e. The applicant/owner will be required to process a minor land division of
the 0.88 acre parcel within 30 days of BOS approval of the SUP case
Z2008025. The stipulation is based upon the review completed by
Drainage for the SUP application which exduded the 0.88 acre region.
f. All transformers, back-flow prevention devices, utility boxes and all
other utility related ground mounted equipment shall be painted to
complement the development and shall be screened with landscape
material where possible. All HVAC units shall be ground-mounted or
screened with a continuous parapet for commercial projects.
g. Prior to issuance of any permits for development of the site, the
applicant/property owner shall obtain the necessary encroachment
permits from the Maricopa County Department of Transportation
(MCDOT) for landscaping or other improvements in the right-of-way.
h. All outdoor lighting shall conform to the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 48 of 51

Development and use of the site shall comply with requirements for fire
protection measures as deemed necessary by the applicable fire
department. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance or Final Plat approval,
the applicant shall seek review and comment from the applicable fire
protection agency, and shall provide written confirmation that the site will
be developed in accordance with their requirements.
J. Prior to zoning clearance, developer(s) and/or builder(s) shall establish
emergency fire protection services, covering all real property contained
within the project area during course of construction and shall obtain a
serve' letter substantiating coverage from the appropriate Fire
Department servicing the site.
k. The applicant or his successor shall obtain approval of any development
plans from the Office of the Arizona State Fire Marshal prior to any
construction.
This Special Use Permit shall expire 20 years from the date of approval
by the Board of Supervisors, or upon expiration of the lease to the
applicant, or upon termination of the use, whichever occurs first. All of
the site improvements shall be removed within 60 days of such
termination or expiration.
m. The applicant shall submit a written report outlining the status of the
development at the end of 5 years from the date of approval by the
Board of Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by staff to
determine whether the Special Use Permit remains in compliance with
the approved stipulations.
n. Major changes to the Site Plan and narrative report shall be processed
as a revised application, with approval by the Board of Supervisors
upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Minor
changes may be administratively approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Major changes to the project may require a
new Citizen Participation Process as determined by the Planning and
Development Department.
o. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval will be treated as a
violation in accordance with the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
Further, noncompliance of the conditions of approval may be grounds
for the Planning and Zoning Commission to take action in accordance
with Chapter 3 (Conditional Zoning).
P. Noncompliance with the regulations administered by the Maricopa
County Environmental Services Department, Maricopa County
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 49 of 51

Department of Transportation, Drainage Review Division, Planning and
Development Department, or the Flood Control District of Maricopa
County may be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Special Use
Permit as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
q. The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution
in value if the County takes action to rescind approval due to
noncompliance with stipulations.
Planners: Rachel Applegate
Matt Holm, AICP, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Darren V. Gerard, AICP, Deputy Director
Attachments:
Zoning Case Case Map (1 page)
Vicinity Map (1 page)
Narrative Report (5 pages)
1st Routing Memo (1 page)
Comprehensive Planning Comments (4 pages)
MCDOT comments (1 page)
MCESD comments (1 page)
DPR comments (1 page)
ADOT comments (1 page)
City of Phoenix letters (2 pages)
NR/DHCA comments (2 pages)
Elliott D. Pollack Study (27 pages)
Memorandum to Elliott D. Pollack Study (1 page)
Planning Staff Analysis to Elliott D. Pollack Study (12
pages)
SUP Case Case Map (1 page)
Vicinity Map (1 page)
Site Plan Site Plan (reduced 8.5" x 11", 8 pages)*
Narrative Report (4 pages)
1st Routing Memo (1 page)
Comprehensive Planning Comments (4 pages)
MCDOT comments (1 page)
MCESD comments (1 page)
DPR comments (1 page)
Zoning (1 page)
City of Phoenix letters (2 pages)
ADOT comments (1 page)
NR/DHCA comments (2 pages)
E-mail from Pat Henson in opposition (1 page)
Agenda Items: 4 & 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 50 of 51

E-mail from Jim & Nancy Chadwick in opposition (1 page)
E-mail from Joe Romani in opposition (1 page)
Enclosures: Site Plan (reduced 11"x17")*
[*Full-size plans are available upon request.]
Agenda Items: 4 &. 5 — Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 51 of 51

M AICOPA COUNTY, „A Ftk ONA
MAR ICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
R .0
R-2 Z07-065 1.
stevvate r Tre atment F a cil ity
RU-43
C.0
C-2
Drawn By: DW 07/06 007 Legal Description: 3E4 ction: 22 Township: 06N 02E
Applicant's Name: EARL, CURLEY & LAGARDE Phone-. (02)265-0094 Zoning Map Z2007065
Case Address: SIDE GAALAN P EAK PARKWAY @ KING DR Parcel:203-10-933 Al 04
SUPER SOR DISTRICT NO. 3
Legend
RE - UEST:
! Zoning ANTHEM
REZONE FROM C-0 TO C-2 ZONING
Streets (8A ACRES)
equals 350'
Floodplain MARICOPA COUNTY
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHOENIX, ARIZONA

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
AR ICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
R-2
RU-43
Desert Hills
Tanya ill
Tanya Trl
Drawn By: DW 07/06aoo7 Legal Description: SE4 Section: 22 Township: 06N 02E
Applicant's Name: EARL, CURLEY & LAGARDE Phone: (602)265-0094 Zoning Map Z2007065
Case Address: W SIDE GAILAN PEAK PARKWAY 6t KING DR Parcel: 203-10-933 Al 04
SUPER :VISORAL DISTRICT NO.
Legend
REQI EST:
! Zoning ANTHEM
REZONE FROM C-0 TO C-2 ZONING
(8A ACRES)
Streets
Floodplain MA RIC OPA COUNTY uals t000'
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHOENIX, ARIZONA

• II TIVE REPORT — CASE # 2007065
REZO I G
Anthem Excess WWTP Campus & Temporary Fire Station Site
from C-0 to C-2
North of the Northwest Corner of Gavilan Peak Parkway 8z
Daisy Mountain Drive
Property Subject
to this
Application•
Maricopa County, Arizona
May 2007
March 2008 — Revised
August 2008- Revised Z2007065
RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2008

Purpose of the Request
This is a request to rezone this approximately 8.4 gross acre site located north of the northwest
corner of Gavilan Peak Parkway and Daisy Mountain Drive from C-0 (Commercial Office) to
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to increase the range of service uses available to the site since
there has been no market interest in the site for employment uses under the current C-0 zoning
(see Vicinity Map - Tab A). A concurrent Special Permit request has been filed with Maricopa
County to accommodate a commercial storage facility on 7.5 gross acres of the site. The site is
the excess land in front of the Anthem wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) campus and former
temporary fire station site. This property was rezoned from Rural-43 to C-0 in October 2006
(see Existing Zoning District Map — Tab B).
The following is a summary of our request:
0 Rezone the excess land in the WWTP campus and former temporary fire
station site from C-0 CUPD/PAD to C-2 CUPD/PAD totaling 8.4 acres
(see Proposed Zoning District Maps — Tab C).
Relationship to Surrounding Properties
C-2 zoning with the proposed Special Pennit for commercial storage facilities is an excellent use
for this oddly located parcel and will fill a critical need for convenient storage uses to serve the •
greater Anthem area. The area is a mix of uses comprised of retail commercial property at Daisy
Mountain Drive, two churches, the WWTP, athletic fields for the high school, and residential to
the northeast approximately 200 feet across Gavilan Peak Parkway. The area around the site is
fully developed with non-residential uses, except for the residential located northeast of the site
across a fully developed parkway. In particular, a fully functional WWTP operates to the west of
the site. All attempts to market the property for office uses over the past several years have been
unsuccessful. It simply is not an attractive location for office uses situated in front of and at the
entrance to the WWTP.
Location and Accessibility
The site is located approximately 1,500 feet north of the Gavilan Peak Parkway and Daisy
Mountain Drive intersection. The property has full access at a median cut in Gavilan Peak
Parkway, which is a fully improved four lane parkway.
Description of Proposal
In stipulations of approval of the Anthem Panhandle DMP amendment (Case #DMP2004006)
and PD amendment (Case #Z2004006) (February 2005), Anthem was required to rezone several
parcels north of the Panhandle area from C-2 and Rural-43 to C-0 to encourage development
with employment related uses; specifically Parcels 4A14B, the former temporary fire station site,

and the excess land in the WWTP campus, which was originally set aside for future expansion of
the plant. The stipulation in both the DMP and PD amendment cases read as follows:
"Prior to approval of the first final plat in the Panhandle area, the applicant shall submit an
application to rezone from C-2 to C-0 the north half of Parcel 4A (7 ac.) and Parcel 4B (8 ac.),
located on Venture Court south of Anthem Way, and shall thereafter process this application
through the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the applicant agrees to work with Arizona
American (to amend the existing Special Use Permit area for the Water Campus to remove the
excess property on the west side of Gavilan Peak Parkway) and also work with the Daisy
Mountain Fire Department (to relocate the temporal)/ fire station currently located in this same
area to its permanent location) in order to enable these parcels totaling approximately 5 acres to
be submitted and processed for C-0 zoning for employment related uses."
In compliance with these stipulations, the C-0 rezoning for the excess land in the WWTP and
former temporary fire station site was processed and approved by the County in October 2006.
The rezoning of Parcels 4A14B to C-0 was approved earlier in December 2005.
During the County's consideration of the Panhandle rezoning case, the County's Planning Staff
wanted approximately five acres of employment uses in this area. In the course of working out
the compromise to ensure that certain properties would be developed with employment uses,
Anthem offered more acreage for C-0 than Staff had requested. Parcels 4A14B consist of over
15 acres and are in the heart of Anthem's mixed use area and are best suited for office and other
employment uses. As previously stated, these parcels were rezoned from C-2 to C-0 to seek
development with employment uses. In their zeal to meet Staff's objectives, Anthem also agreed
to add the excess land in the WWTP campus and the former temporary fire station property to
the stipulation. At the time of the D/AP and PD amendments for the Panhandle, the WWTP and
fire station sites were thought to total five acres in area, but have turned out to be larger than
originally anticipated at 8.4 total acres gross.
Anthem aggressively marketed the subject property over the last 24 months for
office/employment use, but this location has simply proven to not have viability for such uses.
Over the last two years Anthem's marketing campaign to attract office/employment uses to the
site did not produce a single prospective tenant. Moreover, Anthem's marketing consultant has
determined that the rezoning of Parcels 4A14B to C-0 has fully satisfied the demand for
employment zoning in the Anthem area. Anthem also commissioned a market analysis from
Elliott D. Pollack & Company to analyze office supply and demand in this area (submitted
under separate cover). That study determined empirically that given the significant decrease in
actual units built in Anthem from the approval density (4,500 residential units below original
zoning approvals), there is an over supply of employment related land use at better locations in
the master plan than the subject property. Given all of the existing office buildings and other
employment related uses in Anthem, there will be a significant over supply of office space with
the current zoning. It is no longer reasonable to hold this site for other uses for which it is ill-
suited. The better use and one that would address an important need is high quality, secured
storage facilities. As such, Anthem is proposing to rezone the 8.4 acres from C-0 to C-2 with a
Special Permit to develop the majority of the site with commercial storage facilities.

Since the other employment related sites in the vicinity of Interstate-17 and Anthem Way
provide over 15 acres of C-0, adequate opportunity for office uses has been provided that
actually exceed Staff's original request for more office zoning in the Anthem area.
The DM:F' Amendment Summary table below illustrates that with the 4,500 unit reduction in
density over the years, the amount of commercial office/industrial land area per unit far exceeds
the original ratios in the DMP.
Amendments Summary
1995 1997 1999 2000 2004 2005 2005
(Original (Country Club (Freeway (Parkside (Freeway Amendment) Village (Panhandle Panhandle
Zoning) Amendment) Village Amendment) Amendment) Follow-Up
Amendment)
295-53 Z95-53A 295-53Q 2200098 22003125 22004075 Z2005092 Z2005115
Total Gross 5661 5661 5858 5858 5858 5858 5858
Acres
C-2/C-S/C-0/ 214 261 446.3 446.3 317.5 317.5 337.6
Industrial ac.
Residential 16,526 14,000 15,025 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Units
Commercial/ 564 s.f. 812 s.f. 1,294 s.f. 1,620 s.f. 1,152 s.f. 1,152 s.f. 1,225 s.f.
Office/
Industrial
Land Area
per Unit
Approval of this request will not increase the need for nor will it diminish the current availability
of community/public facilities or services in Anthem. Approval of this request does not affect
the carrying capacity of the arterial streets. Traffic studies addressing operational aspects have
been consistently requested and provided with the review and approval of site plans and
subdivisions. All parcels are requested to continue with the Protected Development Rights.
Circulation
On-site circulation will be typical to commercial and/or office development with proper
driveway aisles and parking layout. The circulation layout will be presented at the time of site
plan review.
The site is adjacent to a fully improved four lane parkway, which is appropriate for commercial
development. A full access median break is located central to the site providing full turning
movements into the property. Depending on the layout of any future site plan, additional right-

in/right-out accesses onto Gavilan Peak Parkway may be provided and will be constructed to
County standards.
Development Schedule
The proposed commercial storage facility will be developed as a single phase with the remaining
approximately one-acre pad to be developed as the market demands.
Community Facilities and Services
The use of this site was originally anticipated for additional wastewater treatment facilities. As
Anthem has developed out far below original density estimates, it was determined that this
property would not be necessary for future expansion. A one-acre portion of the site was utilized
by the Daisy Mountain Fire Department for a temporary fire station, which is no longer
necessary with the opening of their permanent station. Since the site is currently commercial and
will remain commercial, impacts on community facilities and services will not change.
Public Facilities and Services
Public utilities and services are provided to the site from the following service providers:
Water — Arizona-American Water Company
Wastewater — Arizona-American Water Company
Electric — APS
Fire — Daisy Mountain Fire Department
Refuse — Private
School District — Deer Valley Unified
OAINDEVAmericorkAnthem MiniarchauselDocz \Rezone \Rezone Nrt Agut 21:08.doe

Panning Developm3nt ONE
Department STOP
S OP
DATE: Friday, June 15, 2007
TO: DISTRIBUTION NOTED BELOW
FROM: Rachel Applegate, Planner, Planning and Zoning Division
RE: Anthem, Rezone to C-2 — 1st Re'j
CASE #: Z2007065
Enclosed are the following application materials relating to the zoning case noted above
date stamped received 6/12/07:
• Application
• Narrative Report
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will not hold a meeting to discuss the above-
referenced case. However, please return comments regarding this case as soon as
possible.
Please call me at 602-372-0318 (or email to rachelapplegateC&mail.maricopa.gov) if you
have any questions. Thank you
City of Phoenix
Deer Valley Unified School Dist.
Daisy Mountain Fire District
New River/Desert Hills Community Association
Dove Valley Coalition
Bradshaw Foothills Coalition
Arizona Dept. of Transportation
Maricopa County Dept. of Emergency Management
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY (memo only via e-mail):
Steven Earl, Earl, Curley & Lagarde
Gary Pasciak, MCDOT
Wes Shonerd, MCESD
William Haas, Drainage Review
Matt Holm, Comprehensive Planning
Ana Gorbenko, Flood Control District
Ron Wood, Plan Review
501 N. 44th Street, Suite 100 • Phoenix, AZ 85008 • (602) 372-0318 (602) 506-8369 fax
rachelapplegate@mail.maricopa.gov
561 >Internet: www.maricopa.govipianning4 Rev 1-9-02

Maricopa ,ounty
Planning & Development Department
11111111111,11.MMEM
orth 44th Street, Suite 100
ix, Arizona 85008
: (602) 506-3301
,02) 506-3601
maricopa,gov/planning TO: Rachel Applegate, Project Management
FROM: Matt Holm, Comprehensive Planning
DATE: June 20, 2007
SUBJECT: Z2007065 (Anthem zone change)
• Comprehensive Planning has reviewed the material submitted for the above
referenced case. Our position regarding this request is outlined below.
This request relates directly to two previous DMP amendments approved by
the Board of Supervisors in June, 2004 (case #DMP 2003010) and February.
2005 (case # DMP 2004006) respectively. With respect to case DMP
2003010, staff was amenable to this amendment to change approximately
102 acres from commercial, employment, and mixed-use to residential that -
accommodated R1-6 zoning. Staff did not oppose this amendment primarily .
because of the approximately 333 acres of commercial, employment, and
mixed-use land that remained as part of the so-called 'panhandle' of Anthem.
While concerned about the loss of the 102 acres of non-residential
development, staff was comfortable knowing that the remaining 333 acres
would provide employment opportunities for the DMP and larger area, albeit
at a reduced amount.
Approximately a year and a half later, the Board approved case DMP
2003010. Under that amendment — commonly referred to as the
"panhandle" amendment — the applicant requested and was granted a
change in land use from commercial, office, and mixed-use designations to
residential (allowing up to 4 du/ac) on the approximately 333 acres in the
southern part of Anthem. At the time of this amendment, staff expressed
opposition because this removed the only significant employment component
to a DMP that has otherwise devolved into a mostly large residential
development. This is contrary to Maricopa County's Board of Supervisors-
adopted DMP guidelines which promote mixed-use DMPs to provide balanced
uses, help mitigate traffic and air quality problems, provide valuable services
and employment opportunities to local residents, and provide an overall

cops County June 20, 2007
iing & Development Z2007065
irtment
s.1. Central St., 3'3 Floor 2
nix, Arizona 85004-2191
le: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
enhanced quality of life. One of the consequences of this devolution has been
the significant traffic problems that have developed on Interstate 17 between
the Phoenix area and the Anthem project, which are in part a result of a lack
of employment opportunities in this area.
During evaluation of DMP 2003010, staff encouraged the applicant to look for
opportunities to preserve at least a portion of the 303 acres for employment
opportunities. The applicant either could not or would not preserve any of the
panhandle for employment uses. However, at the Commission hearing the
applicant did agree to pursue C-0 office zoning for 20 acres located on
Venture Court north of the panhandle area. While staff did not believe that
the net loss of another 283 acres of retail, employment, and mixed land uses
was equitable, it did acquiesce to this request because it felt that 20 acres
was preferable to a possible scenario of complete elimination of all such uses.
Through these two amendments the ratio of lost to added retail, employment,
and mixed-use land use acreage within the Anthem DMP is approximately 435
to 20, or 21.75 to 1. Staff believes that this is not an improvement to the
Anthem DMP, nor does it serve Maricopa County or its residents in a positive
manner.
While staff believes that these amendments together have had a negative
impact on the Anthem DMP and surrounding area, the applicant is now
requesting that approximately 11 acres that they agreed to set aside for
office employment uses with the previous DMP amendment be rezoned for C-
- 2 retail use. This would result in an even further reduction in employment
land uses, thus further contribute to additional traffic and air quality.
problems, and reinforce Anthem's status as primarily a large residential
project that is not consistent with Maricopa County's vision for master
planned communities in unincorporated areas. Staff is also disappointed in
that the applicant is, in effect, backtracking on an agreement it made with
staff, the Commission, and Board of Supervisors only two years ago. While
staff does not believe the applicant is violating the stipulation regarding this
agreement, it does believe that it is not being honored in good faith only two
years after approval. While staff does not believe that maintaining these 11
acres for employment uses will significantly change the traffic problems that
have already been generated by Anthem, it does believe that it will to some
extent help by not further contributing to these problems, and help provide
some balance of land uses as directed by Maricopa County's comprehensive
plan and development master plan guidelines.

1111111111.11111111.11.110-
copa County June 20, 2007
-Ling & Development Z2007065
ix-talent
'4. Central St.., 3"d Floor 3
:nix, Arizona 85004-2191
le: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
Per the narrative report, part of the applicant's justification for this zone
change is that the 15 acres of C-0 zoning in the vicinity of Interstate-17 and
Anthem Way provide adequate opportunities for office uses. Staff strongly
disagrees with this assessment, and to further demonstrate how inadequate
the employment opportunities within the Anthem DMP have become after the
past several amendments, staff provides the following:
• The Board of Supervisors-adopted Development Master Plan Guidelines
recommends that all DMPs have an employment land use ratio of 10
acres per 1,000 residents.
• Based on the applicant's narrative report Anthem contains 12,000
residential units, which generates an approximate population of 32,400
residents (based on Census 2000 estimates of 2.7 persons per
household)
• Based on Maricopa County's recommended guidelines, the minimum
requirements for Anthem are approximately 324 acres of office or other
large-scale professional (non-retail) employment uses.
• If left with only 15 acres of professional employment land uses, Anthem
would be over 95% below Maricopa County's minimum recommended
standard.
• In relation to Maricopa County's minimum requirements, the remaining
15 acres of professional (non-retail) employment uses in Anthem
following these amendments would be intended to serve only 1,500
people. When compared to the estimated population of Anthem, it is
apparent to staff that Anthem not only does not meet Maricopa County's
minimum standards, but is significantly below the county's minimum
standards.
Contrasted to the 15 acres of professional employment land uses provided,
Anthem contains approximately 197 acres of retail commercial. While staff
believes that retail commercial is an important component of any DMP,
including Anthem, staff does not believe that additional retail should be added
at the expense of the needed employment which is already significantly
below Maricopa County's recommended standard. Further, staff does not
believe that the applicant has made a compelling argument for the need for
additional C-2 intermediate commercial zoning — which allows for potentially
incompatible uses such as adult businesses, auto and boat sales, theaters,

copa County June 20, 2007
ning & Development Z2007065
artrnent
q , Central St-, 3'd Floor 4
mix, Arizona 850042191
ae: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
and other large-scale commercial establishments — as opposed to less
intense neighborhood C-1 or C-S zoning.
Based on our findings, staff does not believe this zone change request results
in an improvement to the Anthem DMP, and thus staff recommends denial of
this zone change request. If you have any questions regarding our position,
please feel free to contact me.

Maricopa oun RECEIV .0 MAR 2 42005
Public Works
ENGINEERING DIVISION INTEROFFICE NIENIOSIAMD — 7PUM
DATE: March 20, 2008
TO: Rachel Applegate
Maricopa County Department of Planning d Development
FROM: Gerald J. Toscano, RE., Engineering \
SUBJECT: Zoning Case Z 2005-115 (Z2007-65)
As requested, the Department of Transportation has reviewed the development covered by
Zoning Case Z 2005-115 (Z2007-65) received on March 19,2008.
We recommend approval subject to a unit plan of development
GJT:jag
Q: \FORMS \MCDOT linked-docs \MCDOT 03-20-2008 Z2005115 (Z2007065).doc

Maricopa County
Environmental Services
Department
10111111E111111M.
and Waste Management DATE: June 18, 2007
on
vision Infrastructure &
ing Program TO: Rachel Applegate, Planning & Development Dept.
N. Ce-ntral Avenue #150 Planner
aix, Arizona 85004
e: (602) 506-0376
:602) 602 506 506-5813 6704 FROM: Wesley A. Shonerd, P.E.
Engineering Program Manager
SUBJECT: Anthem rezone of excess WWTP land; Z2007065
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has reviewed
documents received from the Maricopa County Planning and Development
Department for the above referenced project. This project requests approval of a
rezoning of excess land around the wastewater treatment plant (VVWTP) for a
temporary fire station. The proposed rezoning will change the zoning from C-0 to
C-2. According to the submitted documentation, Arizona-American Water Company
will provide both potable water and sanitary sewer services for this facility. This
project will not impact the existing water/sewer infrastructure at the site.
Based on the above, MCESD raised no objections to the Planning & Development
Department in Permits Plus on June 18, 2007 and will allow the project to proceed
at this time subject to the following stipulations:
Stipulations: None
It should be noted that several other Maricopa County agencies must review and
recommend approval of this project. Final approval authority for this project rests
with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Rachel Applegate - PLAND
From: Rafael Velazquez - PLANDEVX
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:46 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Z2007065 ANTHEM ARIZONA LLC
Date: July 2, 2007
Memo To: Darren Gerard, Deputy Director, Department of Planning & Infrastructure Development
Attn.: Rachel Applegate, Planner, Project Management Division
From Rafael Velazquez, P.E, CFM, Drainage Engineer, Planning and Development
Via: William Haas, Drainage Engineering Supervisor, Planning and Development
Subject: Z2007065 ANTHEM ARIZONA LLC
We have reviewed submittal for the above project dated June 12, 2007 The Drainage Section has no issues or
concerns with this project.
07/02/2007

L " -
Arizona Department of Transportation
Intermodal Transportation Division
A. DOT 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213
Janet Napolitano Sam Elters
Governor State Engineer
Victor M. Mendez
Director
April 3, 2008
Ms. Rachel Applegate
Maricopa County Planning &
Development
501 North 44th Street # 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85008
RE: Anthem 2"d Review/ Z20007065 / North of the NWC of Gvilan Peak and Daisy
Mountain Dr.
Dear Ms. Applegate:
Thank you for your notification regarding the Zoning Change to C-2 on the subject
referenced above. After reviewing this information we have concurred at this time the
proposed project will not have an impact to our highway facilities in this area. _
ADOT reserves the right to review and comment on all further development
plans for the site as to any impact they may have on the State Highway System.
Should you have any questions, you may contact me at 602-712-8876, or in writing at
205 S. 17th Avenue, Right of Way Project Management Section, MD 612E, Phoenix,
Arizona 85007. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Annette Close
Administrative Assistant III/Red Letter Coordinator
Right of Way Project Management
acloseQazdot. gov
-
3 : i, 7

City of Ph nix
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 8, 2008
Joy Rich, Planning Director
Maricopa County
501 North 44th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85008
Re: Anthem Rezone - Z2007065; Z2008025 Self Storage Use
Dear Joy:
This letter is in response to the County's notification of the above-referenced cases in the
Anthem area that seek approval for self storage facility (with both indoor and outdoor
elements) next to the Anthem Wastewater Treatment Plant. As in the past, we are providing
comments since the City of Phoenix boundaries are in close proximity and we have a strong
interest in the scope of uses along the 1-17 corridor. As you know, I worked in the County
Planning Department when the Anthem development master plan and zoning were processed
and appreciate the importance of maintaining a balance of uses in master planned
communities.
•The proposed series of storage facilities appears to be an ideal fit at this location and will
provide an important amenity for the nearby Anthem neighborhoods. We have noted that there
is limited availability of storage facilities in this area; and the Anthem restrictions do not allow
homeowners to store RV's, boats and other recreational vehicles on their lots.
We have reviewed the site plan and elevations and feel the proposed C-2/Special Permit for
these self storage uses is appropriate at this location and will compliment the community. Most
commercial uses may find this site at the entrance to a wastewater treatment plant challenging,
but this use does not suffer from those perceptional problems. We appreciate the opportunity
to comment on this case.
cerely,
ebra Wilkins Stark
Planning Director
C:/datan-dr/2008/dfr0408-anthem self storage.doc
200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7131 FAX: 602-495-3793
Recycled Paper

Ktuc-'" ta)
City of Phlanix
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 3, 2008
Rachel Applegate, Planner
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
501 North 44th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85008
RE: APPLICATION NOS. Z2007065 AND Z2008025 — AMERICOR SELF STORAGE
Dear Ms. Applegate:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Application Nos. Z2007065 and
Z2008025. These requests are for a self storage facility located north of the northwest
corner of Gavilian Peak Parkway and Daisy Mountain Drive. The city of Phoenix
Planning Department does not have any concerns regarding these applications and we
feel it is an appropriate land use given its proximity to the water treatment facility. The
General Plan Land Use Map for this area is also Lindesignated at this time.
Please contact Tricia Gomes at 602-262-6949 or tricia.00mesphoenix.qov if you
require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Michelle Dodds, AICP
Principal Planner
Michelle Dodds
Tricia Games
Maricopa County File
200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7131 FAX: 602-495-3793
Recycled Paper

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Ann Hutchinson [behomes@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:08 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Z2007065- Z2008025 New River/Desert Hills Community Association response
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Attachments: Z2008025 Anthem.doc; Z2007065 Revised Anthem.doc
Rachel,
In regards to the following case, New River/Desert Hills Community Association board
has a quorum for the following recommendation:
• Z2007065 Resubmitted. (Related Cases Z2005115 and Z2008025) Location:
Anthem. Request: Rezone C-0 to C-2. Recommendation: No objection.
• Z2008025 (Related Cases Z2007065, Z2005115). Location: Anthem. Special
Use Permit in conjunction Z2007065 for a storage facility. Recommendation: No
objection.
Please see our consultant's analysis attached.
Sincerely yours,
Ann Hutchinson
Planning and Development Liaison
New River/Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Hwy. #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
Phone 623-742-6514 or 623-742-0150
Check out our community websites: www.daisymountain.org and www.nrdhca.org
04/22/2008

