View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 12, 2024) - Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption -
Rezoning Application Z-SP-6-23-8 - Southeast Corner of 41st Street and Baseline
Road (Ordinance G-7270)

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-SP-6-
23-8 and rezone the site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 SP (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit) to allow a self-service storage facility and underlying C-2
uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 3.84
Proposal: Self-service storage facility and underlying C-2 uses

Owner: Highline Investment, LLC
Applicant: SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item for
information only on March 12, 2024.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on April
9, 2024, and recommended denial, by a vote of 10-0-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated May 1, 2024, by a vote of 5-4.

The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
on May 9, 2024.

Location
Southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 4115, 4119, 4125, 4155, and 4175 E. Baseline Road

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.

ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (Z-SP-6-23-8) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO C-2 SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
SPECIAL PERMIT).

____________

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.84-acre property located at the southeast

corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road in a portion of Section 6, Township 1 South,

Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-

2” (Intermediate Commercial) to “C-2 SP” (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to

allow self-service storage facility and underlying C-2 uses.

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped April 26, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable.

5. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department

6. Four bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location inside
the building and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by Planning
and Development Department.

9. All public and private pedestrian pathways including sidewalks shall be shaded
to a minimum 75%, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

10. In addition to the landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List, Cercidium Hybrid (Desert Museum Palo Verde), Quercus Virginiana

(Live Oak), and Pistacia X 'Red-Push (Red Push Pistache), may be permitted
as approved by Planning and Development Department and shall be utilized,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

11. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.

12. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

13. The developer shall dedicate right‐of‐way and construct a bus stop pad on
eastbound Baseline Road. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to
bus stop pad shall be spaced from 41st Street according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide minimum 50% shade
coverage to bus stop pad.

14. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT)
shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Baseline Road, adjacent to the development.

16. The sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment for installing the required plants.

17. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of

Highline Lane, adjacent to the development.

18. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 41st
Street, adjacent to the development.

19. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the west side of 42nd
Place, adjacent to the development.

20. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb and median islands shall be
replenished with the approved landscaping and trees along Baseline Road, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.

24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

25. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of

this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of

any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the

remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June,

2024.

________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney

By:
_________________________
_________________________

REVIEWED BY:

_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)

EXHIBIT A

Within a portion of Section 6, Township 1 South, Range 4 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described
as follows:

Lot 1, HIGHLINE SHOPPES, according to Book 935 of Maps, Page 29, records of
Maricopa County, Arizona. Exempt per ARS 11-1134 B9

ATTACHMENT B

Staff Report Z-SP-6-23-8
March 30, 2024

South Mountain Village Planning April 9, 2024
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 2, 2024
Request From: C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (3.84
acres)
Request To: C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial,
Special Permit) (3.84 acres)
Proposal: Self-service storage facility and
underlying C-2 uses
Location: Southeast corner of 41st Street and
Baseline Road
Owner: Highline Investment, LLC
Applicant: SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity

General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial

Major
Baseline Road 60-foot south half street
Arterial

41st Street Local 25-foot east half street
Street Map
Classification
42nd Street Local 25-foot west half street

Highline Lane Local 20-foot north half street

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Establish design
standards and guidelines for parking lots and structures, setback and build-to
lines, blank wall space, shade, and other elements affecting pedestrians, to
encourage pedestrian activity and identify options for providing pedestrian-
oriented design in different types of development.
The proposal, as stipulated, includes design features to encourage walking, bicycling,

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

and transit use. These features include the provision of shaded sidewalks, bicycle
parking, shade within surface parking lots, and a multi-use trail that connects the
development with the existing multi-use trail along Baseline Road.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The proposal, as stipulated, includes shaded bicycle parking to encourage bicycling
and transit use by leveraging its proximity to commercial developments,
neighborhoods, schools, and the multi-use trail along Baseline Road.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, as stipulated, includes a detached sidewalk with landscape area along
Baseline Road that will be planted with shade trees, shaded public and private
sidewalks, and shaded bicycle and vehicle parking areas. These improvements will
create a comfortable pedestrian environment along Baseline Road, reduce the urban
heat island affect, and make the walk to nearby destinations safer and more
comfortable.

Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 7.

Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 8.

Transportation Electrification Action Plan: Background Item No. 9.

Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 10.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No. 11.

Phoenix Climate Action Plan: Background Item No. 12.

Conservation Measures for New Development: Background Item No. 13

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant C-2
Vacant, commercial,
North (across Baseline Road) single-family residences, C-1, C-2, and R1-6
and the Highline Canal
Vacant and the Highline
West (across 41st Street) R1-6
Canal
Water facility and fire
East (across 42nd Street) C-2
station
South (across Highline Lane) Single-family residences R1-6
South Single-family residences R1-6

C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)

Standards Requirements Met or Not Met
Minimum Building Setbacks
North (adjacent to Baseline Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Road) feet permitted for up to 50%
of structure
West (adjacent to 41st Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Street) feet permitted for up to 50%
of structure
East (adjacent to 42nd Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Street) feet permitted for up to 50%
of structure
South (adjacent to Highline Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Lane) feet permitted for up to 50%
of structure
South (adjacent to R1-6) 50 feet 50 feet (Met)

Minimum Landscaped Setbacks
North (adjacent to Baseline Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Road) feet permitted for up to 50%
of frontage
West (adjacent to 41st Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Street) feet permitted for up to 50%
of frontage

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

East (adjacent to 42nd Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Street) feet permitted for up to 50%
of frontage
South (adjacent to Highline Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Lane) feet permitted for up to 50%
of frontage
South (adjacent to R1-6) 10 feet 10 feet (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent 45.5% (Met)
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet 24 feet, 8 inches (Met)
Minimum Parking Mini-warehouses: 1 space per 19 parking spaces
35 storage units (Not met)*

Office: 1 space per 300 sf

734 units = 21 spaces
900 sf office = 3 spaces

24 parking spaces required
*Site plan revision or variance required

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 3.84 acres located on the southeast corner of 41st Street
and Baseline Road from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 SP (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit) for a self-service storage facility and underlying C-2
uses. The subject site is currently vacant.