PAUL IL McALLISTER
201 W. Circle Mountain Road
New River, AZ 85087
Date: 31 March 2008
To: NR-DHCA INC.
Case # Z2007065 Resubmitted.
Related Case #: Z2005115 and Z2008025.
Planner: Rachel Applegate.
Property Location: Anthem, APN# 203-10-933, Section 22 T6N R2E, 10.9 acres.
Current Zoning: C-0.
O TAC BOA 46. Other: No Meeting Date:
Review By Date: A.S.A.P.
Name: Request for zone change from C-0 to C-2.
Owner: Americor Investment Group, 7595 E. McDonald Drive Suite# 130, Scottsdale, AZ 85250.
Developer: Not known.
Applicant: Earl, Curley, Lagarde, P.C., 3101N. Central Avenue Suite# 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
Request for: Approval of zone change.
Current Use: Vacant
Opinion: Zone change required. Will probably be reviewed at same time as Special Use Permit
request. Minor in nature, just the developer's attention to detail and the ordinances. I see no reason to
- •deny this request. The developer originally rezoned to C-0 (Z2007065), now C-2 to be compatible,
with the proposed development
Recommendation: Approval.
Sincerely,
Paul H. McAllister

Office Supply/Demand Analysis
for
Anthem Master Planned Community
Maricopa County, Arizona
Prepared for:
Anthem By Del Webb
Prepared by:
Elliott D. Pollack & Company
7505 East Sixth Avenue, Suite 100
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
June, 2007
AZ1
REC9 MAR 19 4V16
Z2 0 0 3 0 2 5

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Study
1.2 Organization of the Report
2.0 Metro Phoenix Office Market Overview
2.1 General Overview 5
2.2 Local Serving Office Uses 10
2.3 Office Construction Activity by Geographic Area 11
2.4 Speculative Office Market 12
3.0 Anthem Office Market Supply/Demand Analysis
3.1 Office Inventory — Anthem 14
3.2 Current Office Occupants 16
3.3 Supply/Demand Analysis 16
3.4 Conclusions 19
Appendix 20
TOC

Executive Summary
Purpose of Study
Elliott D. Pollack and Company has been retained to conduct an office market analysis for the
area in and around the Anthem master planned community in northern Maricopa County. This
report is being prepared at the request of Del Webb as part of a request for rezoning of a 10.9 acre
site located near the intersection of N. Daisy Mountain Drive and N. Gavilan Peak Parkway in
Anthem. The site is currently zoned C-0 for office uses. Del Webb wishes to rezone the site to C-2
to allow a wider variety of permitted uses.
Office Building Characteristics
The office market is comprised of two primary types of office users:
• "Local-serving" office space typically houses small professional firms
providing services to the nearby population. These services include real estate
agencies, title insurance and mortgage companies, attorneys, accountants, and
• doctors and dentists who desire to be close to their customer base.
• The other segment of the office market found in metro Phoenix is "region-
serving" office. Buildings in this category provide space for regional
headquarters and a variety of other services such as banking, finance, and
insurance, all of which typically provide services beyond the city in which it is
located. Region-serving office buildings will be concentrated in areas where
transportation access and proximity to the labor force are better and more
amenities are available.
For the purposes of this study, local-serving office is defined as those buildings less than 50,000
square feet in size. On a per capita basis, administrative office buildings with less than 50,000
square feet account for 8.4 square feet for every person in Maricopa County. In the medical
office category, the county average is 2.4 square feet per capita. In total, the demand for local-
serving office buildings is estimated at 10.8 square feet per capita within a particular market
area.
Office Supply-Demand Analysis
At build out, Anthem will have approximately 10,500 homes. This is several thousand units less
than originally planned because some of the subdivisions were built at lower densities than
initially zoned. At an average of 2.7 residents per housing unit, this would yield a build out
population of 28,350.
Given this build out population and a per capita demand of 10.8 square feet per person, residents
of Anthem would demand 306,180 square feet of local-serving office space. The following table
shows the comparison of office demand and supply for Anthem, including additional supply that
could be provided if vacant land was developed for office uses. In summary, there are currently
approximately 272,000 square feet of office space in Anthem, including buildings both complete
and under construction. This current inventory, in and of itself, represents almost 90% of the
expected demand for office space in Anthem. Coupled with a further potential supply of
157,000 square feet of office space on 14.7 acres of vacant land already zoned C-0 in Maricopa

County's jurisdiction alone (excluding the Treatment Plant commercial parcel currently subject
to the application for rezoning), plus vacant land in the City of Phoenix that is likely to be
developed as office space, the potential over-supply of office space in Anthem is 45% higher
than expected demand (137,000 square feet).
In addition to this supply variance, there is also the potential for office users to locate in the flex-
industrial buildings in Anthem on the west side of 1-17. Thus far, about 39,000 square feet of
flex space is occupied by office uses or about 20% of total flex square footage. If that
percentage remains constant in the future, a total of nearly 87,000 square feet of flex space could
potentially be occupied by office uses. This available flex building space only contributes to the
over supply of potential office space.
Office Demand at Build Out
Anthem
Office Demand (in SF)
Demand Factor
Population • (SF per Capita) Demand (SF)
28,350 10.8 306,180
Office Supply (in SF) SF
Current Inventory - Occupied & Vacant SF' 152,718
Under Construction 119,000
Total Current Inventory 271,718
Potential Athiitonal SF (From Vacant Sites)' 171,718
Total 443,436
Over (Under) Supply 137,256
Additional Supply Within Flex-Industrial Buildings
Current Space Occupied by Office Uses 38,996
Available Vacant Space If Occupied by Office Uses 2 34,612
Potential Office Supply from Vacant Land Inventory 2 12,980
Total Additional Office Supply Potential 86,588
'Includes office buildings in Anthem, east and west of 1-17.
2 11 occupied at 20% rate by office uses
Source: Elliot D. Pollack & Co
It needs to be noted that while the build-out population of Anthem has declined from the original
projection of 14,000 units to 10,500 units today (a 25% decrease), the amount of land zoned and
used for office purposes has not changed commensurately. A lower build-out population will
proportionately affect demand for retail as well as local-serving office uses.
Conclusions
The inventory of office space currently built or under construction in Anthem today is only
slightly less than the forecasted demand for the community at build-out, with considerable vacant

land that is already zoned for office uses. According to real estate brokers working in the area,
demand for office buildings in Anthem is limited and there exists a sizable inventory of C-2
zoned land that can accommodate office uses as well. Due to its remote location, the population
of Anthem creates limited demand for local-serving office uses. The requirement of the County
to balance employment with population in a master planned community is a wise policy, but
must be used with reason. Not all communities will possess the assets and characteristics that
contribute to employment generation. Given Anthem's location far from the available labor
pool, major employers are not willing to locate in the community.
However, other parts of the North Valley are suitable for industrial and office development.
Those employment centers include the 1-17 Corridor and the Deer Valley Airport area which
now stretches as far north as Happy Valley Road. These employment centers are less than 15
miles from Anthem, a reasonable commute for most Valley residents. As the employment base
in the Deer Valley Airport area grows, Anthem will likely become a more attractive housing
alternative for residents working in the 1-17/Loop 101 vicinity.
Not all communities will possess the assets and characteristics that contribute to employment
generation. Zoning and planning policies oriented toward forcing a mix of employment and
residential uses on every master planned community will not work within the local real estate
market. The fact that there is limited office development in Anthem after ten years of
development activity is testimony to this conclusion. Planning policies need to take into account
the proximity of residential communities to centers of employment as a means of promoting a
reasonable jobs to housing balance.
In summary, the existing and future supply of office space, excluding the subject 10.9 acre parcel
on Gavilan Parkway, is sufficient to more than meet the demand for services from Anthem's
residents at build out. All of Anthem's office tenants are local-serving, meaning that they
primarily offer services to the nearby population. Per capita demand for these office users was
determined to be 10.8 square feet creating a demand for approximately 300,000 square feet of
office space at build-out. The existing and potential supply of office space based on zoning is
more than 440,000 square feet. The master plan for the community would be better served if the
subject 10.9 acre property was rezoned to a district that provides a wider array of permitted uses.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Study
Elliott D. Pollack and Company has been retained to conduct an office market analysis for the
area in and around the Anthem master planned community in northern Maricopa County. At
build out, Anthem will have approximately 10,500 residential units with a mix of commercial
and business park development concentrated around the intersection of Anthem Way and 1-17.
This report is being prepared at the request of Del Webb as part of a request for rezoning of a 10.9
acre site located near the intersection of N. Daisy Mountain Drive and N. Gavilan Peak Parkway in
Anthem. The site is currently zoned C-0 for office uses. Del Webb wishes to rezone the site to C-2
to allow a wider variety of permitted uses. Aerial photos of the site are shown on the following
pages.
1

Site Location
2

Site Characteristics
This analysis will include a review of the local office market, focusing on existing and planned
supply as well as build out demand for office space in the Anthem area. The report will determine
whether the current inventory of office-designated land in the market area, excluding the subject
property, is large enough to accommodate the anticipated demand for office space. Specifically,
this report will include:
An overview of the Metro Phoenix office market focusing on local serving office uses
and the typical demand created by the local population within a market.
• An inventory of all office and office condo space within the market area surrounding the
subject property, including an inventory of undeveloped office land.. The potential build
out of the vacant property will be estimated based on accepted coverage ratios. The
inventory will also include analysis of the industrial area west of 1-17 and the use of

such buildings for office uses. To the extent possible, an overall vacancy rate for the
market area will be identified. The market area is defined as the Anthem master planned
community located on the east and west sides of I-17. That portion of the community
east of 1-17 is in unincorporated Maricopa County. The land west of 1-17 is located
within the City of Phoenix.
An opinion on the development potential of the property as it is currently zoned for
commercial office, given its location and the state of the local office market.
An important part of this analysis will be determining a reasonable per capita demand figure for
office space. The report will examine the office market in terms of local serving offices and
regional offices, which will be defined by their size. Size is the best available proxy for
identifying large regional offices.
1.2 Organization of the Report
Section 2.0 describes the Metro Phoenix office market and the demand for office space within
the region. The local Anthem office market will be examined in section 3.0 where existing and
future supply will be compared to estimated build out demand. The results of this analysis will
yield a conclusion regarding the feasibility of changing the zoning of the subject property from
commercial office (C-0) to a more flexible commercial designation.

2.0 Metro Phoenix Office Market Overview
2.1 General Overview
Throughout Maricopa County, the office market is comprised of approximately 121.9 million
square feet of space according to Kamrnrath & Associates. Kammrath inventories and
categorizes office buildings into two types of uses: administrative and medical. Administrative
buildings total approximately 106.9 million square feet of space while medical office buildings
total 15.0 million square feet. As shown on Table 4, 82.2% of all office space is found within
three cities: Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe. Approximately 97% of all space is found in the
eight cities shown on the following table.
Office Building Space by City
First Quarter 2007
Medical Administrative Total
Square Feet Market Share Square Feet Market Share Square Feet Market Share
Phoenix 6,100,129 40.7% 63,600,301 58.9% 69,100,430 56.7%
% of City Total 8.8% 91.2%
Scottsdale 2,450,828 16.3% 18,095,689 16.9% 20,546,517 16.9%
% of City Total 11.9% 88.1%
Tempe 531,880 3.5% 9,934,363 9.3% 10,466,243 8.6%
% of City Total 5.1% 94.9%
Mesa 2,078,856 13.9% 5,937,111 5.6% 8,015,967 6.6%
% of City Total 25.9% 74.1%
Chandler 514,666 3.4% 3,392,423 3.2% 3,907,089 3.2%
% of City Total 13.2% 86.8%
Glendale 1,005,681 6.7% 1,882,178 1.8% 2,887,859 2.4%
% of City Total 34.8% 65.2% 1.7%
Gilbert 556,851 3.7% 1,521,631 1.4% 2,078,482
% of City Total 26.8% 73.2%
Sun City 700,614 4.7% 497,748 0.5% 1,198,362 1.0%
% of City Total 58.5% 41.5%
Remainder of County 1,052,384 7.0% 2,675,427 2.5% 3,727,811 3.1%
% of Total 28.2% 71.8%
Maricopa County Total 14,991,889 106,936,871 121,928,760
Percent of Total 12.3% 87.7%
Source: Kamrnrath & Associates. Elliott D. Pollack & Co.
The table on the following page shows the number of square feet of office space per capita in
some of the largest cities in Maricopa County. For the County as a whole, there are
approximately 31.3 square feet of existing office space per person. Individual cities vary from
only 3.2 square feet per person in Surprise to 84.6 square feet per person in Scottsdale. The
average square feet per person of the eight cities outside of Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe is
12.0, about a third of the county average. The cities that have the lowest per capita square feet
figures are those that are on the periphery of the metro area.

Per Capita Square Feet of Office Space by City
2006
City Population Administrative Medical Total
Avondale 72,645 3.9 0.7 4.6
Chandler 235,450 12.5 2.2 14.6
Gilbert 185,030 7.5 2.4 9.9
Glendale 243,540 7.4 3.8 11.2
Goodyear 50,260 6.3 4.0 10.2
Mesa 451,360 124 4.5 16.9
Peoria 145,125 4.1 2.6 6.7
Phoenix 1,505,265 41.5 4.0 455
Scottsdale 237,120 74.3 10.3 84.6
Surprise 99,650 2.8 0.4 3.2
Tempe 165,890 56.7 3.2 59.9
Maricopa County" 3,792,675 275 3.8 313
I/ County total is larger than the sum of the above cities because it includes all office space in Maricopa County
Source: Kainntrath &Assoc ates, Arizona Department of Economic Security. Elliott D. Pollack & Co.
The inventory of administrative office space on a per capita basis is highly concentrated within
the cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe. These communities all exceed the county average
of 27.5 square feet of office space per person. Administrative office space is spatially
concentrated because of zoning patterns and synergies that can be achieved by locating near
other office users. Administrative offices, which are the densest form of employment centers,
tend to be in central locations and along major transportation corridors. This concentration is
common in virtually every major metro area_ It is expected then, that certain areas within
Maricopa County will have more office space, and others will have less depending upon access
to the labor force, proximity to a major airport, transportation access and the proximity of
amenities desired by office users such as restaurants and shopping.
The chart below shows each city's square feet per capita of office space as a percentage of the
county average. Other than Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe, no other city has more than 45% of
the county average square feet per capita.

Per Capita Square Feet of Administrative Office Space by City
Percent County Average
2006
300%
271%
250%
206%
200%
151%
150%
100% County Average
50% 45% 45%
10%
0% -7771
Avondale Chandler Gilbert Glendale Goodyear Mesa Peoria Phoenix Scottsdale Surprise Tempe
While administrative office buildings are highly concentrated by location, medical office
buildings are more dispersed. Since medical services need to be near patients, medical office
space is related to the size of the population. For instance, across Maricopa County, there are 3.8
square feet of medical office space for every person. The inventory of medical office space for
most cities hovers around that figure. Scottsdale is the only community with a high level of
medical office on a per capita basis.
Adrninistrative office space is highly concentrated in buildings over 100,000 square feet in size.
Most of these buildings are of a mid-rise or high-rise configuration located in the metro area's
office cores. Smaller buildings are typically found in suburban areas. The map below shows the
distribution of office buildings greater than 100,000 square feet The largest clusters are around
the Deer Valley Airparlc, Metro Center, Downtown Phoenix, the Camelback Corridor, the
Phoenix Gateway area, along I-10 in Tempe, and a few places in Scottsdale.
7

Office Buildings Larger than 100,000 SF — 2007 Q1
Source: Kammrath and Associates
Akio
AIM
i 111 AILIS rum
AM wsil am. All=
.... Iva mums. -nes alimmiimi.01 ang
11111111•11k MTh. 0111111/daln11111•1111•11111111111 UllrfilipldnalL Illrg "91111111111,14 1111 lit.
numaii 111011•01•11. erammaa AMP RIMINIIMI sr 1. am IN A MTh. MI= I
MUMMMINO anum a P i IIIMINIPI•U iN mismorm 11* prostuswomm- 111111•11%-!- -a
••••11111111111•1•1114111•1•111111.1111•111 ' imoraok
NH •1111111111•1011•11111•DMISINN MI 11•111111111•••111111•11111410.17.11111r UMW IMMO
OH •111111111111111111•1111111•MIRESISMS 11•111 1111111•6911111, • PIE s id11110141 " now 1;,-, BA ""
Imumitaammommiumwo sit 411111111191addli
L Amiiimmuit=ziammingammtiiiikii 1111101MINIUMW/11•1111•111•11111111-911111•11011•111111 own imp.amismanoafth. all IlIrdlaMbiTZ
aummunummumwmommummimmummkk4mmum unummulpsomminimmummacumernsampammummummompeam plumummuom m
nummorso d MIS•111111101MEIRMMIIMUIMANSPIMIRWIMIMIIIMISMOMMIIIMININS•3,111 IMEMMOIWINIUMinnah—nIMIM.,........ . ... .... ...ZUNI
UNPIP"' mar • REMIIMMIIMEMMIUMMISIVii=1" maiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .........6.
I 1111•11110-- 1101111•11111111• 01011111111111•11111111kili•O••••111111
11116,1\ I Grum Inrwommurie
ird•411111•11111111•1111•111•110111101.9M 1111111•PIIMM•S•••
Ili\ raulnadlablOWIWASNI r1a1Wiiiitir-idillir
1111•11101•11111101111 11111111111•1111111MI ell Wham
11111•1111111•111111.•••011111111111
1111111101•111•1111101111111•111U
By comparison, the medical office market is highly dispersed into smaller buildings. Only 13.4%
of the total square office footage is found in buildings over 100,000 square feet in size. This data
confirms that the medical office market is rather evenly dispersed throughout the Valley and is
found close to the client population. The Maricopa County office market is stratified by building
size in the following table.

Maricopa County Office Buildings
Q12007
Total Office Total SF % of Total SF # Buildings Avg. Size
Under 50,000 SF 41,925,138 34,4% 3,792 11,056
50,000- 100,000 SF 23,760,267 19.5% 341 69,678
Over 100,000 SF 56,243,355 46.1% 284 198,040
Total 121,928,760 100.0% 4,417 27,604
Administrative Total SF % of Total SF # Buildings Avg. Size
Under 50,000 SF 32,714,594 30.6% 2,868 11,407
50,000- 100,000 SF 19,992,787 18.7% 285 70,150
Over 100,000 SF 54,229,490 50.7% 272 199,373
Total 106,936,871 100.0% 3,425 31,222
Medical Total SF % of Total SF # Buildings Avg. Size
Under 50,000 SF 9,210,544 61.4% 924 9,968
50,000- 100,000 SF 3,767,480 25.1% 56 67,276
Over 100,000 SF 2,013,865 13.4% 12 167,822
Total 14,991,889 100.0% 992 15,113
Sources: Kammrath & Associates; Elliott D. Pollack & Co.
The office market is typically the last segment of the commercial real estate market to enter a
newly growing suburban area. In the early years of development of a community, most office
construction activity is oriented towards small professional office space that serves the local
population. This is referred to in this report as "local-serving" office. Local-serving office space
typically houses small professional firms providing services to the nearby population. These
services include real estate agencies, title insurance and mortgage companies, attorneys,
accountants, and doctors and dentists who desire to be close to their customer base.
The other segment of the market found in metro Phoenix is regional-serving office. Buildings in
this category provide space for regional headquarters and a variety of other services such as
banking, finance, and insurance, all of which typically provide services beyond the city in which
it is located. As noted above, the market has demonstrated that it is most efficient to meet
demand by concentrating these large regional administrative office developments in certain
clustered locations. Thus, there will only be a certain amount of local serving office space that
can be efficiently built within a community such as Anthem based on the demand created by its
residents. Region-serving office buildings will be concentrated in other areas where
transportation access and proximity to the labor force are better and more amenities are
available. While Del Webb planned for corporate or region-serving office land uses in Anthem,
the market has not responded as anticipated due to distance from the urbanized areas of metro
Phoenix.
9

2.2 Local Serving Office Uses
Local-serving office space is found in most communities, both large and small. Companies
occupying these buildings follow closely behind the development of residential areas, similar to
retail development. In the early stages of the development of a community, local-serving office
users may locate within retail strip malls or shopping centers. However, as the area matures, the
construction of small, professional office buildings will follow.
For the purposes of this study, local-serving office is defined as those buildings less than 50,000
square feet in size. As noted on the prior table, these buildings account for 85.9% of all the
office buildings in Maricopa County. However, they account for only 34.4% of the total office
space with an average size of 11,056 square feet.
The following chart shows the square feet of office space per capita by building size in Maricopa
County. On a per capita basis, administrative office buildings with less than 50,000 square feet
account for 8.4 square feet for every person in Maricopa County. Most of the suburban
communities are well below this level. In the medical office category, the dispersion of office
buildings less than 50,000 square feet in size is much more even across the communities. The
county average is 2.4 square feet per capita. There are very few large medical office buildings in
the metro area, concentrated in just four communities.
Total Per Capita Square Feet of Office Space By Size of Building
Administrative Office Medical Office
Under 50,000 50,000 SF to Over 100,000 Under 50,000 50,000 SF to Over 100,000
City SF 100,000 SF SF Total SF 100,000 , SF SF Total
Avondale 3.0 0.9 0.0 4.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7
Chandler 3.7 1.5 7.3 12.5 1.6 0.6 0.0 22
Gilbert 3.0 2.9 1.6 7.5 1.8 0.6 0.0 2.4
Glendale 3.8 1.5 2.1 7.4 2.2 1.6 0.0 3.8
Goodyear 4.6 1.8 0.0 6.3 1.9 0.0 2.1 4.0
Mesa 6.8 33 2.4 12.4 3.2 0.9 0.5 4.5
Peoria 2.5 1.6 0.0 4.1 2.1 0.5 0.0 2.6
Phoenix 10.5 6.5 24.5 41.5 2.4 0.9 0.7 4.0
Scottsdale 23.0 19.0 32.4 74.3 4.8 2.9 2.5 10.3
Surprise 2.1 0.8 0.0 2.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
Tempe 16.0 11.1 29.6 56.7 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.2
Maricopa County u 8.4 5.1 14.0 27.5 2.4 0.9 0.5 3.8
li County total is larger than the sum of the above cities because it includes all office space in Maricopa County
Sources: Kammrath & Associates: Elliott D. Pollack & Co.
For the purposes of this study, the demand for local-serving office space will be estimated at
approximately 8.4 square feet per capita for administrative office and 2.4 square feet per capita
for medical office for a total of 10.8 square feet per capita_ These figures will be used to
estimate the current and future demand for local-serving office in Anthem. However, it should
be noted that most of the suburban communities have local-serving office space well below these
levels, particularly for the administrative office segment of the market. Even Mesa, the third
largest city in the State, has less than seven square feet per capita of administrative office space
in the community today. Therefore, this estimate could overstate the demand for office space in
the near term in Anthem.
10

• •
2.3 Office Construction Activity By Geographic Area
Since 1980, an average of 3.17 million square feet of administrative office space has been
constructed annually in Greater Phoenix. This figure includes both owner-occupied space as well
as speculative office buildings that are constructed by developers and investors for the purpose of
leasing space to tenants. Due to the change in tax laws in the late 1980s, very little inventory
was constructed between 1991 and 1997. In 1997, construction started again in earnest, reaching
over 6 million square feet in 2000. However, shortly thereafter, vacancy rates rose to more than
18%, reducing demand and development activity. From 1997 to 2005, an average of 4.25
million square feet has been constructed annually.
Construction of Administrative Office Space
Greater Phoenix - 1980 to 2006
Sour= Kammrath & Associates
7.7
5.4
4.8
4 - 4.1 3.8
31 3-2 Annual Average: 3.17 IN SF
23
II 0.2 0.3 03 0.6
013 -71 ‘1,71
op OS ;111 0, CP ao 0, so 0, CO CT CO 0, §iEE MAP,
Total square feet constructed in 2006 may be incompl e due to lag in data
The zip codes that have received the highest levels of administrative office construction in Metro
Phoenix between 1990 and 2006 are shown on the following table. The area that has
experienced the most construction has been the north Scottsdale and northeast Phoenix
submarkets represented by five zip codes in the table. Taken together, this market area, which
includes that part of the City of Phoenix adjacent to the Scottsdale Airport, has accounted for
more than 10.3 million square feet of new office space. The next most active area has been north
Tempe, east of Sky Harbor International Airport, where approximately 3.8 million square feet
has been constructed.
Zip code 85027 in the Deer Valley area had the second highest level of administrative office
space construction activity since 1990. This area includes the Deer Valley Airpark and the 1-17 /
Loop 101 freeway interchange.
11

Top 20 Zip Codes for Administrative
Office Construction
Metro Phoenix - 1990 to 2007 Q1
Rank Zip Code Market Area SF
85260 North Scottsdale 3,944,327
85027 Deer Valley 3,333,345
85281 North Tempe 2,444,915
4 85255 North Scottsdale 2,161,255
5 85004 Downtown Phoenix 2,095,197
6 85016 Camelback Corridor 1,952,655
7 85258 North Scottsdale 1,731,730
8 85254 NE Phoenix 1,658,868
9 85008 North Slcy Harbor 1,423,191
10 85282 North Tempe 1,348,608
11 85044 Ahwatulcee 1,312,852
12 85251 Downtown Scottsdale 1,290,364
13 85284 South Tempe 1,255,401
14 85040 South Sky Harbor 1,072,745
15 85248 South Chandler 1,016,439
16 85224 West Chandler 972,860
17 85012 Central Avenue 899,313
18 85253 North Scottsdale 797,306
19 85034 North. Slcy Harbor 742,143
20 85021 North Phoenix 723,539
Source: Komi-Leath & Associates, Elliott D. Pollack & Co.
2.4 Speculative Office Market
The speculative office market is comprised of buildings that are constructed with the purpose of
leasing to tenants Most of the major commercial brokerage companies focus on this section of
the market, which at the end of the first quarter of 2007 comprised 65 1 million square feet of
building space according to CB Richard Ellis. This represents approximately 61% of the 107
million square foot administrative office market in Metro Phoenix. CB Richard Ellis tracks all
office buildings in its survey that are larger than 20,000 square feet.
The spec office market over the years has been extremely cyclical with periods of exceptionally
high vacancy rates followed by periods of virtually no construction activity. In the early 1990s
virtually no construction activity occurred until vacancy rates reached 9.5% in 1996.
Construction activity continued until 2003 when vacancy rates, once again, reached the 18%
level. Since that time, however, vacancy rates have declined precipitously which is now spurring
construction activity again. It should be noted that while parts of Metro area have virtually no
construction over the past five years, other areas such as the Camelback Corridor and North
Scottsdale experienced most of the spec office construction activity.
At the end of 2006, vacancy rates for spec office stood at 11.1% across Greater Phoenix while
2.32 million square feet of space was added. The recent small increase in the inventory of office
space in Metro Phoenix has been partly due to condominium conversions over the past few years
that have reduced the available supply of spec space available for leasing. Between 2002 and
2006, 6.6 million square feet of spec office space was created. However, the inventory of spec
office only increased by about 3.5 million square feet over that timeframe due to the conversion
of existing spec office space to condominiums.
12

Spec Office Vacancy Rates vs. Change in Inventory Metro Phoenix
Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co; CB Richard Ellis 6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00 s,s, co)
2..00
1.00
0.00
-1.00
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
CM Change in Inventory Vacancy Rate I
13

3.0 Anthem Office Market Supply/Demand Analysis
3.1 Office Inventory - Anthem
The office market in Anthem includes buildings located on the east side of the 1-17 in
unincorporated Maricopa County, plus the business park on the west side of 1-17 in the City of
Phoenix. Some of the flex buildings in the business park are used by office tenants There
currently exists 152,718 square feet of office space and 361,495 square feet of flex space in
Anthem that is either occupied or vacant. The vacant buildings were recently constructed in the
commerce park in that portion of Anthem within the City of Phoenix, and will likely have
tenants in the near future. Additionally, there are 119,000 square feet of office space and 14,652
square feet of flex space that is under construction. Most of this space is on the east side of 1-17.
Some of the land used for office buildings is zoned C-2 retail, which permits office buildings.
Office & Flex Space in Anthem
June-07
East of 1-17 West of I-17 Total
Office Office Flex Office Flex
Acres SF Acres SF Acres SF Acres SF Acres SF
Existing Buildings 15.0 131,918 2.4 20,800 31.3 361,495 17.4 152,718 313 361,495
Under Construction 13.7 119,000 - - 1.0 14,652 13.7 . 119,000 1.0 14,652
Vacant Land 14.7 - 1.1 - 6.0 - 15.8 6.0 -
Total 43-3 250,918 3.5 20,800 38-3 376,147 , 46.8 271,718 38.3 376,147
Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co., Kammrath & Associates, Maricopa County Assessor
There also exists nearly 15.8 acres of vacant land in Anthem, not including the subject property,
which are zoned for office uses. Given a typical coverage ratio of 0.25, this vacant land could
yield an additional 172,000 square feet of office space. In addition, there are six acres of vacant
flex land which would yield 65,000 square feet of flex space. At build out, the Anthem
properties could have a combined 443,562 square feet of office and 441,051 square feet of flex.
Summary of Office & Flex Build-Out Potential
Anthem
Office Flex Grand Total
Existing 152,718 361,495 514,213
Under Construction 119,000 14,652 133,652
Vacant Land Yield 171,953 64,904 236,858
Total 443,671 441,051 884,723
Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co, Pulte Homes, Maricopa County Assessor
The following table details the inventory information by lot and parcel.
4

Inventory of Existing, Planned, and Vacant Office & Flex Space"
Anthem
Office Total No. of
Current Existing Occupied Percent SF Under Potential Potential Office
Parcel Location Status Acres SF SF Occupied Construction SF SF Users
Parcel 11 & 13 E. of 1-17 Occupied 5.9 49,202 49,202 100% - - 49,202 18
Parcel 58 E. of 1-17 Occupied 5.0 47,966 38,373 80% 47,966 23
Acknin Bldng E. of 1-17 Occupied 4.1 34,750 34,750 100% 34,750 8
Lot 11 W. of 1-17 Vacant Building 1.4 15,000 . - 0% 15,000
Lot I Ob W. of 1-17 Vacant Building 1.0 5,800 0% _ 5,800
Parcel 4A S. E. of 1-17 Under Construction 8.4 - N/A 59,000 59,000 N/A
Parcel 5A E. of 1-17 Under Construction 5.3 N/A 60,000 - 60,000 N/A
Parcel 4A N. E. of 1-17 Vacant Land 6.7 N/A - 72,419 72,419 N/A
Parcel 413 E. of 1-17 Vacant Land 8.0 N/A 87,556 87.556 N/A
Lot 10a W. of 1-17 Vaca t Land N/A 11,870 11,870 N/A
Total Office 46.8 152,718 122,325 80.1% 119,000 171,844 443,562 . 49
Flex-Industrial Total No. of
Current Existing Occupied Percent SF Under Potential Potential Office Total Or % Office Est SF
Parcel Location Status Acres SF SF Occupied Construction SF SF Users of Users Users of Office
'Lot 2 W. of 1-17 Occupied 4.5 53,242 53,242 100% 53,242 8 20 40% 21,297
Lot 3 W. off-17 Occupied 4.5 44,055 30,839 70% 44,055 3 . 11 27% 8,411
Lot 8 W. pH-17 Occupied 1.6 21,965 21,965 100% 21,965 0 4 0% -
Lot 17 W. of 1-17 Occupied 1.0 13,928 13,928 100% 13,928 0 1 0%
Lot 18 W. of 1-17 Occupied 1.0 11,880 11,880 100% - 11,880 0 5 0%
Lot 22 W. of 1-17 Occupied 1.1 11,155 11,155 100% 11,155 0 3 Wo
Lot 27 W. of 1-17 Occupied 2.5 37,155 37,155 100% 37,155 2 8 . 25% 9,289
Lot 30 W. of 1-17 Occupied 1.3 9,704 9,704 100% 9,704 0 I 0%
Lot 30 W. of 1-17 Vacant Building 1.3 18,113 - 0% 18,113 0 0%
Lot 31 W. of 1-17 Vacant Building 2.9 38,250 0% 38,250 0 0%
Lot 32 W. of 1-17 Vacant Building 4.1 • 50,908 0% 50,908 o 0%
Lot 32 W. of 1-17 Vacant Building 5.4 51,140 0% - 51,140 - 0 . 0%
Lot 16 W. off-17 Under Construction 1.0 N/A 14,652 - 14,652 N/A N/A N/A
Lot 12 W. oil-17 Vacant Land 1.2 N/A 13,286 13,286 N/A N/A N/A
Lot 13 W. of 1-17 Vacant Land 1.2 N/A 12,524 12,524 N/A N/A N/A
Lot 19 W. of 1-17 Vacant Land 1.1 N/A 11,435 11,435 N/A N/A N/A
Lot 24 NV, of 1-17 Vacant Land 1.4 N/A 14,702 14,702 N/A N/A N/A
Lot 25 W. of 1-17 Vacant Land 1.2 - N/A 12,959 12,959 N/A N/A N/A
Total Flex 38.3 361,495 189,868 53% 14,652 64,904 441,051 13 53 20.5%
IL • Total does not include the subject property
Source: Elliott 13 Pollack & Co, Puke Homes, Alancopn County Assessor
5

31 Current Office Occupants
A survey of office occupants in Anthem shows that most users are local serving businesses. As
described above, these are businesses that serve the nearby residents and must locate near their
clients. In many ways, medical offices, real estate agents, and small accounting firms behave
like neighborhood retailers. Often these types of office uses even locate in neighborhood
commercial centers.
Within Anthem there were 102 businesses identified in the occupied office and flex space. Of
those, 39 were medical offices, 13 were financial companies, and 10 were real estate related.
These three types of businesses make up nearly 61% of all office and flex tenants in Anthem.
Currently, about 20% of flex-industrial occupants are office users. Flex space can be used for
various purposes, including light industrial and office uses. Assuming that 20% of flex
occupants continue to be office users, there is a potential for an additional 48,000 square feet of
flex space that could be used as office. This number could be higher or lower depending on
leasing conditions, but flex space continues to be an alternative building type for office users.
For a detailed inventory of current office tenants, please refer to Appendix A.
3.3 Supply/Demand Analysis
At build out, Anthem will have approximately 10,500 homes. This is several thousand units less
than originally planned because some of the subdivisions were built at lower densities than
initially zoned. At an average of 2.7 residents per housing unit, this would yield a build out
population of 28,350.
In order to calculate build out demand for office space, a per capita square feet figure must be
assumed. As discussed in the market overview, the amount of office space that is built in a
particular area is not necessarily correlated to the nearby population depending upon location,
access and amenities. For local serving offices, the nearby population is a major factor.
Anthem is located along the 1-17 freeway, which gives it relatively good regional access. The
Anthem Way interchange, however, is located 14 miles north of the Loop 101 freeway, which
limits Anthem's ability to attract larger office tenants. The Anthem Way interchange is also 11
miles north of Happy Valley Road where new employers are now starting to develop offices and
industrial buildings, including USAA Insurance. Farther south near the Deer Valley Airpark are
American Express, Discover Card, and Honeywell. The emergence of the Deer Valley Aitpark
area as a major regional business center will likely preclude the development of large office
users locating further north in Anthem because it is too far from the available pool of labor.
The demand for office space in Anthem will continue to come from smaller, local serving
tenants. Since local serving offices typically occupy smaller buildings, per capita demand in
Anthem will be better approximated by factoring in only those buildings smaller than 50,000
square feet. As the following table shows, average per capita office space for buildings less than
50,000 square feet is 10.8 square feet for the county as a whole. The average for the cities not
including Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe is only 6.5 square feet per person. However, the
16

higher demand factor of 10.8 square feet per person is used for this analysis to account or higher
income households in Anthem that may demand more services.
Total Per Capita Square Feet of Office Space By Size of Building
City 2006 Population Under 50,000 SF Total All Size
Avondale 72,645 3.8 4.7
Chandler 235,450 5.3 14.6
Gilbert 185,030 4.7 9.9
Glendale 243,540 5.9 11.2
Goodyear 50,260 6.5 10.3
Mesa 451,360 9.9 16.9
Peoria 145,125 4.6 6.7
Phoenix 1,505,265 12.9 45.5
Scottsdale 237,120 27.8 84.6
Surprise 99,650 2.4 3.2
Tempe 165,890 19.2 59.9
Maricopa County" 3,792,675 10.8 313
IL County total is larger than the sum of the above cities because it includes all office space in Maricopa County
Sources: Kammrath & Associates; Elliott I). Pollack & Co.
Given a build out population of 28,350 and a per capita demand of 10.8 square feet per person,
residents of Anthem would demand 306,180 square feet of local-serving office space. The
following table shows the comparison of office demand and supply for Anthem, including
additional supply that could be provided if vacant land was developed for office uses. In
summary, there are currently approximately 272,000 square feet of office space in Anthem,
including buildings both complete and under construction. This current inventory, in and of
itself, represents almost 90% of the expected demand for office space in Anthem. Coupled with
a further potential supply of 157,000 square feet of office space on 14.7 acres of vacant land
already zoned C-0 in Maricopa County's jurisdiction alone (excluding the Treatment Plant
commercial parcel currently subject to the application for rezoning), plus vacant land in the City
of Phoenix that is likely to be developed as office space, the potential over-supply of office space
in Anthem is 45% higher than expected demand (137,000 square feet).
In addition to this supply variance, there is also the potential for office users to locate in the flex-
industrial buildings on the west side of 1-17. Thus far, about 39,000 square feet of flex space is
occupied by office uses or about 20% of total flex square footage. If that percentage remains
constant in the future, a total of nearly 87,000 square feet of flex space could potentially be
occupied by office uses. This available flex building space only contributes to the over supply of
potential office space.
17

Office Demand at Build Out
Anthem
Office Demand (in SF)
Demand Factor
Population (SF per Capita) Demand (SF).
28,350 10.8 306,180
Office Supply (in SF) SF
Current Inventory - Occupied & Vacant SF' 152,718
Under Construction 119,000
Total Current Inventory 271,718
Potential Additonal SF (From Vacant Sites)' 171,718
Total 443,436
Over (Under) Supply • 137,256
Additional Su . ply Within Flex-Industrial Buildings
Current Space Occupied by Office Uses 38,996
Available Vacant Space If Occupied by Office Uses2 34,612
Potential Office Supply from Vacant Land Inventory2 12,980
Total Additional Office Supply Potential 86,588
t Includes office buildings in Anthem, east and west off-17.
2 1f occupied at 20% rate by office uses
Source. Elliott D. Pollack & Co
The inventory of office space in Anthem today is slightly less than the ultimate forecasted
demand at build-out, with a considerable vacant land supply reserved and zoned for office uses.
According to real estate brokers working in the area, demand for office buildings in Anthem is
limited and there exists a sizable inventory of C-2 zoned land that can accommodate office uses
as well. Due to its remote location, the population of Anthem creates limited demand for local-
serving office uses. The requirement of the County to balance employment with population in a
master planned community is a wise policy, but must be used with reason. Not all communities
will possess the assets and characteristics that contribute to employment generation. Given
Anthem's location far from the available labor pool, major employers are not willing to locate in
the commilnity.
However, other parts of the North Valley are suitable for industrial and office development.
Those employment centers have been noted in this report and include the 1-17 Corridor and the
Deer Valley Airport area which now stretches as far north as Happy Valley Road. These
employment centers are less than 15 miles from Anthem, a reasonable commute for most Valley
residents. As the employment base in the Deer Valley Airport area grows, Anthem will likely
become a more attractive housing alternative for residents working in the 1-17/Loop 101 vicinity.
18

The unique aspect of the growth of Phoenix is that the job market has typically followed
residential development to the suburbs. It does not occur quickly, but over time major employers
have located in suburban areas such as Chandler, Mesa, Scottsdale and north Phoenix. Phoenix
is one of the only cities in the country that developed after the advent of the automobile. The
metro area does not have a central downtown although Phoenix is making major investments to
create an employment and residential core. But on the whole, a variety of high quality jobs are
located in suburban areas. This pattern of development will, over time, help to reduce the
commuting time of residents if they chose to live near their place of work. The employment
centers of north Phoenix will provide jobs for those living in Anthem, relieving the need to
promote employment directly within the community.
Once again, not all communities will possess the assets and characteristics that contribute to•
employment generation. Zoning and planning policies oriented toward forcing a mix of
employment and residential uses on every master planned community will not work within the
local real estate market. The fact that there is limited office development in Anthem after ten
years of development activity is testimony to this conclusion. Planning policies need to take into
account the proximity of residential communities to centers of employment as a means of
promoting a reasonable jobs to housing balance.
3.4 Conclusions
Based on the above analysis, it has been determined that the existing and future supply of office
space, excluding the subject property, is sufficient to more than meet the demand for services
from Anthem's residents at build out. Office employment, especially non-medical, tends to be
concentrated in select areas because of transportation access, proximity to the labor force and
other efficiencies. By comparison, all of Anthem's office tenants are local-serving, meaning that
they primarily offer services to the nearby population. Per capita demand for these office users
was determined to be 10.8 square feet creating a demand for approximately 300,000 square feet
of office space at build-out. The existing and potential supply of office space based on zoning is
' more than 440,000 square feet The master plan for the community would be better served if the
subject 10.9 acre property was rezoned to a district that provides a wider array of permitted uses.
It needs to be noted that while the build-out population of Anthem has declined from the original
projection of 14,000 units to 10,500 units today (a 25% decrease), the amount of land zoned and
used for office purposes has not changed commensurately. A lower build-out population will
proportionately affect demand for retail as well as local-serving office uses.
19

Appendix
ummary of Businesses/Tenants in Anthem Office and Flex-Industrial Buildings
20

Anthem East of 1-17
Administration building Parcel 6
Anthem Community Associates Apartment complexes
Great Southwest Mortgage
Grand Canyon title Agency Parcel 9
Maricopa County Sheriff's Department Primarily Retail
First American title insurance company Freeman Income tax Service
Re/max integrity realtors Allstate Insurance
Boates & Crump Attorneys
Pulte Development Corporation Parcel lla
John C. Lincoln Urgent Care / Health Center
Anthem Marketplace Angel Pediatrics
Primarily Retail AZ College of Orthopedic Surgeons
State Farm Insurance OSR Physical Therapy Orthopedic
Edward Jones Investments Acupuncture
AZ Eye care Jeffrey Greenberg M.D.
Encore Realty Gavilan Peak Physical Therapy
Dental Care @ Anthem Cornerstone Allergy Clinic
Peter Norman M.D. (aka The Butcher)
Parcel 4A North Good Life Family Health Chiropractic
Vacant land Sonora Quest Labs
The Pain Center of A2
Parcel 4A South Foothills Family Medicare Specialists
Venture Court Prof. Plaza (under construction)
Parcel 1 lb&c
Parcel 4B Starbucks
Vacant land Pizza Hut
Parcel 5a Parcel 12
Two Story Office Building Under Construction CVS Pharmacy
Parcel 58 Parcel 13
Boettcher Family Dentistry & Chiropractor E101 W. Valley Pediatric Dentistry
American Family Insurance Wood Orthodontics
Anil Goud M.D. Affiliated Dermatology
Hasslacher Tax & Financial B130 Community based Outpatient Clinic (VA)
Smiles of Beauty B134 Dr. Flowers Family Dentistry
Brian Darfma Oral & Facial surgery A106
J. Anthony A114 Parcel 14
J Brett Sanders DDS 8I18 Ace Hardware
Jukubilk & Campbell (Insurance) B122 H & R Block
Residential Mortgage Sales American Sterling Bank
Morgan & Morgan Insurance Bl02 Sylvan Learning
Phillip Stice CPA 8102 HOT Realty Inc.
State Farm Insurance C118 lLube & Oil
Alliance Protection Systems Cl14
Phantom Realty Inc C110 Parcel 15
Group Plus Inc C106 (Blue Cross) Mobil Gas Station
Whitman Financial C102
American Title Service Agency D130
BWR LLC DI22
Alliance Medical Clinic (Medical & Surgery Special
The Ambassador Group (Insurance) D114
Chinese Health Center (Acupuncture) D105
21

Anthem est of 1-17
Lot 1 Lot 14 Lot 30A
U-Haul Don Mar Furniture Empty building
Lot 2 Lot 15 Lot 308
Arizona Hills Church C&R Tire & Auto Horizon (Landscape supply/pool !ponds)
Rays Pizza
Scrapbooks to Remember Lot 16 Lot 31
Curves Anthem Commerce Park 4 empty buildings
Twin Pediatrics (14,652 sq ft building under construction)
Pioneer Methodist Church Lot 32
Tea Room (Gift Boutique) Lot 17 2 Flex buildings
Harper Physical Therapy The Little Gym 6 Freestanding buildings
Allstate Insurance All empty
Farmers Insurance Group Lot 18
Floors Plus Titan Pest Control Lot 32.1
All About Eyes Anthem Spiral Care Wal-Mart
Dance Academy Desert Academy Private School
Dentist Yoga for everyone Lot 33
Orthodontics Michael Elanto photographic artist Vacant Land
Cheri Nails
Sleep Source (Mattress Store) Lot 19 Lot I*
Foot & Ankle Doctor Vacant Land Hampton Inn
Nu Image Salon
Karate (AKA Black Belt Academy) Lot 20 Lot 2*
Gutowski Cabinets Vacant Land
Lot 3
Barber Shop Lot 21 Lot 3*
VCA Vineyard Church (a) Anthem Tire Pros tire shop Acton Motor Sports
Veterinarian
Dollyrocicers Salon $ Boutique Lot 22 Lot 4*
Grace Church North All Spares tools.com Tobias Auto Repair
Jump n Play Havana Cigars
Laser skin care + Psychology & Gynecology Powder King (Pulverizing Systems) Lot 5*
American Mortgage Group Dazzle Dental
Daisy Mountain Real-estate Lot 23 Bullseye Cellular
Abilities (Pre-school?) Sonoran Desert Pet Resort Underground clothing
Focus Environmental Inc, Ultimate Imports (Auto repair) Dollar Store
Auto Zone Above & Beyond Grooming (pet grooming)
Lot 4 Mobil Lube Express IMatlinasium (math tutoring)
Advanced Auto Body Salon Eclectic
Lot 24 Panache Nails
Lot 8 Vacant Land 1.95 Cleaners
Creative Castle Preschool Tae Kwando
Tradewinds Mechanical AC & Heating Lot 25 Maricopa Spas & BBQ
Gift shop Vacant Land
TC Golf - golf instruction Lot 6*
Lot 26 Discount Tire
Lot 9 Checker Auto Pride plus
Taylor Tours (Provost Motor Coaches) Econo Lobe & Tune Parkside Deli
Maki Insurance Group
Lot 10a Lot 27
Vacant Land Rayne Water Treatment Lot 7*
Air Options Respiratory (Oxygen Equipment) TCG Fine Art
Lot 10b The Dug Out (indoor batting cages) Beds Salon
Empty Office Building Computer store Dentist
(Just Finished Construction) Montessori @ Anthem (School) American Family Insurance
Kumon (tutoring) Natural Medicine
Lot 11 Chiropractor Karda Family Health Center
2 Empty Office Buildings Kirkwood Financial Corp (Mortgage Broker) Realty Exc.
(Just Finished Construction) Pathways Christian Bookstore
Lot 28
Lot 12 Vacant Land • Lot 8*
Vacant land Mobil on th Run
Lot 29
Lot 13 U-Haul self storage Lot 9*
Vacant Land Denny's
Dell Taco
22

MEMO DUM
TO: Stephen C. Earl and Adrian Williamson, Earl, Curley & Lagarde, P.C.
FROM Rick Merritt, Elliott D. Pollack & Company
DATE: April 8, 2008
RE: Office Supply/Demand Analysis for Anthem Master Planned Community
Here is the demand calculation chart if we include up to 100,000 sf buildings
instead of just 50,000 sf. Demand jumps to 476,000 sf and the potential supply
based on current inventory, under construction and vacant sites is 443,000 sf.
So the under supply is 33,000 sf. When you add in the potential in the flex
buildings, the over supply is 54,000 sf. And the demand in this scenario at
476,000 sf is so large when compared to the existing supply (272,000 sf) that it
does not make sense to hold this parcel for office use. Anthem is virtually built
out from a residential standpoint and there will be little additional increase in
population to stimulate more demand for such employment users..
e Danand. at BuDa Out
hrictikan
0.Cfur Desiatuul al Sri
Demand Factor
intim (SFper Clpti.) Demand (SF)
28350 15.8 476,280
(ffia S&jyrj1r 1ItP) SF
Curcert. invertor7 - Ocap id VcttSF 152,718
Urdc Constructir. 1 L9.000
Total Cara& Iry atari 271,732
Potential Alitaml SF (From Vt Siesli 171_718
Taal 443,436
Ovar(Unalsar) Supply (221e44)
jj Suppriliftlfri Tlav-Tralushisl
ewe. Space Occupiedby Cfr1Ce Uses 33,996
AmmalthIpa Vag art Swi.c44 0 ccuplacIbp. °rico 1k 4,612
Poterthl Cffice Slinky frcm Vrictra. Lard laretaTz 12980
Taal-Maize arke Stppk*Rtaraia1 86,5
kAirnia. Ohli nTn7 Supply kurlaistEELCK Ihnlaings 63,744
Inslulin •if= ksuainp ladlint, an to:f. ti of I-17.
if.iiiit%X. lgrikEin
incrcz.nimo. ocs axo
4
REVD JUL.
• Z2 0 .0 7 0 6 5
- .

Maricopa ;ounty
Planning & Development Department
\lorth !nix, Arizona 44" Street, 85008 Suite 100 TO: Joy Rich, Regional Development Services Director
te: (602) 506-3301 Darren Gerard, Deputy Director
(602) 506-3601
v.maricopa.gov/planning
FROM Matt Holm, Principal Planner
DATE: August 28, 2007
SUBJECT: Office Supply/Demand Analysis for Anthem Master Planned
Community, prepared by Elliot D. Pollack & Co., June 2007
I have complete my review of the above referenced report, which was
provided by Steven Earl in defense of their request for a zone change from C-
O to a yet-to-be-determined category on approximately 11 acres near N.
Daisy Mountain Drive and N. Gavilan Peak Parkway intersection. My
comments, opinions, analysis, and recommendations are provided below;
however I preface this by noting that it is difficult to confirm many of the
statistics and assumptions made by Elliot D. Pollack & Co. (author) since I
don't have ready access to such data. Further, since the author acknowledges
that their company "has been retained to conduct an office market analysis
for the area in and around the Anthem master planned community in
northern Maricopa County"and that "This report is being prepared at the
request of Del Webb as part of a request for rezoning of a 10.9 acre site... "it
should be understood that this report may have an inherent bias in favor of
the applicant's position.
The author identifies two primary types of the office market: so-called "local-
serving" (typically housing small professional and medical firms) and "regional
serving" (typically housing regional headquarters and other firms that deliver
services beyond the area in which it is located). For the purposes of Anthem,
I recognize that regional serving office is no longer viable given the near build
out of the project. Rather, I focus my attention on the local-serving office
market.
For the purposes of this report, the author defines local-serving office as
buildings with less than 50,000 square feet (sq.ft.). However, the author
provides no justification as to why they consider 50,000 sq. ft. a cut-off for
the local-serving office market. Therefore, it gives the appearance that this is
a subjective number used to help bolster the applicant's case. My opinion is
that, with respect to Anthem at least, the local-serving office market can and

icopa rung & County Development August 28, 2007
artment 2
N. Central St.., 3.4 Floor
r-riiv, Arizona 85004-2191
ne: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
does include buildings with up to 100,000 sq. ft. This is supported by the fact
that our department is currently processing a precise plan for the Reliance
Anthem Corporate Center(Z2007038) which totals over 98,400 sq. ft.
Likewise, the Venture Court Professional Office Plaza (Z2005043) consists of
nearly 57,000 sq. ft. of medical offices. Also, the applicant-proposed storage
facility SUP for the subject site is designed for 100,000 sq. ft. My opinion is
that office buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. are already located in Anthem to .
serve local Anthem needs, and thus should be included in the classification of
local-serving office market.
This distinction is important for several reasons. First, by limiting the
classification to under 50,000 sq. ft. the author is able to justify an oversupply
of local-serving office based on a countywide average of 10.4 sq. ft. pei-
capita within a "particular market area", thus assuming the demand for
Anthem would be 306,180 sq. ft. The author further notes that the current
•and "potential"2 office supply in Anthem is 443,436 (P.ii), resulting in an
oversupply of 137,256 sq. ft. of local-serving office space. If the local-serving
office were to include administrative and medical buildings of up to 100,000
sq. ft. — as is currently the case in Anthem — the per capita demand from
the author's own chart (p.9) would increase to 18.77 sq. ft. 3 Under this
scenario, the local-serving office demand in Anthem would increase to
532,130 sq. ft., or nearly 74% greater than the author's recommendation.
This would also result in a shortage based on the author's calculations of
88,694 sq. ft. If the so-called "potential" office were developed for another
type of retail commercial use, the resulting shortage would increase to
260,412 sq. ft.
It appears the author assumes several scenarios for "potential" office
development that contribute to their assumption of oversupply. This includes
using possible development of office in C-2 zoned areas of the county and the
The author provides no definition of what is meant by a 'particular market area" so it is difficult to
determine if this is a reasonable portrayal.
2 Using "potential" office space is very subjective considering that a majority of such potential office
space is located within the C-2 zoning category where office uses are only one potential use, yet 91 •
other potential types of mostly retail commercial uses are also allowed by right. Therefore, it can be
assumed that a significant majority of any C-2 zoning would be developed for uses other than office.
However, the author does not specifically identify which sites the report considers 'potential" office
development
3 Based on a countywide average and assumes that the current supply of such office space is adequate
to meet existing demand. While some jurisdictions are below this average, other jurisdictions far exceed.
the countywide average as identified by the author's report. Phoenix (20.3 per capita demand),
Scottsdale (49.7 per capita demand), and Tempe (30.3 per capita demand) are examples.

301111111=11111111=1F-
copa County August 28, 2007
aing & Development 3
3itsnent
\I. Central St—, 3rd Floor
Arizona 85004-2191
le: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
so-called flex-industrial in the Phoenix portion of Anthem. While it is true that
office uses can and in fact have occurred on some C-2 parcels in Anthem, it is
also important to understand that similar office uses may not occur on other
parcels, or may be converted from office to retail commercial uses as allowed.
under Maricopa County's Zoning Ordinance. In fact, many parcels within the
author's identified office areas are used for other retail uses. Below is a list of
some of the "office" uses identified in the appendix titled Summary of
Businesses/Tenants in Anthem Office and flex-Industrial Buildings (p.20).
Anthem East of 1-17
• Parcel 6: Apartment complexes
• Parcel 11b&c: Starbucks, Pizza Hut
• Parcel 12: CVS Pharmacy
• Parcel 14: Ace Hardware, American Sterling Bank, Lube & Oil
- • Parcel 15: Mobil Gas Station
Anthem West of 1-17
• Lot 1: U-Haul
• Lot 2: Arizona Hills Church, Rays Pizza, Scrapbooks to Remember,
• Curves, Pioneer Methodist Church, Tea Room Gift Boutique, Dance
Academy, Cheri Nails, Sleep Source Mattress Store, Nu Image Salon,
Black Belt Karate Academy
• Lot 3: Barber shop, VCA Vineyard Church @ Anthem, Dollyrockers Salon
& Boutique, Grace Church North, Jurni3 n' Play
• Lot 8: Creative Castle Preschool, Gift Shop, TC Golf Instruction
• Lot 14: Don Mar Furniture
• Lot 15: C&R Tire & Auto
• Lot 17: The Little Gym
• Lot 18: Desert Academy Private School, Yoga for Everyone, Michael
Elanto Photographic Artist
• Lot 21: Tire ,Pros Tire Shop
• Lot 22: Havana Cigars

tcopa rung & County Development August 28, 2007
artrnent 4
enix, N. Central Arizona St.., 85004-2191 3rd Floor
ne: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
• Lot 23: Sonoran Desert Pet Resort, Auto Zone Mobil Lube Express
• Lot 26: Checker Auto, Econo Lube & Tune
Lot 27: The Dug Out (indoor batting cages), Computer store, Kumon
Tutoring
• Lot 29: U-Haul self storage
Lot 30B: Horizon Landscape Supply
Lot 32.1: Wal-Mart
Lot 1: Hampton Inn
• Lot 3: Action Motor Sports
Lot 4: Tobias Auto Repair
• Lot 5: Bullseye Cellular, Dollar Store, Above & Beyond Pet Grooming,
• Mathnasium (tutoring), Salon Eclectic, Panache Nails, $1.95 Cleaners Tae
Kwando, Maricopa Spas & BBq
• Lot 6: Discount Tire, Pride Plus, Parkside Deli-
• Lot 7: TCG Fine Art, Hedz Salon, Pathways Christian Bookstore
• Lot 8: Mobil on the Run
• Lot 9: Denny's, Taco Bell
The point is not to imply that these are not important retail commercial
services for Anthem and area residents, but to highlight that these are
RETAIL uses and not office uses. This demonstrates that, contrary to the
author's report, it cannot be assumed that office uses will occur in the C-2 or
Phoenix-controlled flex-industrial space, and thus should not be considered
part of the numerical calculation.
The author's report further justifies a reduction of office product by
contending that while the number of residential units has come down to
10,500, the amount of land zoned and used for office purposes has nat
changed commensurately. It is my opinion that this statement is not accurate
•based on the following arguments. First, all of the original zoning was Rural-
43, therefore the amount of land zoned for office purposes would, obviously,
not be reduced — commensurately or otherwise. Second, there has been a
significant conversion of land originally planned for office and other non-
residential uses to residential uses. This conversion began in 2004 with the
approval of DMP 2003010, which changes 102 acres from retail, office, and

copa County August 28, 2007
ning & Development 5
artrnent
N. Central St., 3"d Floor
mix, Arizona 85004-2191
ae: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
mixed-uses to residential. This was followed less than a year later by DMP
2004006 which changed another 333 acres from retail, office, and mixed-uses
to residential. Therefore, in less than a year 435 acres of office, retail, and
mixed-uses in Anthem were replaced by residential uses exclusively. To
further highlight this deterioration, Anthem originally planned 844 of the
4,989 acres east of 1-17 for office, retail, and mixed-uses. Today, only 25
acres of office zoned parcels remain. While not all of the original 844 acres
would have necessarily been developed for office uses, if one reasonably
assumes that one-third of these areas would have been office development
then Anthem has experienced a 91% reduction in office uses over the past
three years. Conversely, the number of residential units in Anthem has been
reduced by approximately 36% since initial approval. Therefore, one could
argue that the reduction in office zoning is not proportionate in relation to the
reduction of residential units, and thus reinforces a belief that Anthem has
devolved into a mostly residential development which is contrary to Maricopa
County's policies on development master plans to provide balanced uses, help
mitigate traffic and air quality problems, provide services and employment
opportunities, and provide an overall enhanced quality of life.
• Further evidence supporting this position is that of the 4,989 acres east of I-
17, an overwhelming 96% is zoned for residential uses, while less than one
half of one percent is zoned for office employment uses. As a result, Anthem
is currently over 91% below Maricopa County's adopted land use standards,
and would be approximately 95% below the county's adopted standard if an
• additional 11 acres of office employment uses were eliminated. Given these
statistics, it is difficult to understand how the author or the applicant can
justify that Anthem has excessive employment uses, meets Maricopa County's
standards for master planned communities in unincorporated areas, or that
employment uses have not been reduced in a commensurate manner.
The author concludes their report by stating that Anthem has "considerable
vacant land that is already zoned for office uses. "As noted earlier, it is hard
to understand how the author can conclude that 25 acres out of 4,989 acres
— only one half of one percent — currently zoned in Maricopa County for
office uses constitutes considerable land zoned for office uses whether or not
currently vacant. The author also concludes that "According to real estate
brokers working in the area, demand for office buildings in Anthem is limited
•and there exists a sizable inventory of C-2 zoned land that can accommodate
office uses as well." However, the author does not identify which bi-okers
they base their conclusion upon. Also, as noted previously while C-2 zoning

1111111.n
copa County August 28, 2007
ning & Development 6
N. artrnent Central St.., 3'd Floor
mlix, Arizona 85004-2191
ae: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
does allow office uses there are an overwhelming 91 other types of uses that
are allowed by right in the C-2 zoning, meaning that it cannot be assumed
that office uses will develop in C-2 zoning districts, or if they are that they will
not be converted to retail commercial uses in the future. To help resolve this
discrepancy, I discuss a possible solution later in this memorandum.
The author further concludes by saying that the county's policy of balanced
land uses is a wise policy, but that not all master planned communities
possess the assets and characteristics that contribute to employment
generation. Further, policies that force a mix of employment and residential
uses on every master planned community are not viable and must account for
the proximity of residential communities to employment centers.
Subsequently, given Anthem's location far from the available labor pool major
employers are not willing to locate in the community.
• I disagree with this conclusion in several respects. First, as noted previously I
do not assuming that major, regional employers will locate in Anthem. Rather, ..
my attention is focused on providing opportunity for small, office-based •
businesses to locate in unincorporated master planned communities. Such
, businesses not only provide employment opportunities, but provide valuable
services to area residents proximate to their homes. Indeed, unincorporated •
areas are not suited for large-scale businesses due to the lack of services,
infrastructure, and population. These businesses should indeed locate in
incorporated municipalities. However, because master-planned communities
are located in the so-called 'fringe' metropolitan area, small businesses are
generally better suited for such areas. Encouraging small, office-based s
businesses is encouraged in Maricopa County's Development Master Plan
• Guidelines (DMP), and in its comprehensive plan. The reasons for this are
clear. According to the Small Business Association - Office of Advocacy,4
• Small firms represent over 99% of all employer firms
• Employ nearly half of all private sector employees
• Provide more than 45% of all private payroll
• Generated between 60% and 80% of new jobs annually over the past
decade
• Create more than half of nonfarm private GDP
• Hire 40% of high tech workers
4 Small Business Association — Office of Advocacy. Found at www.sba.clov/advo

r.opa County August 28, 2007
ing & Development 7
irtment 4. Central St., 3nd Floor
nix, Arizona 85004-2191
le: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
• • Small firms with less than 20 employees employed 21.2 million U.S.
citizens
According to the Arizona Entrepreneur Week and Business Expo' Arizona is a
leader in small business creation in that 98% of businesses in Arizona employ
fewer than 100 people, and 98% of all new job creation is within those
companies. If new development via large-scale master planned communities
is to occur in unincorporated Maricopa County, then these small, office-type
businesses are better suited than major employers. Therefore, the author's
contention that Anthem cannot attract major employers is immaterial.
The author notes that not all communities (it is assumed this means master
planned communities in unincorporated areas, including Anthem) are able to
contribute to employment generation due to their remote locations, and that
the county's policies regarding balanced land uses need to account for such
situations. In fact, Maricopa County's 'DMP Guidelines do account for such
•circumstances as noted in the Recommended Land Use Guidelines. However,
this is an issue that is raised periodically by applicant with respect to large
master planned communities. In short, it is used to justify the lack of land usev.,:--
balance and why such projects develop as bedroom communities where •
residents live and, therefore, commute to employment and other services in
other locations. This directly contradicts Maricopa County's long-standing
policy that DMPs are the preferred type of development because they provide
the best opportunities for balanced land uses. If as the author contends that
the remote location of Anthem (and therefore all other DMPs in
unincorporated Maricopa County since they are remote from the urban area)
creates situations where balanced land uses are unsustainable, then Maricopa
County should reconsider its policy of allowing such development in
unincorporated areas. Specifically, there is no inherent benefit to,Maricopa
County when large-scale urban development occurs in unincorporated areas
versus incorporated municipalities. Indeed, it is actually a fiscal detriment due
to the services and infrastructure that are required to serve unincorporated
residents, yet are subsidized by residents of incorporated areas.
While this problem has much broader implications than are at issue here, it
does raise specific concerns with respect to Anthem. Specifically, Anthem was
presented and promoted by the applicant to the Board of Supervisors as a
unique, mixed-use community. The following is a list of direct quotes from
5 Arizona Entrepreneur Week and Business Expo. Found at www.azentreoreneurweek.corn/faq

icopa County August 28, 2007
fling & Development 8
N. artment Central St., 3.1 Floor
enix, Arizona 85004-2191
ne: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
the original narrative report dated December, 1994 as presented to the Board
of Supervisors for consideration of approval for Anthem (formerly known as
The Villages at Desert Hills).
"The Villages at Desert Hills is envisioned as a highly ameniffzed, mixed-use
community consistent with the tradition of excellence Del Webb has
established in its master-planned communities throughout the country."
Development Master Plan for the Villages at Desert Hills (December
27, 1994), P.1
"Few opportunities exist in the metropolitan area for viable new self-
contained communities. Various Valley development projects call themselves
'new' communities, but for the most part they are nothing more than new -
subdivisions with no significant impact on metropolitan development patterns.
; The opportunity to provide a full range of visual and recreational amenities
along with residential and employment uses on a strategically located scenic.-.;
t n. property, while protecting and enhancing environmental features is; at bestip.
::l atypical in area development." . • .
Development Master Plan for the Villages at Desert Hills (December-
- 27, 1994), P.1
"The Villages at Desert l-fills is a 5,661 acre self-contained, master planned
community proposed by Del Webb Lakeview Corporation. The Villages at
Desert Hills is designed to offer a broad range of housing types,
retail/commercial services, employment uses and open space/recreational
opportunities that accentuate the natural beauty of the area.
Development Master Plan for th- Villages at Desert Hills (December
27, 1994), P.10
"A large portion of the 938-acre burned area (which is void of amenities, lacks
environmental constraints and is adjacent to 1-17) is planned for a mix of
commercial, employment and moderate-density residential uses."
Development Master Plan for the Villages at Desert Hills (December
27, 1994), f..12

copa County August 28, 2007
trtrnent ting & Development - •
N.1. Central St.., 3rd Floor
mix, Arizona 85004-2191
ne: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510 •
."Del Webb Lakeview Corporation (Del Webb) is proposing to master plan The
Villages at Desert Hills site as a self-contained community with a mix of
residential, commercial, employment, open space and recreation uses.
Development Suitability Report, P.1
"The central position of The Villages at Desert Hills within the planning area
coupled with its location on a regionally significant transportation corridor, I-
17, makes this project the ideal site to provide the entire planning area with a
range of land uses necessary to support this important region of Maricopa
County."
Development Suitlbilty Report, P.3
"Few opportunities remain in the metropolitan area for viable new
T:Lcommunities that are More than new subdivisions. The opportunityto
. The Villages at Desert Hills self-contained community with residential, • .
employment and retail uses and a full range of visual and recreational.,
• 'amenities, while protecting important environmental features in a .
comprehensive fashion is a-typical in area development. Such a self-- • • - .
contained community requires the combination of significant acreage, viable
residential densities and a mix of service and employment uses.•
Development Suitability Report, P.3
"Consultant research shows that The Villages at Desert Hills can support more
than three times as much retail and service uses as typical one-house per
acre development located on the site. These establishments will create a
significant number of new jobs for the area and related revenues to the
County."
Development Suitability neport, P.8
"In addition to decreasing costs for infrastructure and services, increased
employment and shopping opportunities will contribute to both private
income generation in the area as well as to State and County tax revenues to
pay for ongoing public services."
Development Suitability ilei2ort, P.9

copa County August 28, 2007
rung & Development 10
artrnent
n1. Central St.., 3'1 Floor .
mix, Arizona 85004-2191
le: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
"The Villages at Desert Hills is a socially and fiscally responsible project that
provides a spectrum of living and working opportunities for a range of
household types.
Development Suitabil ity Report, P.10
"The Villages at Desert Hills is designed as a fully contained community In
addition to avoiding negative impacts of low density sprawl and thus • •
• achieving the above-cited benefits, The Villages at Desert Hills concentrates
the traffic, business activities and residential uses on the site without forcing
negative interaction with the surrounding area. With the development of the •
proposed self-contained community, many important aspects of the status.
quo can be preserved... ".
Development Suitability Report, P.10
"The Villages at Desert Hills is designed asa highly 'amenitized' mixed-use
community.."
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative (December 27, 1994), *
"The Villages at Desert Hills is a socially, environmentally, and fiscally
responsible project that provides a spectrum of living and working
opportunities..."
Development Suitability Report, P.18
It is difficult to understand how in just a few short years Anthem has gone
from a community that was repeatedly promoted to the Planning and
Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Board
of Supervisors with descriptions like "self-contained", "mixed-use", and "fully
contained", to one that the author notes does not possess the assets and
characteristics that contribute to employment generation. Since the author's
assessment of employment opportunities in Anthem stands in complete
contrast to the applicant's assessment as recently as 2003 (prior to the last
two DMP amendments), it is my impression that either the author's numbers
are crafted in such a way to justify their purpose, or the applicant has
repeatedly altered what the Anthem DMP is planned to achieve. Either way,
the fact remains that unincorporated Anthem currently contains office

copa iirlg & County Development August 28, 2007
irtment 11
\I. mix., Central Arizona St., 85004-2191 3'd Floor
ie (607) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
employment zoning on only one half of one percent, yet contains 96%
residential zoning. This has resulted in Anthem contributing to significant
traffic problems in the region which, in turn, contributes to air quality
problems and a lower quality of life for county residents. Ironically, as
identified earlier it is the applicant's own narrative report that assailed such
development by stating "Various Valley development projects call themselves
'new' communities, but for the most part they are nothing more than new
su,bdivisions with no significant impact on metropolitan development patterns.
Conclusion
I have many questions regarding the statistics included in the author's report,
and how they arrived at the assumptions they identify. Absent this
information, it is difficult for me to fully understand these assumptions
considering that such assumptions with numbers and statistics can produce
very different results. The author's assumptions produce a surplus of office
- employment, while my assumptions identify a potential deficit.
The purpose of my assessment is not to challenge the validity of the author.
7 or their data, nor to use my assumptions as fact Indeed, the author is a .'•
highly respected economic research firm with highly-skilled experts in the
field of economic data. Rather, my intention is to simply demonstrate that
statistics can be used and viewed in a way to support a myriad of opinions,
including my own.
With that preface, in my opinion the author's numbers are presented in such
a way as to significantly bolster the applicant's position. Most importantly, I
disagree with the author's assumption of limiting their calculations to
buildings less than 50,000 sq. ft. As noted earlier, Anthem already includes
office buildings greater than 50,000 sq. ft. and, therefore, the report should
Include up to 100,000 sq. ft. in their per capita needs assumptions. Further,
the author builds in assumptions about the "potential" of C-2 and the
industrial-flex product in Phoenix to house office employment uses. I again
emphasize that while C-2 can and, in some instances, has developed with
office product, this is by no means assured and in fact is not likely. I point to
the author's own list ofeso-called office uses on page 3 of this report in
support of my position. The same is true for the flex-industrial space in the
Phoenix portion of Anthem, where similar examples exist. Therefore, such
assumptions about future office uses in C-2 and the flex-industrial properties
should be considered suspect.

:opa County August 28, 2007
Ling & Development 12
rtment
4. Central St.., 3.1 Floor
ribt, Arizona 85004-2191
c: (602) 506-6150
:602) 506-8510
Recommendations
The author at least partially validates their conclusion about excess
employment by using the assumption that office employment uses will occur
in the C-2 zoned portions of unincorporated Anthem and in the flex-industrial
space in the Phoenix portion of Anthem. As I have noted, while this can and
does occur it is by no means guaranteed. Further, such uses can and may be
converted to retail commercial by right at a later date. While Maricopa County
has no authority over the types of uses that locate in the flex-industrial space,
my recommendation will focus specifically on the unincorporated portions of
Anthem.
At a minimum I recommend that the applicant — with staff support — request
a commission initiated zone change for all parcels within the C-2 zoning
districts of Anthem that currently contain office uses, so that these parcels
can be changed to C-0 zoning. Doing this accomplishes several things. First,
it would help validate the author's assumptions that office uses have and will
locate within the C-2 districts. Second, since this would be a commission-
- initiative there would not be a cost to the applicant, thus eliminating any •
pretext that such a change would be too costly.
From the county's perspective, since the probable impacts from the zone
change would likely be negligible (C-2 to C-0), review time and effort would
also likely be minimal, thus the impacts to the department would be
minimized. However, there would be important benefits to the county
including a guarantee of additional office uses and services for Anthem
residents to help (at least in a small way) mitigate traffic impact in this area
and, therefore, helping mitigate air quality issues and providing a more
balanced land use plan consistent with the county's long-standing policies.
I also recommend that this conversion take place prior to any action on the
subject (water campus) parcel. Once such a conversion takes place, we will
have a better understanding of exactly how much assured office employment
uses are in Anthem, and will be able to make a more informed decision
regarding the subject parcel.

M AICOPA COUNTY, AR 7.011A
Applicants Name: EARL, CUR LEY & LAGARDE P.C. Phone: p02) 265-0094 Zoning Map 008025
Case Ad dress:IWVC GAVILAN PEAK & DAISY MTh PEAK Parce1:203-10-933 Al 04
SUPERVImORAL DISTRILJ NO 3
REQUEST:
Legend
I.MERICAN SELF STORAGE ANTHEM
Streets COMMERCIAL STORAGE
parcels C-0 ZONING DISTRICT 7J AC )
r _ j Zoning
- Thruway IMRICOPA COUNTY 1 " equa s 200'
PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT
PHOENIX, ARIZONA

MP JCOPA COUNTY AF - I
Drawn By: OW 06/0212008 Legal Description: SE4 Section: 22 Township: 06N 02E
e Ad dress:NOIC GAVILAN PEAK & DAISY MTN PEAK Parcel:203-10-933
U1ERVISORAL DI- 1`1;1 T NO. 3
REQUEST:
Legend
AMERICAN SELF STORAGL ANTHEM
Streets COMMERCIAL STORAGE
1-1 parcels C-0- ZONING DIC,TRICT (7J ACi ,IES) S.U.P.
Zoning
. Thruway MARICOPA COUNTY 1 "equals 450
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHOENIX, ARIZONA

• •
EGAL DESCRIP ION
PROJECT DATA
• O15 0 01711*Wl VAttAto 51 Ut VC .10:171.0 Aat 60,‘ mem/ .000. IMIRTA WA
tar .e• 4.1/0 .46.0 004001, M41460 ',fee 640' I v,.7004..0 '1•04.sC5 realm, •Tna.
We.. 61 le nian1t0 1151 60#0e 11.0 .041.11 46 550010 Sc.-ses...A 0.40C- 160-14 AZ ,11,00 4117110
/1•4•101005,140. A.A.- KARMA..
-..6* ti kISS 'Lit 511,10 ....al 10 SAVA* obAltto ".{G1 YAM DM,. er 0645 1•C
.00.tor . er a.% Nor. FARO, T2 ARCHITECT
le. •.40 Set, 66 a.• 04/112.6 ,A10.0 AAA. 0 Wine, ca.Aft •• 17 AK fa" NY • 0411.11A Ch. 0 <AA 06.., 1000 • -6, r/L7? 0.1 6..00> a, GROUP, 01 ten .11,0 LU
•POO VW 0. nal mr, Mta. 6001, Mb OM
0144465 ko. '15 • Mt" 4510' MONO Iwo WI, MO SO A ,,evo VIM, ttgA061 WA, CAM At MA, AMU ttl• Its* IMAM , ,* A001. kat; We Al
11,0 WOO Arr, 0.1,AA SARA AA Pt OA. AAA. *1111.11.11MOMI
1,11,06..1010, PI'S•4:1 •.4.011 LP* el 0 CMOS 0 •,066. ere, •n 410M0 t fg. 021157 CMS. *MAW. MATA. 5.,00.) Cr. arr.V4 Waft. ar.. Yew ra
1C446 .06,, £41105515 4.0t6 0, =OM tAir • MAGA 01,2•0 \\ W-49 742. 60.• 640 6600 P. Men,
Nf 0 MOWN PunAs 155401-Ir PI77,7 e AftEw. 611/140[ Neti.4/0
VICINITY MAP DUS VALUIT YWCA UAW 'IISIIL da 14,01.1•ArA Tel,- tont 2.4 n• 110A 92,1.1 a 0•061101011 / 710 60000
W.* 17.414615 11....67,77. YONL,It, not., n706 Lt •AA AV, 144I 6,4 4106411661M. erne ge0610 MAW,. IMO AAA al
:c t 1166 6.1. ESOWSX2.101010-age.6602A7g, ay../ tah / mint,* I
•• •te 241.0.2r Tn 11-1.0011 Av AAA. WIC. ...AGIN., MLA Aram.* 11101.111.111.11111
M1 coAt0AAIAL rAttC 6-3 60.1,1083 A... tv AAA
"7.011-TOAOP IPAAI A AAA...
"1464 itt.,Ost newt* At 5.11 •4
IttnAgSr..24. t •
orm tr:ottal f 2,10511!. 11,
4. eiteKmfo410. ,LL 54,0 A440/6 001*15 $ Irtlattelt 1, 5045 pzr $402 I, • - 1.• cn
W.A.*, •tv 1.4640961*1 *MT TD 7040-01755000 VOA012 O 4.,614 ••• icon. .- 2
10115*54W Man kV,. IroAAsa 11-0AAAV
s-auar
411V. -550'
"E.3
tin
w00
!"1114117.012 ADAM, OW* ace. 150ACA' "At4 w
12:09. 0tt20. umal Lemia (.9
przto: IV,
60 et,460At >taa....,, nae 0404910/ 60A1 0144. a 4,, ra ceocco
00y0140 fi:Z. War
=rarnv 1-0-0
I W.VA.* A! • a a AL, Cl)
644*04 ntiell OLftt'At.. NW • 0a14 Oar.,
11.1
CO
• ITY Gam.114.4.7 A+00.....Vwxrel
otA0tr..001. ••10•44,14n, Antl(044 0,661. .01*4 140.01/011110 1•••ert 60.1•W0 Ve
5.-o.k.-Aor, ELM,* .0.. It& MNIZAF.A. AAA CtallttlY hOse oren.
R•GA-E, v70 AM* ATINKMAN R.1.164.17 •Ett AAIIMAL TIMEI•1400: Wog. "eitr,MEI AAA WA f•610, 76‘ R 0.10/t. 6.Y
KARR 4.01,44t
200-10-041t4 1.17-411 1004 .4401-6 r...0.404
nay OVA ..OoIi1i0 t40 445 10406.
LW 5,4. WRIT
' 01,006 nier 16-1.6
10006 011, 0-111-61
01.4.1¢ 64,066,1 LNIT MIX NET R AS
ert PLAI
.S.-ORAOE -Ai ,S7,46 PI-A.q.1
rA, SEW t rLooR
1/4Vt0.Ale. it SO
'RAO AP Mt • MO
-Z2008025
RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2008

41!
IJ
!
1•Prig•WM110511••••
.76014.M.Tailow•EMNON
4n•••••••••ILWillardo
11•111.1111 Immo
1111•=1/111•11•111•••••111
•111••••01111
1••••••1111
aimmnn=1
tiviimunni
1 t II
F
1111•••••••••••11111•1111
MIMEO MMMMMMMMM
11•11=1111111= MMMMM NI
Milir'"•n••••••••••11
Illear••••••1:211•11111
11•••••••••••••111/1.
•1111111111111•I
EQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR:
AMERICOR INVESTMENT GRP.
SELF STORAGE ANTHEM
EXAM CASE MII8025

*111n1111111111WININW
WILITII DOCK
COCOA MOM T2 ARCRITECTUI
SPLIT GROUP, LLO.
11,21 P ffrx WM $111 11
DIM IMMIX 1.004t 75744.04 10157 00) (4 44.0
,WOODLAI314 MOW
-01•0111
OPP,
DUNN
t^,NNORTH EL.E \eAT ON ORM
r1ITA.
000FL
•
all
()SOUTH E1-E vAT I ON r) 0
WALL Vre-IP nismi
!WI ""itril C.)
lossainm it
NIIIIWINIS+1 WWWW61121:WI
lii • t llilllwwWwWWWww
ill unnuntriralllisininsu HHOrrliralaina is• l I g
0Tr. 6CREEN
iCALL ii4••1,41.
WEST ELEvAT I ON
Jowl. Lwow
Fon TO 0t0.0001 rAeavaAAAD NM MAN NOT To TO MI !AG= ArrAGArD A TOTH.
Or RV VS PT. NM SP 02(00.000 410410

*Reionsuomm
Aim
Imam IRLITI DLO=
COCOA ellegAl T2 ARCHITECI1
RN !PUT GROUP, L1C
II SINN MIN nil 1117.1 MI WI
.1111., MA mon IT
=VI tr ...6 ,0
A6I) MPS IWO
CT =4 MT.
lutP
0
U..
111.:
101e
LU 0W
wz-
cow
0 43 (40‹ u
War €
cowl-
<Ocf)
69-L-5
cr)
IRWHOAT CANOPY
0 FROM WITHIN PARKIN4 AREA
lo411.

1n1=11
lami nfill 1 milimm invorinami linifornflani nntrffirtirrinfoim iffrIfirrcruis rilltirru-amis rrimiltilumm Irrorairn-mi h rratiii:fgrerAWrntrinirrri—H9-1-- un-q-- Hinfrirrirmiran'HIfiri CNACICALL RLITII BLOCK
NMI MIN MIIII MI NMI 61.1017i14
i T2 ARCHREO OROUP,
"KM rut t in. TIM MO I
Mn 04-3141 n
BUILDING 03
/7\ NORTH 04aT Z.gvATION
IR 1 MOSICI.
0
LL
F-
2
c4
a. I-LI
LLI F
cnuj
u)c9 1-Lij
Ow<
w (w
cowl_
<ow
cC 1±-1
0 ix w
Bu!LDING BuiLDING 03 BuiLDING P 4 Buil-DING 04 u_
oNO;;M.4 UAW* EL.EvATION ®SOuTH ET ELSvATIONS ogaST ELEvATIONB u).<
11 G.M.I. ecAir.
1111 Ill 1 111 1 11 1111 1 1 11111111 II II III 11 11111 11 Ii 11 l ilt
1111111 1111111r1M1M1111111111Nrrill11111 MIllirr
'BUILDING $14
rza5OUTH ELEvATION
I IICALt

COLORMAT'R LEGEND
I 1 1 III 11 III II 1 III 1111 111 III III 1 1 11 11 I III ID sm. III IIIIII 111 III III II mirr III II 1 II hhIhIH 11111111141 III Ill IIIII 11 111 111 II
• PINR-1.ITII BLOCK
1.1-11101-11.1-60- 11/ airn •CHARCOAL
SMOOTH PACE
SOMMITII BLOCK
COCOA 'ROW 72 ARCHtTECTURE
SPLIT GROUP, LIC.
PAM bm,3M. tn.
EilJILCIN4 IVAN SOWARDS *ewoommemn MMJIM-mo .
0,50UTH EA51 ELEVAT ON -WOOOLAIA •DSG11, OAS
SOALM ,a4,71.4=0:
MAW SMARM
, WOOL71,AYAY ARS
-OIEC11S
mmteM TI.1.10r
Mr;
F5LIILOINC., 05
rANORTH WEST ELEVATION
ViVc.u.s,
•IMI +4'
1 9 Ji Viso 1 Ng
, il No
is ••
. N.
. um.
_ . ....I
5UILDING 05 BUILOING 05 5I-JILDINC; eUILOING
() SOUTH W EST EL.ETION vA "-A NORTH EAST EI_EvATIoN S SOUTH WEST ELEvATION NORTH EAST EUEVATIONS
I III IJUI.ijI I II I 11111H1111111
MI OW
0962108 Mi-/
SCA1-11.1/11.1"•0'
4¶,:s.`!"
INTERIOR
NISDA41 I I,
ISNAT011

lossumminam
_
_ _ _ _ 11 _ 1 _ - - 1 - 1
T2 ARCHITECT]
GROUP, LLC
• awri_r;i1N5 IMO .4-1>in fo,
NoRTH WEeT ELEvATION
161 Till 4.:
it=1.1111'4141141,1
1.nrta storswf 0,01.10 CO
All . klarIM 61
BI.411..OIN5 21
°SOUTH EAST ELEvATION
II II
111111 I II I I II
BLIII-OING 21 EsUILDINC., 21 E5L.ilLOING SUILDING 29
r\NORTH ET al_svATION aeOUTH WEST ELEvATION ez\SOuTH EAST EI-Ev4,TION t'N NORTH WEST ELEVATION
1,4,7; 14'0AP' nC".II, v'. -• tzjilcaul]
WOW pat WV..
eUll-OING 29
()NORTH EAST ELEvATION MANN Mt WI..
+1:01.1.01111 .1- 77r. . 171.7. . Gomm
t _
111111
1111111 -- 11.1111111111.111r - - - 111111111.1 0.0
1 - Evve V
- 1 1E.
Tne
EIJILDNEI 1
BUTLOIN5 ILIIYATION
°SOUTH WE5T ELEvATION

Arawn•nn
CHARCOAL
SMOOTH PACO
su
T2 ARCHITECT
GROUP, Lu
ROW /271 MNl TPI I1O INV art
T 044T14 re
MAI MOM Vt ROMP
red.„
000RA Comae OKIVICIMS
BUJ...D ING Oe
r\NORTH EL-EvATION Ell CSCROT
UI
1.4-00011
8 SMOOTH NIII.
•IIANC WRAORR
Iiirffirirlirlififfrign1111111101111111111111111 COCOA maw
Nor aim Nos am -INN EN Iwo IlioVisom Nur ma mew ow ore `MCI
IBA W PAWL
Harpy ono _ srwor m iwilli 1 51W1 . iiiiiiffillififillivirinninin TM 1 ow. r .
MN MI INN.IIIII I NOM MS all MN NM MI MIMI NM
E5'6411-DiNG ste,
()SOUTH EJ-EvATION
SU/LP/NG 08 BUJ-D ING 2,5
/TN pasT E.Ev,41-101.4 eNWEST 1/44).GALIts E-EvATION
• .1..110

NARRATIVE REPORT — Z2008025
.'PECIAL USE PERMIT
for
Arnericor Self Storage Anthem
North of the Northwest Corner of Gavilan Peak
Parkway and Daisy Mountain Driv--*
53.i
PARCEL C-0 7 lAc
ace. -0/Pc ar:
R1-1$ 003.8Ag
GIWILAR PARKWAY PEAK Pr_yerty to This Subject
Application
43
Maricopa County, Ari ona
March 200&
May 2008 — Revision RE AUG 2 12003
July 2008 — Revision
August 2008 - Revision
12008025

PURPOSE OF REQUEST
This is a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a commercial storage facility with
ancillary truck rental on 7.5 acres of the excess land at the Anthem wastewater treatment
plant site (Vs/WTP). The SUP request is being filed to run concurrently with the previously
filed rezoning request for the entire 8.4 acre site from C-0 to C-2 (Case #Z2007065). The
site is currently vacant and a portion of this site previously housed the tempo' Daisy
Mountain fire station.
This property was recently rezoned from Rural-43 to C-0 following the Anthem Panhandle
amendment because County staff felt strongly that there should be additional land in
Anthem for employment related uses. The County Staff and Anthem agreed on a
stipulation that required several parcels north of the Panhandle be rezoned from C-2 and
Rural-43 to C-0 to accommodate these employment related uses; specifically Parcels
4A/4B, the temporary fire station site, and the excess area from the WWTP campus which
was no longer needed for future plant expansions. While Parcels 4A/4B continue to be
excellent locations for office/employment uses along with the already
developed/developing office facilities in the area of Anthem Way, the site immediately in
front of the WWTP campus on the curve of Gavilan Peak Parkway has not generated any
demand for office, employment or commercial uses. The proposed high-end storage
facility is uniquely suited for this parcel. There is a high demand for climate controlled
storage, outdoor storage units and secured storage for recreational vehicles in the Anthem
area. The locational challenges facing this site for most uses do not adversely affect its
desirability for such storage facilities. Unfortunately, marketing of the property for C-0
uses since March of 2005 has not been successful. Anthem has been monitoring market
demand for office and their consultant has consistently stated that Anthem now has its
necessary allotment of employment zoning. An office supply market study is provided
with the application.
As such, a request to rezone the subject property to C-2 with a SUP on behalf of Americor
is being submitted to Maricopa County. Americor has developed a similar high-end
storage facility in the City of Surprise.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The storage facility will consist of an approximately 67,568 square foot indoor climate
controlled building, and a number of outdoor storage units totaling approximately 51,980
square feet, and both covered and open vehicle storage spaces in the rear of the site
adjacent to the WVVTP on the 7.5 acre site. The main building will be fully climate
controlled while the outdoor units will have air handling units. There will be
approximately 438 storage units in the main building, approximately 288 outdoor units
and approximately 53 vehicle storage spaces. The fully climate controlled units will range
from 5'x5' to 10'x20' in size and the outdoor units will range from 5'x10' to 12'x30'. The
vehicle storage spaces will range from 12'x30' to 12'x45' in size with approximately 24
spaces under a canopy structure. There is a wash bay and dump/air station for incoming
RVs and other vehicles to be stored. There will potentially be up to 15 moving vehicles
available for rent that will be stored in the rear of the outdoor storage area within proposed
vehicle storage spaces. There is no fueling proposed on site. A site plan is provided for the
storage facility with the application.
The hours of operation for the main building and potential truck rental is 7am to 7pm
seven days a week with a 24-hour security key pad entry for the outdoor facilities. There
will be three to six employees during business hours. An approximately nine-foot masonry
wall in conjunction with the proposed buildings will enclose and secure the facilities.
Security cameras and appropriate lighting will be installed throughout the site to ensure a
safe and secure environment for both indoor and outdoor storage elements.

The storage building is architecturally styled for compatibility with the Anthem
development to give an appearance of an office building. The building will be two stories
with a building height of 24 feet. The building has various masonry accenting, undulating
facades and shade structures to provide an appealing facility for Anthem. The exterior
building materials consist of smooth and split-face block, metal accents and shading
elements, stucco and decorative tile. The color palette consists of earth tones including
charcoal, cocoa brown and woodlawn green. The Anthem Architectural Review
Committee has evaluated and approved the building elevations.
The site wall will utilize similar architectural styling to the main building. Elevations of the
building and screen wall are provided with the application. Signage complying with both
the County Zoning Ordinance and Anthem requirements will be provided for the
development. General signage allowances have been indicated on the submittal exhibits.
The storage facility with ancillary rental of moving vehicles will be a permanent
development on the site and the anticipated timeframe for the Special Use is 20 plus years.
The remaining approximately one acre pad in the northeast portion of the site along
Gavilan Peak Parkway will be reserved for a future C-2 user. The pad site will be graded,
and vegetated or surfaced to control dust in conjunction with the storage facility
construction.
RELATIONSHIP TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The storage facility is bound by the high school athletic fields to the north, Gavilan Peak
Parkway to the east with a church directly east of the parkway, a church to the south, and
the Anthem WWTP to the west. There is a single-family residential neighborhood to the
northeast of the site east of Gavilan Peak Parkway. The proposed use will be compatible
with the surrounding uses and be visually appealing to area residents.
LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY
The site is accessed from the existing Gavilan Peak Parkway. There is a full median break
aligned with King Drive to provide full turning movements into the site.
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Entry into the storage facilities will be provided from the existing 30-foot WVVTP driveway,
which has a landscape median at Gavilan Peak Parkway. Driveway access into each area
of the proposed development will occur from the existing primary driveway. The area
north of the driveway will be gated, while unrestricted driveway access to customer
parking will occur adjacent to the primary storage building on the south site of the primary
driveway. A gated access into the outdoor storage area behind the primary storage
building is located behind the building. The north storage area is designed to
accommodate the circulation of recreational vehicles. The existing easement (Maricopa
County Recorded Document 20020037405) will be maintained over the driveway for
continued access to the WVVTP.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULING
The storage facility will be constructed in a single phase. The remaining C-2 out-parcel
will be developed as the market dictates.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The storage facility will have little or no impact on community facilities and services. A
restroom will be provided for employees and outside washing stations for vehicles with
required drainage facilities will be provided.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Public Utilities are provided to the site from the following service providers:
Water - Arizona-American
Wastewater - Arizona-American
Electric - APS
Telephone - Local Provider
Cable - N/A
Gas - N/A
Fire - Daisy Mountain Fire District
Police - MCSO
Refuse - Private
School District -- Deer Valley Unified
MINDEXVsmericonAnthern Mini Warehouse\ Docs\Special PermieSP Narrative August 2008- Arnericer.doe

Planning & Development UNE
Depa ent ST
SHOP
DATE: March 25, 2008
TO DISTRIBUTION NOTED BELOW
FROM: Rachel Applegate, Planner, Planning and Zoning Division
RE: Americor Self Storage — lst Review
CASE #: Z2008025
Enclosed are the following application materials relating to the zoning case noted above date
stamped received 3/19/08:
• Application
• Narrative Report
• Site Plan
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will hold a meeting to discuss the above-referenced
case on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 1:00 p.m., at the Maricopa County Planning 8t.
Development Department, 1st Floor of 501 N. 44th Street, in Phoenix.
You, or your authorized representative, are invited to prepare and submit written
recommendations at the meeting. If you are unable to attend, please submit written
recommendations to our Department prior to the date of the meeting.
Please call me at 602-372-0318 (or email to rachelapplegateemail.maricopa.gov) if you have
any questions. Thank you.
MEMO:lat.
City of Phoenix
Deer Valley Unified School Dist.
Daisy Mountain Fire District
New River/Desert Hills Community Association
Dove Valley Coalition
Bradshaw Foothills Coalition
Arizona Dept. of Transportation
Maricopa County Dept. of Emergency Management
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY (memo only via e-mail):
Steven Earl, Earl, Curley 84. Lagarde
Gary Pasciak, MCDOT
Wes Shonerd, MCESD
William Haas, Drainage Review
Matt Holm, Comprehensive Planning
Ana Gorbenko, Flood Control District
Ron Wood, Plan Review
501 N. 44th Street, Suite 100 • Phoenix, AZ 85008 • (602) 372-0318 • (602) 506-8369 fax
rachelapplegate@rnail.maricopa.gov
561 DIntemet www.maricopa.goviplanning< Rev 1-9-02

Maricop,. County
Planning & Development Department
smommonsom
I North 44th Street, Suite 100 TO: Rachel Applegate, Project Management
eniz, Arizona 85008
one: (602) 506-3301
c Av.maricopagov/plarming (602) 506-3601 FROM: Matt Holm, Comprehensive Planning
DATE: March 24, 2008
SUBJECT: Z2008025 (Americor Self-Storage)
Comprehensive Planning has reviewed the material submitted for the above
referenced case. Our position regarding this request is outlined below.
This request relates directly to two previous DMP amendments approved by
the Board of Supervisors in June, 2004 (case #DMP 2003010) and February,
2005 (case # DMP 2004006) respectively. With respect to case DMP
2003010, staff was amenable to this amendment to change approximately
102 acres from commercial, employment, and mixed-use to residential that
accommodated R1-6 zoning. Staff did not oppose this amendment primarily
because of the approximately 333 acres of commercial, employment, and
mixed-use land that remained as part of the so-called 'panhandle' of Anthem.
While concerned about the loss of the 102 acres of non-residential
development, staff was comfortable knowing that the remaining 333 acres
would provide employment opportunities for the DMP and larger area, albeit
at a reduced amount.
Approximately a year and a half later, the Board approved case DMP
2003010. Under that amendment — commonly referred to as the
"panhandle" amendment — the applicant requested and was granted a
change in land use from commercial, office, and mixed-use designations to
residential (allowing up to 4 du/ac) on the approximately 333 acres in the
southern part of Anthem. At the time of this amendment, staff expressed
opposition because this removed the only significant employment component
to a DMP that has otherwise devolved into a mostly large residential
development. This is contrary to Maricopa County's Board of Supervisors-
adopted DMP guidelines which promote mixed-use DMPs to provide balanced
uses, help mitigate traffic and air quality problems, provide valuable services
and employment opportunities to local residents, and provide an overall
enhanced quality of life. One of the consequences of this devolution has been
the significant traffic problems that have developed on Interstate 17 between

1111.111=1111111111111111111--
ricopa County March 24, 2008
caning & Development Z2008025
rrartment
N. Central St., 3" Floor 2
3enix, Arizona 85004-2191
me: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
the Phoenix area and the Anthem project, which are in part a result of a lack
of employment opportunities in this area.
During evaluation of DMP 2003010, staff encouraged the applicant to look for
opportunities to preserve at least a portion of the 303 acres for employment
opportunities. The applicant either could not or would not preserve any of the
panhandle for employment uses. However, at the Commission hearing the
applicant did agree to pursue C-0 office zoning for 20 acres located on
Venture Court north of the panhandle area. While staff did not believe that
the net loss of another 283 acres of retail, employment, and mixed land uses
was equitable, it did acquiesce to this request because it felt that 20 acres
was preferable to a possible scenario of complete elimination of all such uses.
Through these two amendments the ratio of lost to added retail, employment,
and mixed-use land use acreage within the Anthem DMP is approximately 435
to 20, or 21.75 to 1. Staff believes that this is not an improvement to the
Anthem DMP, nor does it serve Maricopa County or its residents in a positive
manner. -
While staff believes that these amendments together have had a negative
impact on the Anthem DMP and surrounding area, the applicant is now
requesting that approximately 11 acres that they agreed to set aside for
office employment uses with the previous DMP amendment be rezoned for C-
2 retail use under case Z2007065, and of which this approximately 8 acre
SUP be approved concurrent with that related zone change case. This would
result in an even further reduction in employment land uses, thus further
contribute to additional traffic and air quality problems, and reinforce
Anthem's status as primarily a large residential project that is not consistent
with Maricopa County's vision for master planned communities in
unincorporated areas. Staff is also disappointed in that the applicant is, in
effect, backtracking on an agreement it made with staff, the Commission, and
Board of Supervisors less than three years ago. While staff does not believe
the applicant is violating the stipulation regarding this agreement, it does
believe that it is not being honored in good faith less than three years after
approval. While staff does not believe that maintaining these 11 acres for
employment uses will significantly change the traffic problems that have
already been generated by Anthem, it does believe that it will to some extent
help by not further contributing to these problems, and help provide some
balance of land uses as directed by Maricopa County's comprehensive plan
and development master plan guidelines.

ruing ricopa & County Development March 24, 2008
pertinent Z2008025
J.enix, N. Central Arizona St., 85001-2191 301 Floor 3
-me: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
Per the narrative report, part of the applicant's justification for this SUP and
the companion zone change is that the 15 acres of C-0 zoning in the vicinity
of Interstate 17 and Anthem Way provide adequate opportunities for office
uses. Staff strongly disagrees with this assessment, and to further
demonstrate how inadequate the employment opportunities within the
Anthem DMP have become after the past several amendments, staff provides
the following:
• The Board of Supervisors-adopted Development Master Plan Guidelines
recommends that all DMPs have an employment land use ratio of 10
acres per 1,000 residents.
• Based on the applicant's narrative report Anthem contains 12,000
residential units, which generates an approximate population of 32,400
residents (based on Census 2000 estimates of 2.7 persons per
household)
• Based on Maricopa County's recommended guidelines, the minimum
requirements for Anthem are approximately 324 acres of office or other
large-scale professional (non-retail) employment uses.
• If left with only 15 acres of professional employment land uses, Anthem
would be over 95% below Maricopa County's minimum recommended
standard.
• In relation to Maricopa County's minimum requirements, the remaining
15 acres of professional (non-retail) employment uses in Anthem
following these amendments would be intended to serve only 1,500
people. When compared to the estimated population of Anthem, it is
apparent to staff that Anthem not only does not meet Maricopa County's
minimum standards, but is significantly below the county's minimum
standards.
Contrasted to the 15 acres of professional employment land uss provided,
Anthem contains approximately 197 acres of retail commercial. While staff
believes that retail commercial is an important component of any DMP,
including Anthem, staff does not believe that additional retail should be added
at the expense of the needed employment which is already significantly
below Maricopa County's recommended standard. Further, staff does not
believe that the applicant has made a compelling argument for the need for
additional C-2 intermediate commercial zoning — which allows for potentially

ricopa County March 24, 2008
aning & Development Z2008025
partment
N. Central St.., 3,d Floor 4
)enix, Arizona 85004-2191
me: (602) 506-6150
(602) 506-8510
incompatible uses such as adult businesses, auto and boat sales, theaters,
and other large-scale commercial establishments — as opposed to less
intense neighborhood C-1 or C-S zoning.
Based on our findings, staff does not believe this SUP request results in an
improvement to the Anthem DMP, and thus staff recommends denial of this
SUP request. If you have any questions regarding our position, please feel
free to contact me.

Maricopa County
Public Works
ENGINEERING NTEROFFICE 1E1\JOR4NDUNI
DATE: August 27, 2008
TO: Rachel Applegate,
Maticopa County Department of Planning Development
1-a0M: Gerald J. Toscano, P.E., Engineering
SUBJECT: Zoning Case Z 2008-25 Re-Submittal
As requested, the Department of Transportation has reviewed the revised proposed
development covered by Zoning Case Z 2008-25 received on August 25, 2008.
We recommend approval with these stipulations:
1) Any landscaping in county right-of-way must meet MCDOT Roadway
Design Standards.
2) PPrmit required from MCDOT for work in county R/W.
GJT:jag
Q:\FORMS\MCDOT linked-docs\MCDOT 08-27-2008 Z2008-25 Re-Subnaittal.cloc
60.".1\
IE II V i
AUG 2 8 2008

Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department
Water and Waste Management
rision Infrastructure & DATE: April 14, 2008
ng Program
.1. Central Avenue #150
ix, Arizona 85004 TO: Rachel Applegate, Planning & Development Dept.
(602) 506-1058 Planner
;02) 506-5813
602 506 6704
FROM: Wesley A. Shonerd, P.E.
Engineering Program Supervisor
SUBJECT: Americor Self Storage Special Use Permit; Z2008025
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has reviewed
documents received from the Maricopa County Planning and Development
Department for the above referenced project. This project requests a Special Use
Permit (SUP) for a proposed 7.8-acre parcel to allow for a self storage facility. This
facility would be built on formerly excess land around the Anthem Wastewater
Treatment Plant that is subject to a rezoning action (Z2007065) which MCESD
approved on June 18, 2007. According to the submitted documentation, Arizona-
American Water Company will provide both potable water and sanitary sewer
services for this facility. This project will not impact the existing water/sewer
infrastructure at the site.
Based on the above, MCESD raised no objections to the Planning & Development
Department in Permits Plus on March 24, 2008 and will allow the project to proceed
at this time subject to the following stipulations:
Stipulations: None
It should be noted that several other Maricopa County agencies must review and
recommend approval of this project. Final approval authority for this project rests
with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
This memorandum is technically identical with our previous memorandum dated
March 24, 2008 and was prepared for hand delivery at the Technical Assistance
Committee meeting scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on April 15, 2008.

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Bill Craig - PLAN DEVX
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:06 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
• Subject: Z2008025, Americor Self Storage Anthem
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
DATE: August 28, 2008
IMMIX- MEI,
TO: Darren V. Gerard, AICP, Deputy Director
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
ATTN: Rachael Applegate, Planner, Project Managernetit
FROM William 0. „ Craig Plans Examiner Specialist (Drainage), Planning and Development
VIA: William Haas, P.E., CFM, Drainage Engineering Supervisor , Planning and Development
SUBJECT: Z2008025, Axnericor Self Storage Anthem
We have reviewed the revised plans dated August 21, 2008 and recommend drainage approval with the
following stipulations:
The soils report indicates that the soil around the underground tanks is highly corrosive. At the time of
application for the grading and blinding permit provide the manufactures recommendations for soil conditions
required around the tank to guarantee a 75 year life span. Please specify types of soil, corrosivity of soil and pH
of soil. Also include the width, length and depth around the tanks that will need to be replaced in the final
drainage report.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 602 506-8352.
Respectfully
Bill Craig
Plans Examiner Specialist (Drainage)
Planning and Development
08/28/2008

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
TAC COMMENTS FOR Z2008025
Phone: (602) 506-7172
To: Rachel Applegate From: Ron Wood - Zoning Review
Re: Z2008025 Pages:
A eric.or Self Storage •
Plans received 7/21/08
CC:
0 Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment X Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
The Plans received 7/21/08 have been reviewed for compliance to the MCZO. The plans comply with the
ordinance.
No Comments

Joy Rich, Planning Director
Maricopa County
501 North 44th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85008-
Re: Anthem Rezone - 72007065; Z2008025 Self Storage Use
Dear Joy:
This letter is in response to the County's notification of the above-referenced cases in the
Anthem area that seek approval for self storage facility (with both indoor and outdoor
elements) next to the Anthem Wastewater Treatment Plant. As in the past, we are providing
comments since the City of Phoenix boundaries are in close proximity and we have a strong
interest in the scope of uses along the 1-17 corridor. As you know, I worked in the County
Planning Department when the Anthem development master plan and zoning were processed
and appreciate the importance of maintaining a balance of uses in master planned
communities.
• The proposed series of storage facilities appears to be an ideal fit at this location and will
provide an important amenity for the nearby Anthem neighborhoods. We have noted that there
is limited availability of storage facilities in this area; and the Anthem restrictions do not allow
homeowners to store RV's, boats and other recreational vehicles on their lots.
We have reviewed the site plan and elevations and feel the proposed C-2/Special Permit for
these self storage uses is appropriate at this location and will compliment the community. Most
commercial uses may find this site at the entrance to a wastewater treatment plant challenging,
but this use does not suffer from those perceptional problems. We appreciate the opportunity
to comment on this case.
•
ebra \Wilkins Stark
Planning Director
C:/data/2-dr[2008/dfrI)408-anthem self storage.doc
200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7131 FAX: 602-495-3793
Recycled Paper

•
City of Phoenix
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 3, 2008
Rachel Applegate, Planner
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
501 North 44th Street, .Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85008
RE: APPLICATION NOS. Z2007065 AND Z2008025 — AMERICOR SELF STORAGE
Dear Ms. Applegate:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Application Nos. Z2007065 and
Z2008025. These requests are for a self storage facility located north of the northwest
corner of Gavilian Peak Parkway and Daisy Mountain Drive. The city of Phoenix
Planning Department does not have any concerns regarding these applications and we
feel it is an appropriate land use given its proximity to the water treatment facility. The
General Plan Land Use Map for this area is also undesignated at this time
Please contact Tricia Gomes at 602-262-6949 or tricia.gomes@phoenix.gov if you
require any additional information.
• Michelle Dodds, A CP
Principal Planner
c: Michelle Dodds
Tricia Gomes
Maricopa County File
200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7131 FAX: 602-495-3793
Recycled Paper

RECEIVED AIL 2 2 2009
4141
ri74-3na Department of Transportation
Intermodal Transportation Division
lADOT 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213
Janet Napo!!tan° Floyd Roehrich Jr.
Governor Acting State Engineer
Victor M. Mendez
Director
August 18, 2008
Ms. Rachel Applegate
Maricopa County Planning & Developmen
501 North 44th Street, Suite #100
Phoenix, Arizona 85008
RE: Americor Self Storage / Z2008025 / N. of NWC Gavilan Peak & Daisy Mountain Dr.
Dear Ms. Applegate:
Thank you for your notification regarding the Site Plan on the subject referenced
above. After reviewing this information we have concurred at this time the proposed
project will not have an impact to our highway facilities in this area.
ADOT reserves the right to review and comment on all further development
plans for the site as to any impact they may have on the State Highway System.
Should you have any questions, you may contact me at 602-712-8876, or in writing at
205 S. 17th Avenue, Right of Way Project Management Section, MD 612E, Phoenix,
Arizona 85007. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Annette Close
Administrative Assistant III
Right of Way Project Management
aclose@azdot.gov

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Ann Hutchinson [behomes@msn.corn]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:37 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Z2008025 Revised - New River/Desert Hills Community Association response
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Attachments: - Z2008025 Anthem revised.doc
Rachel,
In regards to the following case, New River/Desert Hills Community Association board
has a quorum for the following recommendation:
• Z2008025 Revised. Location: North of the NW corner of Gavilan Peak Pkwy &
Daisy Mtn. Drive, Anthem. Owner:Americor Investment Group, Inc.
Applicant: Earl, Curley & Lagarde. Request for the approval of Special, Use
Permit (SUP) for a storage facility. Recommendation: tio objections.
Please see our consultant's analysis attached.
Sincerely yours,
Ann Hutchinson
Planning and Development Liaison
New River/Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Hwy. #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
Phone 623-742-6514 or 623-742-0150
Check out our community vvebsites: www.claisymountain.org and www.nrdhca org
08/11/2008

PAUL H. McALLISTER
201 W. Circle Mountain Road
New River, AZ 85087
Date; 2 August, 2008
To: NR-DHCA, INC.
Case # Z2008025 Revised.
Related Case #: Z2007065, (rezone request C-0 to C-2, Z2005115, (rezone from Rural-43 to C-0).
Planner: Rachel Applegate.
Property Location: Anthem, APN# 203-10-933, 7.1 acres, Section 22 T6N R2E — North of the NW
corner of Gavilan Peak Pkwy & Daisy Mtn. Drive
Current Zoning: C-0 (CUPD). To run concurrently with Z2007065 zone change to C-2 (CUPD).
LI TAC 0 BOA Other: Meeting Date: None
Review by Date: A.S.A.P.
Name: Request for approval of Special Use Permit (SUP).
Owner: Americor Investment Group, Inc., 7595 E. McDonald Drive Suite 130, Scottsdale AZ 85250.
Developer. Not listed.
Applicant: Earl, Curley & Lagarde, P.C., 3101 N. Central Avenue Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
Request for: Approval of Special Use Permit (SUP) for a storage facility.
Current Use: Vacant.
Opinion: The Anthem Architectural Review Committee has evaluated and approved the proposed
elevations. Colors to be earth tone: charcoal, cocoa brown & woodlawn green. Access to parcel will be
by way of the existing waste water treatment plant (WWTP) road. I only found one mistake (minor).
Sheet A1-0 shows future pad as 47,475 square feet (1.09 acres), Sheet PG-1 shows future pad as
36,356 square feet (.83 acres), Narrative Report, proposed site for SUP 7.1 acres (309,276 square feet),
Proposed zone change 8.0 acres (348,480 square feet) therefore reserved site must be .9 acres (39,204
square feet). Drawing sheets A1-0, PG-1 and narrative should not conflict
Recommendation: Approval.
Sincerely,
Paul H. McAllister

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Pat Henson [phenson2 cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:39 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Storage facility in Anthem
I am opposed to the proposed storage facility in Anthem. At this point we, the residents, have not
t read or heard any of the details. For example, how do we know that hazardous materials are not
going to be stored in the facility which is so close to homes and the High School.
Pat Henson
623-551-0094
Email: Pat@PatHensonAZ.com
One person can make a difference!
09/22/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Jim and Nancy Unchadwick@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:13 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Rezoning in Anthem
I am emailing regarding the possible rezoning of land in Anthem. A recent article in a local magazine informed residents
that the former fire station land may become rezoned to special-use which would allow for construction of mini storage
and a possible truck rental business. This is extrememly disturbing to me, as a resident. Not only is that land a
completely inappropriate area for something such as mini-storage...1 believe this would devalue the property and the
community on the whole, It was never communicated to us, by our builder, that we would have the possibility of a mini-
storage facility right next door. The east side of 117 in Anthem is not an industrial type of area where mini-storage would
even be remotely apprpropriate. I cannot stress enough the concern I have regarding this possibility. Anthem is not a
huge town. We have UHaul which offers 700 or more options for truck rental. Why on earth would we need more? There
are storage facilities (mini-storage) all over the surrounding area in way more discreet areas than right on Gavilan Peak
Pkwy, next door to the high school, library and hundreds of family residences. I strongly oppose this property becmoing
zoned as special-use and I am confident my fellow community members would agree.
Nancy Chadwick
623.551.9144
inchadwick@cox.net
09/24/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: joe roman' [joer4455 qwest.net ]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:46 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: zoning issue in Anthem on Gavilan Peak Pkwy
Please do not let a storage facility be built in this area. It is across from a residential community- has anyone considered
the impact of 24 hour lighting on such a facility as well as the overall appearance. I, for one, do not want to look out my
bedroom and see such a monstrosity. Leave the zoning as it was intended, please.
Concerned resident Linda Romani

NORTH Aerial
North of the NWC of Gavilan Peak Pkwy & Daisy Mountain Rd

No.. NM trOT.•
...SIAN., N
.44121 Pr so •n3. 7.4N4
Nrt tON.O74.1,07.0
..rtovvr
or.
NNW MONO NW..
trIlt flIen
R, .11 wyrkroit
1,4 14 ONO
JO a
NO 1 vmowmtas,
191?.- s..141 'NI Vol. al n't4-,r1.1111,4%
NV id MN NI, ,
i iiNi
,t0
.Anv. TOWN.;
se.ts
VONnON So ow. ''''''.nn?7,44;initnrsonn
alOINCON ON. ..18
1.1.01N .Ar..,„„.
. lir.".Nr.f.04.1-.
T111/..113H3S INVid
0../ 1,44.01.1 a
01, 1.2 410,Lts
/kr nnn Moo S.1111 ,03 INOMAIN.1 , ,67
N7r. Y.
310N 1 vymy
WIT
19
VI I
(VI .7.1 If
3 1••!
1 1 V
"1,11 kONN/ MN.
SNOSt/Vel HOVflID

It,' a GOLGAZ r1.1 • LECIRSJD
!.tr!lt
I! I EC. rcIRE
CUP
.
*ortumornormaimeri
- • • • • •
. • ,
• ••
r";-a44.!!.: ••
1.11111 ,og
UJ
.3R n 'tq ,.L.:::441
,
I
..•`"
t14•1111.1"...MM
"IT+
4....44$ ;at ?1 ai
1.
9 !LTC'
MI
iLd

,
P4r1,
flytou,s!
Ni
-
Mid

Employment areas within commuting distance
from the Villages at Desert Hills ViIIajos at Desert Hills
Villages at Desert Hills
CAP aqueduct
Highways
Interstates
------ US highways
State highways
"---" Under Construction
Planned
Parkways
County herder
Airports.
111/111
Rivers
lff.11
SOloctot or iploymont areas
Out regnrcling selected omploymemt
I hi tit e lociation ow nay tool wi. ii. it k, or el iii. Li.c iiLa j nd tt,olvott‘L. 1141A tunas vv .a.i aurloyi,1 from MAO
tt,01 tt,wororr.ttit 4,411,,ttelwIiijt ltd Litttirnitt/ tel.tiktht, h igwtiv., /. ,{jetW,a it flat ha AU/014010o tl -recant: Amelyith 21/11i1 Whit/ d
Copyright l'ia6 ay aso LLC, /Whir. •ttwo, Na le.ot,,111.0 .41nn An 111104t i uattnoptovai. 1.1 94.1 2020 ifilamemn MA(193E114N
GEO C d tutu ,t Li. 31.26 Pi C u ltta A*,"1. Sidot 31.,J tia it %1130 1;4 tEk144 4.14 U=}64

City of Phoenix
EMPLOYMENT CENTERS
A - Deer Valley
B- North 1-17
C - Desert Ridge/Kierland
D - Camelback Corridor
E - North Central Avenue
F - Downtown
G - Gateway
H - Airport
1 - South Mountain
J - Ahwatukee Foothills
K - Southwest Phoenix
1_1 - Future Employment Centers
Community City ot and Phoenix Economic
Development Department

Aeria Office Properties_
NORTH Anthem

Luot,'WV HIUON
oid 03140 - lePoNf
'


gyi,taq,..45V.E4CAOP.V.V.Ita ..;
"
I :NI'





GILMORE PARSONS
;out
twoCR CO O."...
.4,11. MI 04,1,1
i I
I It 4,0 4,44 4 I
AT. PA Ml tit 41 00
NCNC A'L NU
oaKiii cod
Pt_ANt C C HL
PIL ,onOOf --;ifrt;:.R1-4r
LgO
Sl0000 tO.O.4
COO
t.Jtt D'_CAIE PL A
- 400
_
I.1,,gt 6E_
1.41.1( at
COOokit.0 PPI I MINN::
L ANL L., 4 'I
/IAN
101

1.0 .1T R LEEND
u
T?Akl n 1 lEertit/
GROUP, LIC
QV •
r
ntil.^"r+
err p
/14
I


Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Djg los hen CD aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:28 PM
•To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Rezoning for Americor
know that you have already 'received a letter from me as President of the Anthem Community Council expressing
at its regular meeting on September 24, 2008, the council voted unanimously to voice opposition to the requested
rezoning and special use application submitted by Americor for a self storage facility located in Anthem.
. .
I am now writing to let you know that as President of the ACC, I have also received a lot of smalls and telephone calls
from residents who oppose this facility, and the necessary action needed by the Planning Commission and the
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to make it a reality.
There is a lot of concern within Anthem that this would be the wrong thing to build on that site. There is also a great
concern about what could be built there if the CO zoning was changed to 02. It leaves the door open to businesses that
we do not believe should be built that close to two churches and a high school.
• Please pass on our concerns to the commissioners, and let them know that we hope they vote no tO this application.
Donna Gloshen, President
- Anthem-Community Counci
Looking for simple'solutions to your real-life-financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
information, tips and calculators. .

Z2008025 - Stipulati , Lam wage Change
This Special Use Permit shall expire 30 years from the date of approval by the Board of
Supervisors, or upon termination of the use, whichever occurs first. A time extension
may be requested from the Board of Supervisors prior to the expiration of the Special
Use Permit for the use to continue beyond the initial 30 years. If the use expires without
• a time extension or the use is terminated, the outdoor storage facilities shall• be removed
from the site within 60 days of such termination or expiration.

June 6, 2008
Mr. Adrian Williamson
Earl, Curley and Laga.rde
• 3101 N. Central Ave.
Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85012 -
Dear Mr. Williamson,
In recent conversations with Mr. Ben Dutton of Pulte Homes, plans for a parcel of land in
the Anthem community came up. Mr. Dutton suggested that I write to you and share my
comments regarding that particular parcel. The parcel in question is where the former,
temporary fire station #142 stood on Gavilan Peak in Anthem. Not !mowing at the time
what the disposition on that particular parcel was, I had suggested to Ben that it would
make an excellent location for the storage of boats, RV's, etc. owned by the residents of
Anthem. As you may or may not know, our CC&R's prohibit the parking of these items
on a homeowner's lot where they may be visible over the privacy fences. Enforcing this
restriction has become something of a problem for the HOA. My guess is that residents
owning these items are reluctant to park them offsite at a location that is some distance
from their residence and the inconvenience of retrieving them caused by that distance.
Right or wrong, that seems to be the prevailing attitude. I had suggested to Ben that the
subject location, if used as a storage facility for such items, might go far in mitigating that
objection on the part of owners of these boats and RV's.
It is my understanding that you may be currently seeking a zoning change that would
allow such a use on the subject parceL On behalf of the Anthem Parkside Commnnity
Association, let me say that we would find the establishment of a storage facility on this
site to be a very attractive proposition and a welcome and beneficial asset to our
community.
e nis Thrush, President
Anthem Parkside Commn ity Association
Cc: Mr. Bert Dutton, Pulte Homes

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: ludes pudes@cox.netj
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:15 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLAN DEVX
Subject: rezoning in Anthem
Please do not change the zoning of the old fire station location. I want it to remain zoned for office space.
Carol Ludick
09/30/2008

Rache Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Glen Erickson [fglenericaqwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:34 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Rezoning request for former Fire Station land in Anthem
Ms. Applegate:
We recently read of the request to rezone the land in Anthem where the former Fire Station was located from CO to C2
zoning. In reviewing the uses which are allowed in C2, it would appear that these uses would be more appropriate in
that portion of Anthem located west of 1-17 Therefore, we oppose the requested rezoning on the above-stated
property.
Pam & Glen Erickson
43208 N. Outer Banks Dr.
Anthem 85086 •
623-551-5012
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor 5.5.1.322)
Database version: 5.10780e
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctorf
09/25/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Tom Meeks [bvfanthem@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:42 AM
.REcherApplegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Former Anthern Fire Station land - reZone issue
Hi Rachel -
I am not one who usually takes time to write on these issues. However, I feel this one is important due to the
impact our community could be very long term.
I agree with the county recommedation of denial for the request to rezone, for the reasons your representative
Julie Syrmopoulos states in the article from the 9/25/08 In&Out Magazine, Anthem. Secifically, the •
community would be better served designated Commercial Office use which could provide more local jobs than
the proposed storage facility or some other unkown project, that might "blight" our landscape.
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.
Tom Meek.s
41903 N. Celebration CL
Anthem, AZ 85086
623/266-7308
09/30/2008

—.ache' Applegate - PLANUEVM
From Marlene Pierce [mpierceaz iltyahoo.corn]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:48 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: CASE Z2007065
Please do not rezone this property from commercial office to commercial C-2. It is located in a residential area
and close to the library and high school. It should remain zoned as it is as there is currently sufficient •
commerical C-2 property in the Anthem area.
Marlene Pierce
40606 N Apollo Way. •
Anthem, AZ 85096.
1 f1/01 /20 R

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX •
From: Gonzolifeeaol.com
Sent- Wednesday, October 01, 20084:34 PM .
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject (no subject)
I am against this zoning change-This is a residential Community that is occupied by
numerous families.. We were sold on the idea when we bought into Anthem that it is a
Master planned FAMILY oriented community... not a commercial property/area.. So NO I
say No to changing the zoning and changing our landscape from a family paradise to a
commercial waste land.
Thank you M Gonzalez 42020 N Bridlewood way Anthem AZ 85086
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and . •
information, tips and calculators. •
10/0 1 2008

achel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: D. McCracken jdmccrac2001@yahoo.cornj
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:57 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLAN DEVX
Subject Case #Z2007065 Zoning Changes davilan Peak Parkway near Daisy Mountain, Anthem, AZ
Rachel:
This request for Zone Change and Use has quietly slipped by many of our Anthem Residents. We oppose this Zoning
Change for the following reasons:
We are concerned about more traffic in our residential areas. Also, we already have a large U Haul Storage Facility off of
Anthem Way near Wal-Mart and another new storage facility along Route 17 and Deer Valley. Also, there is a storage
facility inNew River.
How many of these types of businesses will saturate our area? This property is located in between our Boulder Creek
High School and Cross of Christ School and Church. This facility does not fit the surrounding area and the ingress and
egress of large recreational vehicles and boats will cause increased traffic hazards to our children in this area. Since this
is largely a school-oriented area, why isn't a daycare center, etc. proposed for this site? -
Dianne and Dave McCracken
38717 N. Red Tail Lane
Anthem, AZ 85086
10101/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Ron McCroskey [RMcCroskey@anthemcouncil.comi
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:00 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Zoning
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Please do not allow this 02 zoning if allows Adult venues to do business.
We are a Community of families and would not want to subject our children to this type of business
In the Anthem nationhood.
Thank you for your time
Ron McCroskey
Anthem resident.
10/01/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLAND
From: John Oblr@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:09 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: case Z2007065
I am for the change in zoning that was requested. The original master plan
was not done very well. Let the change be made.
John Balzer
Anthem Resident
10/01/2008

.fi. 4.16t,lhO
Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Duane Smith [classinthewest@cox.net)
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:16 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Zoneing Changes for GavalinPeak and Daisy Mountain Dr. Anthem
Importance: High
am opposed to the proposed zoning changes and special use permit for the proposed storage facility to be constructed
at Daisy Mountain Parkway and Gavilan Parkway in Anthem.
We already have a storage facility, U-Haul, on the west side of Anthem in the appropriately zoned industrial/Commercial
district. There is also, a major storage pad/facility under construction at Happy Valley and 1-17, some 15 minutes away:
More importantly, Gavilan Parkway and Daisy Mountain is most appropriately (and already) zoned for office space. This
office space is necessary; is in keeping with the master plan; and properly facilitates Anthem development
. .
Duane Smith
40505 N. Kearny Way
Anthem, AZ 85086
Cell: 480.710.7313
•
10/01/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Nancy Matthews [nancy9@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:18 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Z2007065
Am definitely AGAINST this zoning change..
The business requesting the change should locate on the '71° 3ide of T-1..
The present zoning is correct, and should remain.
Thank you,
Registered Voter
Nancy Matthews
42133 N Anthem Heights Dr
Anthem, AZ 85086-1001
10/01/2008 .

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: John L. Sousa Olsousatit qwest.netl
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:23 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Case# Z2007065 •
I would like to register my objection to the proposed zoning change. The business requesting the zone change should be
located in the commercial park an the west side of 1-17 between Daisy Mountain Road and Anthem Way. It has no
business being located in essentially a residential area.
John L Sousa
Paulette M. Sousa
3319 W. Links Drive
Anthem, AZ 85086
623-374-2650
10/01/2068

Rachel Applegate - PLAND
From: Carol Ste!ter [tracstel©qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:29 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Zoning Change Request Case #Z2007065
Rachel Applegate:
We understand that you are on the Planning Commission which will be deciding on the rezoning
request for the above mentioned property on GaviIan Peak Pkwy in Anthem.
As I'm sure you are aware, this property is located between a Lutheran elementary school and
Boulder Creek High School
It doesn't seem safe, or even logical, to change the zoning of this space in order to allow a storage
facility (where illegal substances may be stored), a change that would also permit a bar, adult
entertainment, etc. This is not the atmosphere we would like to promote here in Anthem, which is
designed to be a family development.
Furthermore, we already have a large U Haul Storage Facility off of Anthem Way near Wal-Mart,
another new storage facility along Route 17 and Deer Valley, and a storage facility in New River.
We strongly suggest, and hope to add our names to the growing list of Anthem residents opposed to
this change, that you vote against this zoning change request.
Carol Stelter
Miriam Tracey
2005W Shackleton Dr.
Anthem, AZ 85086
111/111111111Q

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Kathie Miller [kathiemi/ler@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:26 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Case Z2007065
1 do not believe the zoning should be changed on that property. The surrounding properties would be-enhanced by the
current zoning, and they would NOT benefit from the change which allows too wide a variety of uses.
Katherine Miller
kathiemiller @cox. net
41624 N. Rolling Green Way
Anthem AZ 85086
10/02/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLAN DEVX
From: Ray Olsen [rwolsen cox.neti
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:39 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Z2007065
Rachel,
Please let the Zoning Commission know that I object to the zoning change for case # 22007065.
This piece of land in Anthem, is between a church and -a school and should be reserved for a
purpose that complies with it's intended use
Ray Olsen
40909 N. Harbour Town Way
Anthem, AZ 85086
623-824-5232
rwotsen@cox.net
ww,Ivenergydetective.corn
10/02/2008 '

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Murray Matthews [zguy qwestneti
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:07 P
To Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: ZONING CHANGE
Am definitely AGAINST this ZCiTilig change.
The business requesting the change should locate on tin LEST side of I-17.
The present zoning is correct, and should remain.
Lank you,
Registered Voter
William M Matthews
42133 N Anthem Heights Dr.
Anthem, AZ 85086-1001
nn•
10/02/2008

Rachel :-.pplegate - PLANDEVX
From: Mary Meyer [mary_meyer@cox.net ]
• Sent Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:07 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Case#: Z2007065
A storage facility is NOT in the best interest of the community. This parcel is directly between a private school and the
high school. Surety the original zoning is a higher and better use for this parcel. Please do NOT approve this zoning
change.
Thank you
Mary Meyer Realtor®
Accredited Buyer RepresentatIveS.
Honesty, Integrity, Results!
mary meyer@cox.net
623-687-6030
623-551-5395 fax •
The Medallion Group of Keller Williams Northeast
10/02/2008

5,0 .L LY1
Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
azatairearrewammoammesteraar
From: Jackie Wren [rnamabear@ wren.net]
Sent: VVednesday, October 01, 2008 7:28. PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Zoning Changes for Anthem
Case#: Z2007065
Re: This request is for Zone Change from commercial office C-0
CUPD/PAD to intermediate commercial C-2 CUPD/PAD zoning
district The site consists of 8.4 acres and is located approx.1,478'
northwest of Gavilan Peak Parkway and Daisy Mountain Dr. (in the
Anthem area).
I object to this change.
•
10102/2008

Rachoi Applqge PLAN DEVX
From: • Nes [canova99@qwest net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:53 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Z2007065
As a resident of Anthem, I object to this zoning change.
Nes Plotke
42014 N. Alistair Way
Anthem, AZ 85086

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
• From: Ro Vaselaar [rovase3@yahoo.corn]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 8:47 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject Case Z2007065
Case#: Z2007065
Re: This request is for Zone Change from commercial office C-0 CUPD/PAD to
intermediate commercial C-2 CTJPD/PAD zoning district The site consists of 8.4
acres and is located approx.1,478' northwest of Gavilan Peak Parkway . and Daisy
Mountain Dr. (in the Anthem area).
We are very much opposed to this change. An unsuitable use of that space given
the surrounding businesses and faciLites.
Ro .g 'Dave vaseLciar
A them, AZ
rovases®u a Iwo. cow,
10/02/2008

cLE, I kr.I. I •
Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Tracy BegaIke [tbegalke@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:12 P
To: Rachel Applegate .- PLANDEVX
Subject Case#: Z2007065 - Zoning changes in Anthem
Attachments: OnlineAtAnthem - Zoning Changes
Ms. Applegate—
I am responding to you as suggested in the attached email from our community association. As a
resident of Anthem, I am staunchly opposed to the proposed zoning changes. The area in question is
absolutely not suitable to be commercial land. As of now, there is significant excess commercial land
available off Anthem Way on the east side of 17 as well as land available on all the streets off Anthem
Way on the west side of 17. This is where the types of proposed businesses belong, not abutting
churches and schools.
Thank you for your help in this matter
Regards,
Tracy Begalke
10/02/2008

ragp i. Ul. 1
Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: HAIRCHER@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:19 PM
To: Rachel Applegate PLANDEVX
Subject: Zone Change
We are NOT in favor of the zone change. We do not want to open up the property to allow substandard commercial
business.
Cheryl and Jerry Kowalski
42823 N Livingstone Way
Anthem
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
information, tips andcalculators.
10/02/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: MMelyssa22@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:00 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Re: Zoning Case#: Z2007065
I would respectfully request that this zoning change be denied. A c-2 zone has virtually no restrictions on it and is
detrimental to the homes around that area. I know this because without warning the city of phoenix allowed a car wash to
be built directly across the street from several homes and without a noise restriction we have had to live the last year
being unable to sleep and enjoy our homes. I don't think that this should be forced on other residents in the area. As well
this building will be an eye sore for those around it.
Thank you
M. Ardito
. **************
Looking for Simple solutions to your real-life financial chaflengesl Check out WalletPop for the latest
news and information, tips and calculators. •
(http://Www.walletpop.corn/?NCID=emIcntuswal100000001)
10/02/2008

Rachel A. legate - PLANDEVX
From: Jerry Hall rjha1194591@aol.coml
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:09 MA
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX .
Subject: 020CT County Planning & Zoning Commission meeting - Anthem agenda item
Dear Ms. Applegate,
As an Anthem Homeowner, I would like to voice my support for the Maricopa County planning
committee's recommendation to deny the request for a zoning change from CO to Q2 for the
application by the 7960 E.
• Thompson Peak Parkway, LTC, for the Gavilan Peak Parkway land South . of Boulder Creek High.
School..
My support of the denial of the zoning change is .based on the need for commercial office
'space within Anthem, and because the purported planned use as a mini-storage is similar to
an industrial use better suited for the remote land west of I-11 in Anthem. .
If possible, may I be notified of the results of the CommiSsion'S vote on this matter?
Thank you and Best Regards,
Jerome D: Hall, PE'
2628 W. Shinhecock Way
623-242-6485

AtSn .11E.
Rachel pplegate - PLANDEVX
From: dportugal [dportugal@coxnet]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:53 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX •
Subject: Regarding Commercial Zone Change
HI,
I am a renter here in Anthem, but I have no objections to any commercial uilding or zoning
here, if it is done in a way that does not impede traffic or the lifestyle of the residents.
Thank you very much,
Debbie Portugal
42826 N. Ericson Lane
Anthem, AZ 85086
10/02/2008

rrr:hel plegate - PLANDEVX
s-,--Assezesimi,ftelumagmamosstavammAt
From: • bobandjudy@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 6:49 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: zoning change
I at against any zone change on the west side- 'foir judy pieper 4612 w crosswater way
1

Rachel Applegate - EL.INIDEVX
From: Steven Stanowicz [stanowicz@cox.netl
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:25 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Nom on zoning change
I am going to be out of town but would like to voice my strong opinion to the zoning change. Storage units would
negatively impact the family and residential feel to Anthem. Look at .any area with storage units and you will see a
negative impact in the area. When I decided to live here, there was no disclosure on storage units being built down the
street. The current zoning should be left as is. If I can help in any future meeting to fight this zoning change, I would be
very interested to be involved. I would like to make an official statement that Steve and Christine Stanowicz strongly
object to the zoning change. We can be reached at 623 521-4848 if needed. We live in the Echo neighborhood of
Anthem. Thank you for considering our input. Steve and Christine Stanowicz
10/02/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVA
From; johnsonroyalpalace Dohnsonroyalpalace@gmailcorn1
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:44 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: i oppose zoning change
Date:Thursday, October 2, 2008
Time:9:30 a.m.
Place:Board of Supervisors' Auditorium
205 West Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona
Case#: Z2007065
Re:This request is for Zone Change from commercial office C-0 CUPD/PAD to intermediate commercial C-2
CUPD/PAD zoning district. The site consists of 8.4 acres and is located approx.1,478' northwest of Gavilan
Peak Parkway and Daisy Mountain Dr. (in the Anthem area).
I live just north of this area and often waLk by it.
I feel we should leave the zoning as is with no changes.
Julie Kelgor
10/02/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDE A
From: Robtucan@ aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:07 AM
• To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Athem Rezoning
I am against the rezoning request. I don't feel it fits in with what is in this area.
Thanks,
Bob Cantu
623 551-2653
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
information, tips and calculators.
10/02/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVA
From: Peter Sera [peterhsera Ct.") hotmail.com]
- Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:46 AM
) To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Cc: peterhsera@hotmail.com
Dear Miss Applegate,
We are opposed to this Zone Change. A U-Haul - type storage business does not fit in with the surrounding
businesses, i.e. banks, restaurants, shopping center, churches, schools, etc.
Furthermore, the site needs to be cleaned up; it looks like a dump - very thrashy!
Thanks for asking our opinnion.
Col. Peter Sera, USMC
Sandy Sera
T. —. I bike-ride past here everyday.
See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. See Now
10/03/2008

Repoli to the Board of Superv1=Ors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Commission Hearing Date: October 2, 2008
Board Hearing Date: November 6, 2008
Cases: Z2007065 -Anthem Rezone
12008025 - Americor Self Storage
Agenda Items: 2
3
Supervisor District: 3
Applicant: Earl, Curley & Lagarde, PC
Owner: 7060 East Thompson Peak Parkway, LLC
Requests: 1) Zone Change from C-0 CUPD/PAD to C-2 CUPD/PAD
2) Special Use Permit for mini-storage facilities, outdoor
RV and boat storage along with truck rentals in the
C-0 CUPD/PAD zoning district
Site Location: West of Gavilan Peak Pkwy. and 1,478' north o
Daisy Mountain Dr. (in the Anthem Area)
Site Size: 1) 8.4 acres
2) Approx. 7.5 acres of an 8.4 acre site
Density: N/A
County IslandStatus: N/A
County Plan: The Comprehensive Plan refers to the Anthem
Development Master Plan (DMP). The DMP
designates the site as Multi-Neighborhood
Commercial/Mixed Use Center (MNC/MUC). The
request is in concert with the approved DMP.
Municipal Plan: City of Phoenix — Undesignated land use
Municipal Comments: The City of Phoenix supports the requests
Supp rt/Opposition: Staff has received correspondence and telephone
calls in support/opposition in regards to the
November 6, 2008 BOS
P&Z Agenda Items: 2 & 3 - Cases Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 1 of 3

proposed Zone Change a. Special Use Permit
applications. A total of thirty-three (33) e-mails have
been received by staff. Of the e-mails, two (2) are in
support with thirty-one (31) in opposition. Staff has
received three (3) telephone calls from residents in
Anthem registering opposition to the requests.
A super majority vote has not been triggered. The
owners of the adjacent parcels within 300' of the
subject site have not submitted documentation to
the County in support or opposition to the requests.
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
On-site CO-CUPD/PAD / Vacant
North: R-2 RUPD / Wash, then Deer Valley School District
East: R1-7 RUPD / Gavilan Peak Pkwy., Church, and
residential (Anthem Unit 6)
South: Rural-43 / Cross of Christ Lutheran Church
West: Rural-43 with a Special Use Permit (Z95-53) / Waste
Water Treatment Plant
Staff
Recommendations: 1) Deny
2) Deny
Commission
Recommendations: 1) Deny by a vote of 7-2
2) Approve by a vote of 8-1 subject to staff
recommended stipulations 'a' through 'q', but with
modifications to stipulations 'I' and 'm' as follows:
I. This Special Use Permit shall expire 2-0-30 years from the date of approval by
the Board of Supervisors, or upon expiration of the Imse to thc applicant, or
upon termination of the use, whichever occurs first. A TIME EXTENSION MAY
BE REQUESTED FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRIOR TO TFIE
EXPIRATION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE USE TO CONTINUE
BEYOND THE IN! I iAL 30 YEARS. IF THE USE EXPIRES WITHOUT A TIME
EXTENSION OR THE USE IS TERMINATED, TFIE
OUTDOOR STORAGE FACILITIES shall be removed within 60 days of such
termination or expiration.
m. The applicant shall submit a written report outlining the status of the
development at the end of 5-25 years from the date of approval by the Board
of Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by staff to determine
whether the Special Use Permit remains in compliance with the approved
stipulations.
November 6, 2008 BOS
P&Z Agenda Items: 2 & 3 - Cases 22007065 & Z2008025
Page 2 of 3

Planner: Rachel Applegate, Planner
Reviewed by: Terri S. Hogan, AICP, Principal Planner
Attachments: October 2, 2008 DRAFT P & Z minutes (extract, 23 pages)
October 2, 2008 P&Z Packet (142 pages)
PowerPoint presentation by applicant (16 pages)
October 2, 2008 P&Z handouts (29 pages)
Support/Opposition received after P&Z (4 pages)
Opposition Log (1 page)
November 6, 2008 BOS
P&Z Agenda Items: 2 & 3 - Cases Z2007065 & Z2008025
Page 3 of 3

NAME p:IpNg NOMBril ADDrigs AP 6'1 eigiit DrVii4;41Mtufkl01E
1 Pat Henson 623-551-0094 OPP IN Staff report
2 Jim & Nancy Chadwick 623-551-9144 40407 N. Blaze Tr 203-06-507 OPP IN Staff report
3 Joe Romani 40008 N. Integrity Trail 203-05-973 Opp IN Staff report
4 Pam & Glen Erickson 623-551-5012 43208 N. Outer Banks 202-22-209 Opp Handout
5 Tom Meeks 623-266-7308 41903 N. Celebration 203-40-265 OPP Handout
6 Carol Ludick 3122 W. Summit Walk Ct 203-07-440 Opp Handout
7 Marlene Pierce 40606 N. Apollo Way 203-05-015 OPP Handout
8 M. Gonzales 42020 N. Bridlewood 203-01-005 Opp Handout
9 Dianne & Dave McCracken 38717 N. Red Tail Lane 203-.10-905 OPP Handout
10 Ron McCroskey 202-30-159 OPP Handout
11 John Blazer 2944 W. Eastman 203-02-014 SUP Handout
12 Duane Smith 480-710-7313 40505 N. Kearny Way 203-06-490 Opp Handout
13 Nancy Matthews 42133 N. Anthem Heights Dr. 203-01-017 Opp Handout
14 Donna Gloshen Opp Handout
15 John Sousa 623-374-2650 3319W. Links Dr. 203-40-361 Opp Handout
16 Carol Stelter 2005 W. Shackleton Dr 203-40-842 Opp Handout
17 Terry 623-551-3780 Opp Tele!) on Ca
18 Christopher 623-551-1500 Opp , ....,.. 1-04 -loon Ca
19 Carol . No # Provided Opp „ -one Call
20 Kathie Miller 41624 N. Rolling Green Way 203-01-252 Opp Handout
21 Ray Olsen 623-824-5232 40909 N. Harbour Town Way 203-08-245 OPP Handout
22 William Matthews 42133 N. Anthem Heights Dr. 203-01-017 Opp N Yes Handout
23 Mary Meyer OPP Handout
24 Jackie Wren 40617 N. Apollo Wy 203-05-067 OPP Handout
25 Nes Plotke 42014 N. Alistair Way 211-22-420 OPP Handout
26 Ro & Dave Vaselaar 41824 N. Iron Horse Ct 203-01-617 OPP Handout
27 Tracey Begalke 2810W. Wayne Ln 203-07-765 OPP Handout
28 Cheryl & Jerry Kowalski 42823 N. Livingstone Way 202-22-117 OPP Handout
29 M. Ardito 42623 N. 43rd Dr. 202-30-226 Opp Handout
30 Jerome Hall 623-242-6485 2628 W. Shinnecock Wy 203-40-915 Opp Handout
31 Debbie Portugal 42826 N. Ericson Lane 202-22-413 SUP Handout
32 Judy Pieper 4612 W, Crosswater Wy 203-04-089 Opp Handout
33 Stan & Christine Stanowii 623-521-4848 3506 W. Hidden Mountain Ct. 203-10-839 Opp Handout
34 Julie Kelgor Opp Handout
35 Bob Cantu 623-551-2653 2204 W. Twain Dr. 203-06-600 Opp Handout
36 Peter Sera 39225 W. Acadia 203-11-006 Opp Handout

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Terri Hogan- PLANDEVX
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:40 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: FW: I want to voice my objection at the Nov. 6 hearing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
From: Nellie Hermes - DIST3X On Behalf Of Andrew Kunasek - DIST3X
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:24 PM
To: Lynn Favour - PLANDEVX; Terri Hogan- PLANDEVX
Subject: FW: I want to voice my objection at the Nov. 6 hearing
Nellie Hermes
Executive Assistant
to Maricopa County Supervisor Andy Kunasek
(602) 506-7562
From: Pat Henson [mailto:phenson2©cox.net]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:41 PM
To: Andrew Kunasek - DIST3X
Cc: Donna Gloshen
Subject: I want to voice my objection at the Nov. 6 hearing
RE: Cases # Z2007065 & Z2008025
The area in which this storage facility is proposed is totally inappropriate. It is situated between the
Boulder Creek High School and a Church. Traffic is already busy on Gavilan Park Peak Parkway
weekdays because of the High School and we don't need to add to it, possibly creating dangerous
conditions with large vehicles and trailers trying to merge with traffic.
Also, can anyone say with certainty that no hazardous materials will be stored there? We know that
gasoline will be there because of the vehicles. This is way to dangerous!
Changing zoning to accommodate Americor is unwise and makes me wonder how this got to this
point.
Thanks,
Pat Henson
Anthem Community Council Member
623-551-0094
11/03/2008

Email: Pat@PatHensonAZ.co.,
One person can make a difference)
11/03/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Terri Hogan- PLANDEVX
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:04 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: FW: Please do not "down zone" the Anthem Parcel
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
From: Nellie Hermes - DIST3X On Behalf Of Andrew Kunasek - DIST3X
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:49 PM
To: Lynn Favour - PLANDEVX; Terri Hogan- PLANDEVX
Subject: FW: Please do not "down zone" the Anthem Parcel
Nellie Hermes
Executive Assistant
to Maricopa County Supervisor Andy Kunasek
(602) 506-7562
From: Tom Johnson [rnailto:tornjohnsonlanding@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:45 AM ,
To: Andrew Kunasek - DIST3X
Subject: Please do not "down zone" the Anthem Parcel
Dear Supervisor Kunasek,
I respectfully request that you not approve a down zone of the Anthem Property on November 6th to allow the siting of an
RV Storage and Truck Rental.
I believe this will lower property values and create a use that will be inappropriate for the area.
Tom Johnson,
3432 Summit Walk
Anthem, AZ
623-399-9197
11/03/2008

Rachel 4 e. ate - PLANDEVX
From: Terri Hogan- PLANDEVX
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:46 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLAN DEVX
Subject: FW: Opposition Letter to Public Hearing Cases Z2007065 & Z2008025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Attachments: Special Use Permit Opposition Letter.doc
Special Use Permit
Opposition...
Original Message
From: Nellie Hermes - DIST3X On Behalf Of Andrew Kunasek - DIST3X
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:19 AM
To: Lynn Favour - PLANDEVX
Cc: Terri Hogan- PLANDEVX
Subject:FW: Opposition Letter to Public Hearing Cases : Z2007065 & Z2008025
Nellie Hermes
Executive Assistant
to Maricopa County Supervisor Andy Kunasek
(602) 506-7562
Original Message
From::'brenda.malinowski@prudential.com [mailto:brenda.malinowski@prudential.corrd.,
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:09 AM
To: Andrew Kunasek - DIST3X
Cc: rapplegate@mail.maricopa.gov
Subject: Opposition Letter to Public Hearing Cases Z2007065 & Z2008025
Dear Andy:.
I am contacting you to voice my objection to the subject Special Use Permit and Zone
Change request. Attached is my protest letter for your review and consideration.
Should you have any question or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Brenda J. Malinowski
(See attached file: Special Use Permit Opposition Letter.doc)

Brenda J. Malinowski
39736 N. Integrity Trail
Anthem, AZ 85086
Mr. Andrew Kunasek
Maricopa County District 3 Supervisor
501 N. 44th St, STE 100
Phoenix, AZ 85008
October 30, 2008
Re: Public Hearing on 11/06/08 for Cases #Z2007065 & Z2008025
Dear Mr. Kunasek:
Please accept this letter as my formal protest to the above referenced matter:
Having lived in Anthem for almost 8 years, I strongly oppose of the Special Use Permit and Zone
Change to C-2 which allows Americor to include mini-storage, outdoor RV and boat storage along
with truck rentals. Having this type of commercial property will not be pleasing to the current
surroundings of beautiful views and landscapes the Anthem community is known for and the reason
we moved to the area.
The unsightly view and noisy activities of a storage facility will negatively impact property values in
the neighborhoods in close proximity to the proposed site..In addition, it will cause increased -
traffic congestion on Gavilan Peak Parkway and Daisy Mountain Drive. Quite frankly, I have no
desire for my family to live near a storage facility. If I did, then I would've purchased my home in
the Deer Valley area.
With land on the west side of Interstate 17 in Anthem already zoned for commercial C-2 use, this
would be the ideal location for Americor to have this type of storage facility which is the same area
that Uhaul has a similar storage facility.
Unfortunately, I am personally not able to attend the Public Hearing being held on 11/06/2008 due
to my work commitments; however, the representatives from the Anthem Community Council are
intending to be there to oppose these requests.
Your support and consideration by voting against these cases is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Brenda J. Malinowski
623-551-8469 (h)
602-758-0099 (c)
480-778-7220 (w)

Rachel t:3plecite - PLANDEVX
From: Jeanne.Simon@prudential.com
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:42 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLAN DEVX
Subject: Public Hearing 11/06/08- opposed to zoning change
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Attachments: Andy Kunasek.doc
Andy Kunasek.doc
(23 KB)
Hello!
Please see the attached letter that I have written in opposition to the
proposed zoning changes in Anthem. Thank you for registering my letter.
I sent it to Mr. Kunasek earlier this morning. As an area resident, this
vote impacts me on many levels- emotionally, financially, physically and
spiritually. Thank you for your time.
(See attached file: Andy Kunasekdoc)

Andy Kunasek
County District 3 Supervisor
205 West Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ
Re: Cases Z2007065 & Z2008025
Rezoning of area in Anthem, AZ for storage facility
Dear Mr. Kunasek:
I vehemently oppose the proposal to rezone property located on Gavilean Peak Parkway in
Anthem, AZ to accommodate a storage facility.
The location in question is right by my house and such a change would negatively impact the
value of my home and the quality of life that I enjoy. It would increase traffic of large trucks,
increase noise pollution and be an eyesore. I currently walk by the area each night with my
family and can not imagine such a facility there. When I purchased my house, I never
envisioned that such a change would be considered.
I grew up on the seashore and am familiar with boat storage. I do not want to see boats stacked
one on top of the other when I pull out of King Drive to turn onto Gavilean Peak each morning.
Neither do I want to see RV's lined up or trucks parked waiting to be rented. That would make
me feel as if I am living in a mobile home park which is not the ambiance I anticipate going home
to each night after a full days work.
The location is right between a church with a school program and a high school. Across the
street is another church that runs children's programs. As a parent, I would not feel comfortable
with my young daughter attending a school or program that is so close to a place that stores RV's,
boats and trucks and imagine that other parents would feel the same. Therefore, I would
anticipate that such a change would affect the enrollment in such programs. Also, imagine how
parishioners will feel walking out of a worship service to the view and operations of the business
Americor is proposing. .
Anthem has a commercial area that is on the west side of the 1-17. Americor should open its
business there, if at all. We already have a Uhaul storage facitily with truck rental. Boat storage
is available at Lake Pleasant and there is an RV recreational park at Pioneer Village the next exit
South on 1-17.
I urge you to vote "no" and appreciate your consideration of my position. Please take a drive and
look at the location. Envision how you would feel as a homeowner faced with a change to your
community of this magnitude.
Sincerely,
Yeanne A.D. Simon
Jeanne Simon
40329 N. National Trail
Anthem, AZ 85086
480-778-6439 (W) 623-551-4423 (H)

1 a61Z, 1 1J1
Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Terri Hogan- PLANDEVX
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:13 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLAN DEVX
Subject: FW: Americor storage in Anthem
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
From: Lynn Favour - PLAN DEVX
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:11 PM
To: Terri Hogan- PLANDEVX
Cc: Jim Bloom - DIST3X
Subject: FW: Annericor storage in Anthem
Terri,
Please note the opposition below.
From: Nellie Hermes - DIST3X On Behalf Of Andrew Kunasek - DIST3X
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:39 PM
To: Lynn Favour - PLANDEVX
Cc: Jim Bloom - DIST3X
Subject: FW: Americor storage in Anthem
Nellie Hermes
Executive Assistant
to Maricopa County Supervisor Andy Kunasek
(602) 506-7562
From: joe romani [mailto:joer4455©qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:19 PM
To: Andrew Kunasek - DIST3X
Subject: Americor storage in Anthem
As a resident in close proximity to the area in question, I have to beg you to vote no. There are houses across the street
from this intersection, as well as 2 churches and 2 schools. How does a storage facility stay within the character of the
neighborhood? I am all for an office complex- but storage-no. There are already storage facilities on the west side of
Anthem, where there is an industrial area- we do not need this here.
Concerned Anthem resident,
Linda Romani
10/30/2008

C..15,4, I lid J.
Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Carol Stelter [tracstel@qwest.net ]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:59 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Zoning Change Request Case #Z2007065
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Rachel Applegate:
We understand that you are on the Planning Commission which will be deciding on the rezoning
request for the above mentioned property on Gavilan Peak Pkwy in Anthem.
As I'm sure you are aware, this property is located between a Lutheran elementary school and
Boulder Creek High School.
It doesn't seem safe, or even logical, to change the zoning of this space in order to allow a storage
facility (where illegal substances may be stored), a change that would also permit a bar, adult
entertainment, etc. This is not the atmosphere we would like to promote here in Anthem, which is
designed to be a family development.
Furthermore, we already have a large U Haul Storage Facility off of Anthem Way near Wal-Mart,
another new storage facility along Route 17 and Deer Valley, and a storage facility in New River.
We strongly suggest, and hope to add our names to the growing list of Anthem residents opposed to
this change, that you vote against this zoning change request. ,
Carol Stelter
Miriam Tracey
2005 W Shackleton Dr.
Anthem, AZ 85086
10/28/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLAN DEVX
From: RCLinden10@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 1:46 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLAN DEVX
Subject: objection to zone change for commercial bus in Anthem
Ronald C. Linden
41917 North LaCrosse Trail
Anthem, Arizona 85086
phone 623-322-9455
mobile 301-471-2104
Dear Ms. Applegate:
I highly oppose the requested commercial zone change for a storage facility in Anthem on Daisy Mt and Galvin Peak
Rd. This type of business should be build across Highway 1-17 where all the other commercial businesses of this type
are located. A U-Hall business already exists in the area (across 1-17) and there are two more storage businesses
north of Anthem. ( A new very large one with two hundred units in Black Canyon City and one in New River.) If there
really is a need for another one of these facilities, it certainly does not belong in the proposed location.
Building a storage business on Daisy Mt. and Galvin Peak would be a serious safety issue for our community
because next to the proposed location, on one side, is a church with an elementary school, on the other side is a high
school, a public library and a performing art center. The proposed storage business in this location would bring traffic
pulling trailers and boats in an area where children walk and ride bicycles.
This is a danger to the residents of Anthem especially the children.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opposition.
New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
10/16/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: amez99@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: zoning changes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
There are 2 voting adults in this household in Parkside that are against the proposed changes. Keep that sort of
building on the west side of the freeway where it belongs. Thanks
McCain or Obama? Stay updated on coverage of the Presidential race while you browse - Download Now!
10/15/2008

Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
From: Luke Hennings [luke@anthemcross.org ]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 6:10 PM
To: Rachel Applegate - PLANDEVX
Subject: Anthem zone change z2007065 & z2008025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Rachel,
This is Luke Hennings from Cross of Christ Lutheran Church in Anthem, AZ. We are located just south of the
proposed z2007065 & z2008025 zone change and special use permit. I talked with you on the phone a couple
of weeks ago.
We were comfortable with the original plans set forth at the Neighborhood Meeting on May 1st, but are not
comfortable with the later editions that include truck rentals on the site.
Please let me know if I can be of any help in the process.
Luke
Luke Hennings
Cross of Christ
623-551-9851
10/16/2008

November 5, 2008
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Re: Zoning Change and Special Use Permit Parcel #203-10-933
Dear Supervisor Kunasek,
As a resident of Anthem and the parent of a Boulder High School student, I have
concerns regarding the introduction of this storage and truck rental facility into the area.
One objection is the mixing of land use. Currently the neighborhood is mixed in use as it
is flanked by a church and the High School football fields as well as a residential
neighborhood. There is also a small shopping center within a half mile of this location
and there are community parks within a mile. The stores in this shopping center are
retail. I think it is inappropriate to introduce an industrial atmosphere into the
neighborhood with the associated traffic it will bring.
However, I can understand that the property is owned by someone and is zoned
commercial. I further acknowledge that that person has a right to derive an income from
this property. Additionally, the property is adjacent to some sort of water treatment
facility which does occasionally have quite the odor and it is this point which may limit -
the land owner's use of the property. Considering the highest and best use of the
property, this facility may be the best use of the property.
My objection is this industrial atmosphere it will bring to the neighborhood as well as
how it looks or fits. It may be possible to mitigate this visual concern through restrictions H-
to any zoning and mixed use permit changes. These restrictions may well be in the form -,
of design requirements. The property's facade, that faces the neighborhood as well as
the highway, should be such that, in appearance, it blends into the neighborhood. It
should also appear, to the people traveling into or past the Anthem community, that the
property is cohesive to the neighborhood. It is important that the property does not
visually detract from the neighborhood and adversely affect property values. It may also
be possible to have the entrance to the facility from the Daisy Mountain Drive rather
than Gavalin Peak Parkway. If this is the case, then a high wall with landscaping could
be built that faces the Gavalin Peak Parkway thus creating a visually acceptable
solution. Likewise, the side that faces the highway should have the same type of visual
barrier.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Al Coffey
H: 623-551-9131
C: 623-570-9402


PETITION TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit and
Zoning change for their property on Gavilian Peak Road in Anthem.
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of esidence, city, town or Date of Signing I
post office
-- ,isitt , - _-) I e- - ., &. - Cp \\i "I , A -\- r1 - 3
-- -75 4.4111/1111/ 0.,t ,mie,:,,,) "c7- (7.-',g *1- f-./)C-3. •• i r ni
AFAMMEIMIEWIIISMIIIIIII Al - - 4 , -
o. k', 1111MIW IIF ......AIMINIMMININ ...._.-/ ..); 4 ,• .::f k- 2 o',... ,, /
arIMIEEEMMI ------ 7 -
A-t-71?-,'?' (I Zioe 6- Xi, - -,oa '-zc.-063":-. ..--Sd", - 6 757 _
8 \Z,l_ CLC14- 6 IL) /9- 1-7L-6
9 C ChM:O.:C-5 FtN S o ft. 20 f 1 DJ 5-1,-aeltfyl 0A- wyet i 7_ Ss'o43G 612z zoo,
glINDIMIll 7(7 A), 744/1" t- -4' (...x-e K: 7---- /-C-) "7--„,-7(,,r,/,-/--4 r...-t4' 7-„,,,2,2- .,--7.2cAr
• 10,,, - 1, 4! - I CC ,9, c) _ t--( -\ s )n. — A - -1--..._ 2 .5u?
I
MIIINNIM 1 C r),„ . , _ ,.) ,
13,..., 4 0,"-^ /,,,e ) al / g 4 /P ) / / 3/ < 4 0 d/<1'5 S / 1 1 2,c N 5 ' -,t ' 7 7-1F 711A 04 /4/ V 1 2 ,,2-- 0
4 . _,---- </cr-C--..44' i CY\ \C3 K Ac_ z_ k 1 iz, 0, -• ,,y_c_ i, i\,,,i-LQ_ Nz.. -5-- (6 i '
is , _.:(/„,4-ekSz- ii,,,,,,,,,,, ..,(71,-yr,-t-,, 6 „Jck taiq Q.14. 11 (46) it /0 . /1400 Q >1-ci -rt, , 11-14 Wika,, 4 z._ .5-08> 6 /6/7-z, 76V

4,24Y 40'1' UAA44u 4ZA)/6z,
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town d t ate of Si .ii mg
ost office
16. k Ot4\ -) J 2-) jr. -)--,-VI .,.-7,-e A -,‹ /z.
61--
17 si--3 L , A,
iht , c. ii 1 fe . (_,,J1 1 r\ 5 HL) \vti , A2_ J-7 IDPfa-/C)`6
i... . A 0/ 1
21 / IA qr, i D2,
a A
Illan
24. L C — A I A ci 0, _ c,, 8-
. /
26. W.(,(,( 0',,L4/(------- , „! / E a I / 14,-/-) )/ / CI 2.-
27. - ------ ..( 4....rciocos.,0-, c i. PA , Q-r, k-in-f 4,./.6.A r,,, (5%6 Pc.,
I, hereby verify that! arn a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of Arizona, that each of the names on the petition was signed in my presence on the date indicated; that in my belief each signer was a qualified el esides ataddress given as eir residence on the date indicated.
ik OW) 'IL
Signature o culator
DOAN R Gi—(-)S-rOf5)(
Typed or Printed Name of Circulator
Circulator's Actual Residen Address
dikt-z) 77L
Cityor Town and Zip Code

PETITION TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit and
Zoning change for their property on Gavillan Peak Road in Anthem.
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Sign g
fos office
i.-_-r- , L (- 4, cxj (2tAii(L .- el 2 (-0 (i )1 0 n L_A- N, e(5/1-K. P6,-)A Y ANTI-01'6', ! -2- 'Y ' . b l O 2.__ c i
/,.eg., 1 ko 6.1 -1, 0( LLEV._ (1002y. &) Pak?-1-‘-(01 3-L. C - fri, .. E 41, , EMI
1111=1111
gissat 11111MINIIIII 41 -I_ I . — - _c k r a s .mrir . 2 ,----- ...)— _t,
4Fs.-6:111121011
MEM= 4 / ,4 0 2-) V . Z. 0) •e r. ci Le .....- . r '
5. (--\ '-.-- \,..1 (1-\-.6,,S, (A. \7c(- Nt-- n-•\ . MININIMIIIIIIIIIIPPW .46,majIMIIIM,- /0
C4_ Fr ,,k, eAl 5-773 ki melt' '704 (47,ty I-al/1.w -,z._._ E-6-o i 6
6.'' ''ee ,_ -.--4:7--- -",
,,...., , g-d7 4 ..
all - all
8. ...o":41:# 4111. ..,, . rifo_
9. C 7- 0 6 " ci 0 L. < g : , } , `41\ / ksz-.,,, 41 2.- ' j (--) 0 ''' '6)1`46o/
• .
10. BA' .2 ' i arv 4 C? . 14.-I Q A i 01 /1)
111E6WrifirdaMir
WARIVIF-.MW.. .. i 0 tr.. .. .
.4111,41 L. S n L_ ,)(o o8
. .
of
15.

Printed Name Actual residence address or description of pl ce of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
cictil/Ole post office
16
17
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
I, hereby verify that I am a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of Arizona, that each of the names on the petition was signed in my presence on the date indicated; that in my belief each signer was a q lified elector who resides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated.
Signature of Circ
L I 05 rP-..r./Y1 41.41
Typed or Printed Name of Circulator
L/j y )\-) Ewell- a-Lc) L4KE
Circulators Actual Actual Residence Address
/A4h&-7')// , A ZS-Da
City or Tdvn and Zip Code

PETITION TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit and
Zoning change for their property on Gavillan Peak Road in Anthem.
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
ost office
1. ..-)PIrrl' -'.c j/ PiLbR„ H 0 I 1 1 1\-) ‘ r=1, i-T: L - A5v2.1Z.- /0 - ;,2 • - 0
, n -----
-0 i 0, Le_ iii a.)... l.k.) . C,,,1 #-,z , # - )-\-‘ . NI -,,,,', -y, 1\--z- s.. --tp5s 0 _ -22_- ()
41
IM
4. C------) - 7.:- - / 4 !1111111 -
FS Nis Ali _ , sk-e,:'__It / 2- IL)- (%))-1401,1 A' A ((4 i Vv,,,, 1 a s--2,-7.9g-to io 2— Ce-
6. AA i r-) 0 i 6-4 Ps. 0 5 4 AL, ,. .i... i ,f 461.i...di n II _ 6 /0 2_
— ,7--/,'-- A ,....„ • A . _ 1,... ,, , A -2... 8 S-bt,z,
—
),--..— \A,e) s -E7,t)..,,,,,.. -. A v2_, 45. s,,_ ,.., • (..,...),44 i'),..)\-\,.Q.A.- 2... 2,, c 0 , ,. 1- 6 S
9./ 4,1 , 0 W 1 4— &'-i-fA r 5-63 , 6 t
‘
f ( ' at I\ 1 A
6Pa....< e--6-
I'M immilim .' Aaiii111111 aimmum an 4. /3 ,,,, ..4-• e. ,,,,..,,,...., ,,,,e. VI ' ,,,..!9IL ,.., - V --A. le, - z_f_..,.52,:P'
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
post office
6
7
18.
9
20.
2
72.
23
24
76,
27.
I, hereby verify that I am a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of Arizona, that each of the names on the petition was signed to y presence on the date indicated; that in my belief each signer s a qualified elector wresides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated,
Signature of C • lator
• ;
Z-4 L)5 U J6-xict--/
Typed or Printed Name of Circulator
2.//4 -TY rriu-ithL L 4/Z4-,
Circulator's Actual Residence Address
/41J4en /4-?- Ts-ozz
City or Town'and:Zip Code

PETITION TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit and
Zoning change for their property on Gavillan Peak Road in Anthem,
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
' ost office
41 / G$ n 07 - g
111W zs
Erldilltilf, s-
.
......-....frsea ,-. - F lg. 1-- ' - c---lz 17" si / ----c$
•,..,,„. y„.....„,„...) 4 P.4 ,
/Os, d
/ bc.)(_ I cxps r „r"(-1,a „4 r,-,?- 0.1.1 //1" Z.-- ISZ To /0,1,)-f
8. A 7 YY ,i ', (- 9.W C - .._5,- "7 /(7-1/T -..,,,,, dz._ 3s `' .
Y/7 ‘'--/ IN L.'77-0 ( r ( V [?' 1 ,2__ 5.ScOV. I° al -
.9. n Le= Argr Alre'
r, o ..,1 I?
, .... I. ( ficf. i 33 11/ fe- dr ( 'i 4 Pirn 41 cs—o. S-- , i 0.. -c..
l ,
13. La/..ak. . ,/...... ' ,.., - A/ .4 dr 4/6733 ' iic a-. ifwgie-1,4 4 2- „S—e6 I ( / ot?
14' ,-,2--P-t-- 1 t c...1414.-1-0 ro 413 3 A.) . C 1 04.4 GL05.57- _ , t„,_ f, s - o F.6. I / 0 P
76 LL) ' e *.4 ' 0 c „ 1,4., -- 6P-CC) 96 III( °3

Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
post office
6
17
8.
19
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25,
26.
27.
I, hereby verify that I am a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of Arizona, that each of the names on the petition was signed in my presence on the date indicated; that in my belief each signer ys a qualified elector who re ides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated.
Lue/i(Lr2
Sign e of Circuyor
JULIU5 triv-4 E:72ic
Typed or Printed Name of Circulator
L/16vy 6=111E1,41d Li 7z)vs
Circulator's Actual Residence Address
--Z XS-0Z)
City or Towii and Zip Code-

PETITION TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit an
Zoning change for their property on Gavillan Peak Road in Anthem.
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
post office
,-----"„ )7 A /A!46 (508k,
/r--.7 Z<---- ,./6 A / , "-oll 7_5o fr.-- 1 30(2 7 a cf Al 7L-4- // / 0 g
Wor
, A if ".1- 3 i ' .- /6 0,4 0 At w..,1 arra / i ' ,11 S75-6R;
Lttct t R. Ea. ot A rvi-clem A '8,50
/9/Q • -Le_ g.g-g.,..5 Z(..)-' , .5 fq.--x '/J z) , ...,./1-z . A-7)Z / z)
7 f // c->----
.
. AL Al 1 1 ILIIun %Ail AI ii A to 1 [ 1 TS
LI 6 A-cluien A ',PI- t-T rvi i e "
-
S. 6 I (- - ,- I I A/ , / / A) , j , ze Y 51; ,-"' •
i //-7- 0 F
4111111n" I I 1- ii
0 _...,
i
IIIINV k te 6. la i ti It ik -
A.. i f, • /
' 1 e r AY air Or . 1 y parra,„ Ae, 4-7D,7„ /6). A-64,4( 141 7q..-if--4.60 4e7 T ,6' S'Y
r >A V I I> L. C•Pl viti z103,23 A3. .(1 Art) A / 011- ' g4 a., AN77h00,„ /42 "g_. ---6 36 \ 1 <:S .-'

Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
ost office
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2
22.
23:
24
2
26.
27.
I, hereby verify that I am a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of Arizona, that each of the names on the petit ton was signed in my presence on the date indicated; that in my,belief each Stgner was a qualified elector who rgsides at the address given as their residence On the date indicated.
741U-a .44-61.A./
Signature of Circ
JuLv s JE--gac
Typed or Printed Name of Circulator
,-/162. -yk tEr6 6-11-41,d /191-4: De14/6-
Circulator's Actual Residence Address
/47L1# /44 igg-L
City or Town and Zip Code

PETITION TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit and
Zoning change for their property on Gavillan Peak Road in Anthem.
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Sign g
post office
c,-
Illnif rt. ;-- ihr0-, ---)()Lky,x-, n).S N\ NcridlOYI7A,\ -f-lt A V141e47V1 A -E iibloy
0 )
. - ,,, ,..3.. ,,,,,.... c- \--c.c,----- -,-., c,*(cur-T----/ c,,,,,,z)\ , c-,.,-,\06,,,,_ \--ir t,. C i-N7Z .'l ) c\V2.., s,t, k k I -Or
. 0.„,,,,,,„,. .4 ...•. • S— , A -6..is ± \ q AZ --C
,----...„
4 411,L. A 1•16-. • 410... . 0 — (l-D . 'Q---e-tc .2,:z" .37'-.Q"• a Nii , 0 --1---4
5 . Ci-AWZ613' 6,4--L4S e7 3 S-- 4 tW - '7"ecif- ef A 714,---- AZ , — 0 : ( I I ' / " ' I
6. (.—rii-k-a-, ( /1 A' // c" I
1
• Ca _..
9. <----7 IP 2 ..0 k) gr, .. r _ C, 65
Ai 3 "??.._. V,-) ,D.,x,c) C._ , • A—, .... tit, ....
At .- ar Ad 9-5 C' 1 0 fgrc- trO ci(o 11
MIIIIIIII
VO ,,,,---000" ,0°.. 4010.111ir'- - ...,d
14 A...A. SIBIIIIIIMIIEIR L 0 C._,-1
15. Lfi r e ' j ti 0- U, i fU ' OILS P A IV 0 (A) G-)-4 a 0 t.

Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
_ post office
16:
7
8
19.
20.
21.
23
24.
25.
26.
27.
hereby verify that I am a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of Arizona, that each of the names on the petition was signed in soy presence on the date indicated; that so my belief each signer was a qualified elector who resides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated,
444.0 14-edi .4-4(%-----
ignature of Circula
1.11-0-1 5 J&:-/e/C11-7
Typed or Printed Narne of Circulator
1.1.E‘po4c,c_ci
Circulator's Actual Residence Address
y-oiL
City or Town and Zip Code

ei ,dp,e)Al
PETITION TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit and
Zoning change for their property on Gavillan Peak Road in Anthem.
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
'ost office
24' . a--)----2--..:— EIMEEMIN 42 V 067 Ai /24e lz(2,4,-0-1 etble., Alar--- fkr 2' —0 ,s(6, /so---_zv-,?,0
IMMILYA ,,,,,,,- 511111111.1111111111
,,. ,, Aci ° r .e kji-iC nA. cc-' q-4- /0
L1IuIr!LIW " -- AM-6-% /1\4 6 ,..,, H-t-k1 / C Z 2.._ 6)8
MIIIIIINMIMMIEM
1-17 -2 L, i E. ' 2._ 73 co? -
Illai . .41111111111111= INEMEMEE '6 -
4 ' a (4 2- (-1 z. ( Cl+ ,A \ cik-. Z— cr)-US'l 2 L i 7.
IMIBEI r
I IIII 1 1 I 111 11 in Iin L3=5 `/ A.< , , „-,‘-, '-'}' , yi - ---, ,--, )9 ,2 A-- /)2 )17
ME ILMIN111111111117,)oo a z Ld jceic j i eo s- I t ) ),IE/z4z. triA 4)Riv,, A) '4i. wr i ? 57T Zs- /0
1.1111111011111. 3 e ' ,./ r /41 4/7-/ e ,,2 A '-- dm, ,/
11111111r INEENIMMI ./2 7— 1_, 4 6//2. c 7- ft 4/77--( 0-74-1 1---c 7 ,s-26 /22_
/ --4-/E-- k4-115- - - C--1-- *7 60 A/ -'6(.- F ....ia_5-7121 4e01-721-P7 s---m 70 0
A d 4,...-4ili t".---1-- iv A -11,5e1 7 3 Ai /---C 4 ,A0r$
1
Mil 37 L-1 (23 54/ I itt, ' Z-0.,-2,L,e . e 5'6 3' • %
ef
0
14 f i
1 - -cZn,' 4 \ 0 \ , _AOS. t\_ I % Lp \ I \ 0 c
\ \

Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of esidence, city, town or Date of Signing
post office
1 6
7
20.
21.
22.
23
24.
25.
26
I, hereby verify that I am a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of Arizona, that each of the names on the petition was signed in my presence on the date indicated; that in my belief each signer a qualified elector who resides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated.
„1-Gt4 /./ /L-
Signature of Circutf. r
(rn-n
.)U LIUS —21
Typed or Printed Name of Circulator
47i/6sy 1J. Eym6g 42,1 Lite:c
Circulator's Actual Residence Address
AA17t hcm gs-ror4
City or Town and Zip Code

PETITION TO THE ' MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit and
Zoning change for their property on Gavillan Peak Road in Anthem.
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or -Wing I 1
post office
._111111 et NI _..... 71...c. (..k.)Q-1,11t- 44 A ill AP I4111i ii.' A I1. 1 6
046 00, _______ - - - - d c) 7.derit 1,00 ,23 &_,) , /4 - c - A-04- c— A- 4 A z 1;t. i,61
i 1
. 3 0 ±, ' 7' &.> 3 5- 11 t f --t- r / c, f e..) 0,,), ) A ifeh 4 ,/ Z. Ili- 0 (.— 0 5s
---
. 7nitii /LA ( 1,1 4-0 2,9.5. R-4--.1/20t 1,0„1 4046/, Az - S5-0 //-7-a
fs-i, &/4 2/( -- \/.74 c 7, Arti-Rar\ --()/6 lit) d Y>
-,71 pani-1,2_ Pne-*(non t-{O.S4\)(2.-4--coind_.0 60 , A n -1-1,,a.rn ,i ,"Ite tr-1. II ii/ j 07".
7. :./ .,*,00frcz, (--fgo,I - 1--w- lYi/c-4,-,-, I-0 311 / 4' /7-.-f-172-. ., ,-- )/ /( ,,..-7r4i-,e,—,, 2,Z,7,17 /4 1 /(7c,.5?
8. /14ipt A. b. . 'I- c.. d 7-7 / i
, , 11 . ,. ih • 49 1 /7/ ' -
1 o. / OW 1111 111111MMI . 4 A I "1/' 03' 6 I// t/08
1A111111111111MME1111 44 , 4 \J i -
- ,j (f10-ttA #.444.,(,) -QS - Lt, Ir' 1, 0- (Y\ u4v-eV)te. Yi 5q W 0:)",;- C A , AZ-- S'_co ., 0
' / 4A/6, /4-tw.-..,:- - -) .• z(ii,,,-7.'t,-) , 1,-.J 4/r cf- 4_,K,_ .7t- <,1' c,--2_)y-- if i 1 ;
1 4:.—_ f 3417 L c4- /4-Z. . 7- SE(r C, . if (112 ag
_ /
5 ,A. V1 -_.- vi •(J.,c-/(r.3-:iti2/r— q--iL a-/-2--W-,12/ <5C., v,-- efd4' /7,4 / -we'

-4-P'my
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
Kiwi 1 mh 7,. • s ost office
35 o'-fLJ [-‘5,' --61". GI A ,) 7-1,/ (i---) — SOYI. l/-/-07'
17 Artgovoc
18. Ali* 35-, ' 5
, MIMI ,;.> 7-----, ,
Mt —
I I I I IVA — I I I 1111 Ill 1111 I PIEWA
' ((
V
2 ',:X.- i _ / /( r E.
22. - 7-7 4„ , g ' t A 0 IMINIIIII
AllAnall . Willinigginil d A _ ) ;,) - 1 (, ) S2 ti_S>__ — Aly 11; .,, c.?-3--AR //-/ -Z-)
„ , fi MAMIE ' '' 1 ( 6 ro , 5 , ) 1;72, & 3/ Ai. C4K- 7 CAS
25. cp-yt.., f4a/ 42.4,..14.-4-et--- 4 i 0/7 i 0 :0 ,e_1/6.0-4_, / S 2 (., c ? j , )71 or c—e— ,,,,,(7—te...,---, '''S 0
26 P ilv< ,.? .(V/ Tr 3 ' . -`-/ tu i,A-7 .-' (r. 67-'--7-- A w-1 -.5-ag.4,_ /(-7 6.
1.--
i, J' i\14 ` -----9.'j -- k,..- ,-, '* '• { ..7 \)\), 1\-ke9r--'-,_ C—I- ik/V-( 1(1"\, ''''eSOT6 0; - - X
I, hereby verify that I ant a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of Arizona, that each of the names on the petition was signed in illy presence on the dateindicated; that in my belief each signer wa a qualified elector ho re ides at the address given as their residence. on the date indicated.
t
Signature of Cireu
1)0 Novil 0, GLos
Typed or Printed Name of Circulator
N., 66f i,4)A5.)
Circulator's Actual Residence Address
/-7-1/5/w /J2-
City or Town and Zip Code

PETITION TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By signing below, We the residents of Anthem hereby request that the Maricopa County Commissioners reject the Americor request for a Special Use Permit and
Zoning change for their property on Gavillan Peak Road in Anthem.
Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town or Date of Signing
post office
."72-0 k,, -\-- Cn-c,.-rr-e.4-1— q / (4--`7 (-- N . Evvn-e_rc,lj I i .i- A .0,.-41,—.. i 0 ---Z__ -
-
v 0l_./ : •
ar40---- /57-zcA
iosmn_c_
, c A ' I 1111116161
6. ..... c;IC ic c--, . t c 6
7.
a 4"'"
9. - J
)
0 5
1 1/44 A ,,.. A. A . ....1._ia• fr ml' Aor a
kr, (37, /- 1-2-4' 1)- Thi,/ it- h.- Wi CT T2) r 2 7- Z —/c
, 7,/ i r„
Li/7/40 ki e it, . s c. , / Iri 4-he, 4,7._ 3-.)--oK,,, ) o S,
14. 4 2_ 9 y ,--f c-j. -.)-1-}4 e.---1,-. , )4- 2_ c----c.) & C,, /c/z —
1 5 , 7111111111111111. . 111111111 A1 (1 1 r tr( /--)74 (o So(' i

Signature Printed Name Actual residence address or description of place of residence, city, town o Da e of eigning
post office
16 , 41,((-0" ___1714,-, P1( 41; .C..—{-( 0 0 kJ 1/9- 4-- tc)022 Wpe,M ,(at bfz_ //-
y /r , (0" /-171.-)-
7. MAW- j<03E iR'T PJ R 0 4 Pi en--)A,04 epi il-c--- a - 1 - 0
mk r
ii. mpr Ai II iikall ,li -k -Z_ H c‘
...- Al A/ 1 A A G lu-s' ( 4 .3Ca0 Tik1511 ' ----41( ( '="- frximi---X Pa 15Dg4 i)-l-og ,i
20
21.
22.
23.
24
25.
26.
27.
I, hereby verify that I am a resident of the Anthem Community and an qualified to register to vote in the County of
State of that each of the names on the petition was signed in my presence on the date indicated; that my belief each signer was a .. ualified elector who esides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated.
itior,f)K ,ilz J
Signature of Circulator
L>nov,9 GI-05YeA/
Typed or Printed Name of Circulator
,/'/ t, 64e 1-1-Q,
Circulator's Actual Residence Ad
4R,14„) nziJ--c4h
City or Town and Zip Code

OPPOSTION / SUPPORT LOG FOR CASE Z:2007O, 8, Z200025
NAME 'HONE NUMiL'ElAUDV;E::; 43 APN UP I SUP 300 (y/n) Duplicate NOT L.:
Pat Henson 623-551-0094 OFF IN Staff report
Jim & Nancy Chadwick 623-551-9144 40407 N. Blaze Tr 203-06-507 OPP IN Staff report
Joe Romani 40008 N. Integrity Trail 203-05-973 Opp IN Staff report
Pam & Glen Erickson 623-551-5012 43208 N. Outer Banks 202-22-209 Opp Handout
Tom Meeks 623-266-7308 41903 N. Celebration 203-40-265 OFF Handout
Carol Ludick 3122 W. Summit Walk Ct 203-07-440 Opp Handout
Marlene Pierce 40606 N. Apollo Way 203-05-015 OFF Handout
M. Gonzales 42020 N. Bridlewood 203-01-005 Opp Handout
Dianne & Dave McCracken 38717 N. Red Tail Lane 203-10-905 OFF Handout
10 Ron McCroskey 202-30-159 OFF Handout
11 John Blazer 2944 W. Eastman 203-02-014 SUP Handout
12 Duane Smith 480-710-7313 40505 N. Kearny Way 203-06-490 Opp Handout
13 Nancy Matthews 42133 N. Anthem Heights D. 203-01-017 Opp Handout
203-10-181
203-10-722
14 Donna Gloshen Anthem Community Council 203- 1 0-711 OFF Handout
15 John Sousa 623-374-2650 3319 W. Links Dr. 203-40-361 Opp Handout
16 Carol Stelter 2005 W. Shackleton Dr. 203-40-842 Opp Handout
17 Terry 623-551-3780 Opp Telephone Call
18 Christopher 623-551-1500 Opp Telephone Call
19 Carol No # Provided Opp Telephone Call
20 Kathie Miller 41624 N. Rolling Green Way 203-01-252 Opp Handout
21 Ray Olsen 623-824-5232 40909 N. Harbour Town Way 203-08-245 OFF Handout
22 William Matthews 42133 N. Anthem Heights Dr. 203-01-017 Opp N Yes Handout
23 Mary Meyer OFF Handout
24 Jackie Wren 40617 N. Apollo Wy 203-05-067 OFF Handout
25 Nes Plotke 42014 N. Alistair Way 211-22-420 OFF Handout
26 Ro & Dave Vaselaar 41824 N. Iron Horse Ct 203-01-617 OFF Handout
27 Tracey Begalke 2810W. Wayne Ln 203-07-765 OFF Handout
28 Cheryl & Jerry Kowalski 42823 N. Livingstone Way 202-22-117 OFF Handout
29 M. Ardito 42623 N. 43rd Dr. 202-30-226 Opp Handout
30 Jerome Hall 623-242-6485 2628 W. Shinnecock Wy 203-40-915 Opp Handout
31 Debbie Portugal 42826 N. Ericson Lane 202-22-413 SUP Handout
32 Judy Pieper 4612 W. Crosswater Wy 203-04-089 Opp Handout
33 Stan & Christine Stanowicz 623-521-4848 3506 W. Hidden Mountain Ct 203-10-839 Opp Handout
34 Julie Kelgor Opp Handout
35 Bob Cantu 623-551-2653 2204 W. Twain Dr. 203-06-600 Opp Handout
36 Peter Sera 39225 W. Acadia 203-11-006 Opp Handout XXXXX
37 Amez99 Opp Handout
38 Ronald Linden 623-322-9455 41917 N. LaCrosse Trail 211-22-391 Opp Handout

39 Luke Hennings 623-551-9851 Opp Y Handout
40 Carol Stelter 2005 W. Shackleton Dr. OPP N Yes
41 Brigitte Rivera 602-436-0789 2111 N. 19th Ave. Opp N Handout
42 Linda Romani 40008 N. Integrity Trail 203-05-973 Opp N Handout
43 Jeanne Simon 480-778-6439 40329 N. National Trail 203-10-157 Opp N Handout
44 Brenda Malinowski 623-551-8469 39736 N. Integrity Trail 203-10-582 Opp N Handout
45 Pat Henson 623-551-0094 Opp N Yes Handout
46 Tom Johson 623-399-9197 3432 Summit Walk 203-40-211 OPP N Handout
47 Julius Ronald Jerich 623-551-1178 41654 N. Emerald Lake Drive 203-07-015 Opp N Handout
48 Billie Copen 40526 N. Blaze Trail 203-06-483 Opp N Petition
49 Carol Stelter 2005 W. Shackleton Dr. 203-40-842 Opp N Petition
50 Miriam Tracey 2405 W. Shackleton Dr. 203-40-191 Opp N Petition
51 Myron Carstensen 2405 W. Memorial Drive 203-40-191 Opp N Petition
52 Dennis Thrush 41013 N. Iron Horse Way 203-01-839 Opp N Petition
53 Patsy Thrush 41013 N. Iron Horse Way 203-01-839 Opp N Yes Petition
54 Jack Maltby 42009 N. Long Cove Way 203-01-917 Opp N Petition
55 Judy Maltby 42009 N. Long Cove Way 203-01-917 Opp N Yes Petition
56 Caries Anson 2011 W. Shackleton 203-40-843 Opp N Petition
57 Dennis Kahler 41917 N. Harbour Town Ct. 203-08-105 Opp N Petition
58 Kevin McCaw 42029 N. Anthem Heights Dr. 203-01-021 Opp N Petition
59 Elieen Shane 42119 N. 46th Lane 203-04-187 Opp N Petition
60 William Brooks 41120 NE Sutter Ln 203-02-116 Opp N Petition
61 Tim Kolacek 2318W. River Rock Ct. 203-06-152 Opp N Petition
62 Sarah Badalamenti 40102 N. Majesty Tr. 203-07-633 Opp N Petition
63 Lillian Moya 43521 N. 43rd Dr. 202-30-478 Opp N Petition
64 Dominick Levi 43521 N. 43rd Dr. 202-30-478 Opp N Yes Petition
65 Alice Martin 2917 W. Eastman Dr. 203-02-028 Opp N Petition
66 Michelle Collins 43707 N. 48th Lane 202-22-812 Opp N Petition
67 Ronald McCroskey 42908 N. 43rd Dr. 202-30-159 Opp N Petition
68 Sarah Schripdema 3511 W. Morse Ct. 203-10-052 Opp N Petition
69 German Rios-Lazo 40322 N. National Tr 203-10-053 Opp N Petition
70 Darlene Dimmig 40254 N. Patriot Way 203-10-118 Opp N Petition
71 Al Catarino 40260 N. Patriot Way 203-10-117 Opp N Petition
72 Rosanne Catarino 40260 N. Patriot Way 203-10-117 Opp N Yes Petition
73 Dottie Wilson 40260 N. Patriot Way 203-10-117 Opp N Yes Petition
74 Jay Robinson 40208 N. Patriot Way 203-10-124 Opp N Petition
75 Emily Wrinkle 42424 N. Gavilian Peak Parkway 203-03-465 Opp N Petition
76 Karen Rogge-Miller 40024 N. Panther Creek Ct. 203-06-780 Opp N Petition
77 LH Romano 41625 N. Emerald Lake Dr. 203-07-098 Opp N Petition
78 Rolf Gerressen 41603 N. emerald Lake Dr 203-07-103 Opp N Petition
79 Rolf Gerressen 41603 N. emerald Lake Dr. 203-07-103 Opp N Yes Petition
80 Ed Fayen 3773 W. Medinah Wy 203-03-269 Opp N Petition
81 She!lie Fayen 3773 W. Medinah VVy 203-03-269 Opp N Petition

82 Tyler Larson 40903 N. Barnum Wy 203-05-263 Opp N Petition
83 Mary Ann Orchard 40924 N. Citrus Canyon Tr 203-40-163 Opp N Petition
84 Donald Wilson 42120 N. Anthem Heights Dr. 203-01-030 Opp N Petition
85 Roberty Larry Evans 2746 W. Plum Hallow Dr. 203-01-691 Opp N Petition
86 Pam Johnson 2748 W. Wayne 203-07-768 Opp N Petition
87 Sarah Crouse 2749 W. Wayne 203-07-778 Opp N Petition
88 Glinda Willine Evans 2746 W.Plum Hallow Dr. 203-01-691 Opp N Yes Petition
89 James Tyalor 40111 N. Faith Lane 203-05-606 Opp N Petition
90 Diane Lee 4722 W. Culpepper Dr. 20222-884 Opp N Petition
91 David Morgan 3108 Ravina Lane 203-02-727 Opp N Petition
92 Jeffrey Cody 4641 W. Fortune Di. 203-04-115 Opp N Petition
93 Patricia Henson 43142 N. Outer Banks Dr. 202-22-2196 Opp N Petition
94 Donna Gloshen 42415W. Back Creek Way 203-01-953 Opp N Petition
95 Jennifer Solomon 42707 N. 45th Dr. 202-30-112 Opp N Petition
96 Thomas Johnson 3432 W. Summit Walk Dr. 203-40-211 Opp N Petition
97 William Glower 1620W. Kuralt Dr. 211-93-096 Opp N Petition
98 Candance Milazzo 41330 N. Congressinal Dr. 203-08-322 Opp N Petition
99 Sam Milazzo 41330 N. Congressinal Dr. 203-08-322 Opp N Yes Petition
100 Jerome Kowaski 42823 N. Livingstone Way 202-22-117 Opp N Yes Petition
101 B. Drazga 41428 N. Bent Creek Way 211-22-180 Opp N Petition
102 Nathan Smith 2840 W. Haley Dr. 203-07-502 Opp N Petition
103 Robert Hackkett 40326 N. Hickocock Ct. 203-06-290 Opp N Petition
104 Robert Yensen 43222 N. 44th Ave. 202-30-355 Opp N Petition
105 Patricia Soucy 41701 N. Golf Crest Rd. 203-07-095 Opp N Petition
106 George Soucy 41701 N. Golf Crest Rd. 203-07-095 Opp N Yes Petition
107 Peter Meyer 41748 N. Golf Crest Rd. 203-07-086 Opp N Petition
108 Donna Meyer 41748 N. Golf Crest Rd. 203-07-086 Opp N Yes Petition
109 Sharilyn Miller 3335 W. Inspiration Dr. 203-40-326 Opp N Petition
110 James Robinson 41933 N. Crooked Stick Rd. 203-07-419 Opp N Petition
111 William Stump 40833 N. Mantle Ct. 203-05-307 Opp N Petition
112 Richard Fiori 41334 N. Clear Crossing Ct. 203-07-207 Opp N Petition
113 Allen Edwards 3635 W. Denali Dr. 202-22-269 Opp N Petition
114 John Anderson 3669 W. Muirfield Ct. 203-03-875 Opp N Petition
115 Kim McFall 4312 N. Stonemark Dr. 203-07-431 Opp N Petition
116 Barbara Barchi 41911 N. Emerald Lake Dr. 203-07-047 Opp N Petition
117 Josphine Sanzone 2225 W. Sax Canyon Ct. 203-41-075 Opp N Petition
118 Chris Stewart 3733 W. Jacksonville Dr. 203-03-065 Opp N Petition
119 Kristina Mullins 4005 N. Patriot Way 203-10-132 Opp N Petition
120 Frankie Head 40017 N. Patriot Way 203-10-134 Opp N Petition
121 Simonica Martinez 40041 N. Patriot Way 203-10-138 Opp N Petition
122 Fredrick Martinez 40041 N. Patriot Way 203-10-138 Opp N Yes Petition
123 Sean McEntire 40109 N. Patriot Way 203-10-142 Opp N Petition
124 Stefanie Mauck 40121 N. Patriot Way 203-10-144 Opp N Petition

125 Christa Newaum 40133 N. Patriot Way 203-10-146 Opp N Petition
126 Clarissa Hoffman 3727 W. Turtle Hill Dr. 203-03-595 Opp N Petition
127 Darren Lee 40311 N. National Trail 203-10-154 Opp N Petition
128 David Opperman 40323 N. National Trail 203-10-156 Opp N Petition
129 Anna Shugars 40323 N. National Trail 203-10-156 Opp N Yes Petition
130 Elizabeth Prescott 40401 N. National Trail 203-10-160 Opp N Petition
131 Rouge Sotelo 40509 N. National Trail 203-10-166 Opp N Petition
132 Heidi Wright 3465 W. Webster Ct. 203-10-168 Opp N Petition
133 Charles Carlise 3435 W. Webster Ct. 203-10-173 Opp N Petition
134 Gail Carlise 3435 W. Webster Ct. 203-1 0-1 73 Opp N Yes Petition
135 Jackie Slingloff 3436 W. Webster Ct. 203-10-174 Opp N Petition
136 Wendy Burgos 3454 W. Webster Ct. 203-10-177 Opp N Petition
137 Phil Fontana 3543 W. Webster Ct. 203-10-020 Opp N Petition
138 Jim Treat 3532 W. Sousa Ct. 203-10-029 Opp N Petition
139 Julie Wienceyousi 3548 W. Morse Ct, 203-10-042 Opp N Petition
140 Sean Leavitt 3547 W. Morse Ct. 203-10-046 Opp N Petition
141 Chester Gardner 40269 N. Patriot Way 203-10-059 Opp N Petition
142 Tom Howk 40127 N. Patriot Way 203-10-145 Opp N Petition
143 Fred Mullins 40005 N. Patriot Way 203-1 0-1 32 Opp N Petition
144 Ray Norris 42409 N. Back Creek Way 203-01-952 Opp N Petition
145 Dale Norris 42409 N. Back Creek Way 203-01-952 Opp N Yes Petition
146 James Gloshen 42415 N. Back Creek Way 203-01-953 Opp N Petition
147 James Lee 4722 W. Culpepper Dr. 202-22-884 Opp N Petition
148 Vaugh Miller 40024 N. Panther Creek Ct. 203-06-780 Opp N Petition
149 Brian Henry 2334 W. Memorial Ct. 203-40-181 Opp N Petition
150 Julis Ronald Jerich 41654 N. Emerald Lake Dr. 203-07-015 Opp N Petition
151 Linda Johnson 3432 W. Summit Walk Dr. 203-40-211 Opp N Petition
152 Mike Spinelli 822 W. Hazelhurst Dr. 211-22-401 Opp N Petition
153 Eugene Ramsell 41743 N. Golf Crest Dr. 203-07-088 Opp N Petition
154 Jeane Ramsell 41743 N. Golf Crest Dr. 203-07-088 Opp N Yes Petition
155 Kristinaia Jauch 3764 W. Desert Creek Lane 203-11-135 Opp N Petition
156 Edward Cunningham 3336 W. King Dr. 203-05-515 Opp N Petition
157 Larry Wilson 1920 W. Steinbeck Dr. 203-08-202 Opp N Petition
158 Mellany Funr 41013 N. Republic Way 203-02-060 Opp N Petition
159 Dee Wright 40011 N. Patriot Way 203-1 0-1 33 Opp N Petition
160 Jordan Perrin
161 J. Oesterle 40035 N. Patriot Way 203-10-137 Opp N Petition
162 Glenn Turney 40228 N. Patriot Way 203-10-122 Opp N Petition
163 William Boan 40317 N. National Trail 203-10-155 Opp N Petition
164 Jeanne Simon 40329 N. National Trail 203-10-157 Opp N Petition
165 Laura Braem-White 40341 N. National Trail 203-10-159 Opp N Petition
166 Donna Boetger 40413 N. National Trail 203-10-162 Opp N Petition
167 Nancy Wiedmeyer 40503 N. National Trail 203-1 0-1 65 Opp N Petition

168 Feliz Dolar 3471 W. Webster 203-10-167 Opp N Petition
169 Deniz Dolar 3471 W. Webster 203-10-167 Opp N Yes Petition
170 Laura Mukherjee 3459 W. Webster 203-10-169 Opp N Petition
171 Tanu Mukherjee 3459 W. Webster 203-10-169 Opp N Yes Petition
172 Frank Arvizu 3447 W. Webster 203-10-171 Opp N Petition
173 Dawn Michalski 3447 W. Webster 203-10-171 Opp N Yes Petition
174 Ramon Garza 3504 W. Webster 203-10-012 Opp N Petition
175 Lori Pieger 3516 W. Webster 203-10-014 Opp N Petition
176 Glen Pieger 3516W. Webster 203-10-014 Opp N Yes Petition
177 Kris Maxwell 3537 W. Webster 203-10-021 Opp N Petition
178 Derek Hoist 3525 W. Webster 203-10-023 Opp N Petition
179 Alice Hoist 3525 W. Webster 203-10-023 Opp N Yes Petition
180 Francisco Bedoya 3514W. Webster 203-10-026 Opp N Petition
181 Mary McRoberts 3526 W. Sousa Ct. 203-10-028 Opp N Petition
182 Shane Gross 3533 W. Sousa 203-10-033 Opp N Petition
183 Antonio Deherrera 3526 W. Morse Ct. 203-10-039 Opp N Petition
184 Mark Babbitt 3554 W. Morse Ct. 203-10-043 Opp N Petition
185 Steven Nelson 3517W. Morse Ct. 203-10-051 Opp N Petition
186 Robert Garrett 41650 N. Emerald Lake Dr. 203-07-014 Opp N Petition
187 Robert Tucker
188 Janine Calleja 3206 W. Walden Ct. 203-05-105 Opp N Petition
189 Katherine Rich 40909 N. Club Pointe Dr. 211-86-805 Opp N Petition
190 James Rich 40909 N. Club Pointe Dr. 211-86-805 Opp N Yes Petition
191 Carol Trapnell 39147 N. Acadia Way 203-11-011 Opp N Petition
192 Carole Robinson 41933 N. Crooked Stick Dr. 203-07-419 Opp N Petition
193 Ruth Wilson 42120 N. Anthem Heights Dr. 203-01-030 Opp N Petition
194 Jonathan Collar 41208 N. Parker Lane 203-03-220 Opp N Petition
195 Eric Johnson 2748 W. Wayne Lane 203-07-768 Opp N Petition
196 Wilma Steinhause 3103W. Summit Walk Ct, 203-07-453 Opp N Petition
197 Donald Steinhause 3103W. Summit Walk Ct. 203-07-453 Opp N Yes Petition
198 Kelly Munson 41718 N. Ericson Ct. 203-03-808 Opp N Petition
199 John Balzer 2944 W. Eastman Dr. 203-02-014 Opp N Petition
200 Keith Munson 41718 N. Ericson Ct. 203-03-808 Opp N Petition
201 Jim Pugett 40130 N. Patriot Way 203-10-128 Opp N Petition
202 Robert Kurcab 40124 N. Patriot Way 203-10-129 Opp N Petition
203 Kristina Barnes 40112 N. Patriot Way 203-1 0-1 31 Opp N Petition
204 Maria Garcia 3550 Twain Drive 203-10-092 Opp N Petition
205 Terry Lewis 2616 Patagona Way 203-40-561 Opp N Telephone
206 Al Coffey 623-551-9131 42404 N. Harbour Town Ct. 203-01-881 Opp N Letter

Opposition to Anthem Rezone and Americor within 300' feet
Square Feet Acres
Total Area in 300 buffer:
(excludes roadways and subject parcel 203-10-933) 981,431.10 22.54
Area of opposed parcels within buffer:
Anthem Community Council (203-10-722) 126,324 00 2.9
Anthem Community Council (203-10-711) 2,172 77 0.05
Anthem Community Council (203-10-181) 38,395 34 0.88
Cross of Christ Lutheran Church (203-10-931) 209,785 49 4.82
Cross of Christ Lutheran Church (203-10-820) 4,676 00 0.11
Total Area of Opposed parcels within buffer: 381,353 61 8.76
Percentage of Opposed parcels within buffer: 38.86% 38.86%
MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHOENIX, ARIZONA

Property owners withwin 300' of the Anthem site (Z20070651Z2008025)
Support Opposition
Cross of Christ Luthern Church of Anthem X
Parcel: 203-10-820
Parcel: 203-10-931
Arizona-American Water Company
Parcel: 203-10-007M
Holguin, Fred A/Carol D
Parcel: 203-10-080
Howard Thomas/Jane A
Parcel: 203-10-079
Anthem Community Council X
Parcel: 203-10-722
Parcel: 203-10-181
Parcel: 203-10-711
Wills Andrew R/ Jasmine Y
Parcel: 203-10-081
Bohne Gerald W/ Helen G
Parcel: 203-10-077
Fellowship Church at Anthem
Parcel: 203-10-932
Sieglen Daniel R/ Sarah T
Parcel: 203-10-078
Michalski Dawn R/Arvizu Frank Jr.
Parcel: 203-10-082
Deer Valley School Dist No. 97
Parcel: 203-10-973
Total 2
18.18%