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

2. The subject site is
designated as
Commercial on the
General Plan Land Use
Map. The areas to the
west of the subject site
across 41st Street and
to the south are
designated Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units
acre and the area to the
east across 42nd Street
is designated
Commercial. The area
to the north is
designated Commercial
and Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units acre. The
requested C-2 SP zoning district is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Commercial.

SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
3. To the north across Baseline
Road is vacant land,
commercial, single-family
residences, and the Highline
Canal zoned C-1
(Neighborhood Retail), C-2
(Intermediate Commercial), and
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence
District); to the west across
41st Street is vacant land and
the Highline Canal zoned R1-6
(Single-Family Residence
District); to the south across
Highline Lane and immediately
adjacent to the site are single-
family residences zoned R1-6 Location Map; Source: Planning and Development
Department
(Single-Family Residence
District); and to the east across
42nd Street is city owned property developed with a water facility and a fire station
zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) and R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

to the southeast.

PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The proposal is for a self-service storage use with storage units accessed from the
interior of the building. The conceptual site plan, attached as an exhibit, depicts the
site layout including the location of the building, parking area, trash enclosure,
drainage easement along the east portion of the site, and multi-use trail along
Baseline Road. The site will have one point of ingress/egress on Baseline Road.
The applicant proposes to request a variance to reduce the required parking on the
site from 24 to 19 spaces, therefore staff does not recommend general
conformance to the site plan.

Conceptual Site Plan; Source: Scapegoat Design Studios

Staff recommends Stipulation No. 2 to require pavement treatment that visually
contrast with parking and drive aisles where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular
path to improve pedestrian safety. To promote enhanced walking, cycling, and
transit-use staff recommends Stipulation No. 14 to require a multi-use trail along
Baseline Road, and Stipulation Nos. 5 through 7 to require shaded bicycle parking
and electric bicycle charging. Additionally, Stipulation No. 9 requires that all public
and private pedestrian pathways will be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent.
Stipulation No. 10 requires the use of plants listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List, alongside three additional tree species, to maintain consistency with
nearby developments and in consideration of the subject site's proximity to the
Baseline Area Overlay District.

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

5. Conceptual Building Elevations
The conceptual building elevations, attached as an exhibit, depict four-sided
architecture on the building with stone veneer, wood cladding, aluminum panels,
materials consistent with structures in the area, and glazing along the building
frontages. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 to require general conformance to
the conceptual elevations date stamped March 15, 2024, so the design of the
development is consistent with what is proposed and with the surrounding area.

Conceptual Building Elevations; Source: ARCO Design/Build

6. Special Permit
Self-service storage facilities are allowed in the C-2 district with a Special Permit
(Section 647.A.2.i), subject to the following conditions:
a) All storage shall be within a closed building except that within the grounds of
a self-service storage warehouse where trailers and motor vehicles may be

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

placed in outdoor storage areas which are separate from view from adjacent
streets and property by walls, fences or landscaping. Outdoor storage areas
shall not exceed ten percent of the gross site area and shall not count
toward meeting parking requirements.
b) No auctions, sales, service or repair activities or anything other than dead
storage and the rental and supervision of storage units and such additional
uses permitted in the C-2 district that are specified through special permit
approval shall be conducted on the premises.
c) There shall be no storage [or] use of hazardous or dangerous materials on
the premises.
d) The premises shall abut or have direct access to a freeway or arterial street,
as designated on the street classification map.
e) Screening the perimeter of the premises of a self-service storage warehouse
may be required. All parts of the perimeter which are adjacent to a
residential zone shall be screened by a fence or wall with a landscaped area
at least ten feet wide, additional setback and the reorientation of buildings
may be required to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties.
f) A self-storage warehouse may be combined with a household moving
center.
The proposal meets the above conditions by proposing solely indoor storage on the
site, and it does not propose to store any hazardous or dangerous materials on the
premises. Access is provided via Baseline Road, which is a major arterial street.

STUDIES AND POLICIES
7. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontage should be detached from
the curb to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The
development proposal, as stipulated, will create a comfortable streetscape
environment with detached sidewalks along Baseline Road, shaded bicycle
parking, shaded walkways, and shaded surface parking areas. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 16.

8. Complete Streets Guidelines:
The City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding Principles.
The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The proposed development, as
stipulated, will support walking, bicycling, and transit-use by including shaded
bicycle parking on the site, electric bicycle parking, a multi-use trail along Baseline

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

Road, and by constructing a detached sidewalk along Baseline Road. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, and 16.

9. Transportation Electrification Action Plan:
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation Electrification
Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of transportation is
both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for better air quality, a
reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle operating and
maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are signaling strong
future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile manufacturers
have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within the coming
decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled
with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a
roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000
EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of
electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily charging
infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV
charging infrastructure. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4 and 5 which require
a minimum of one electric bicycle charging receptacles and a minimum 10 percent
of the required parking spaces to be EV Capable.

10. Zero Waste Phoenix PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.

Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage
the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use
developments meeting certain criteria. The applicant’s submittal states that
recycling shall be provided.

11. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan:
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
As stipulated, the development will provide shaded bicycle parking, two electrical
bike charging receptacles, and a multi-use trail along Baseline Road. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5 through 7, and 14.

12. Phoenix Climate Action Plan:

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce
urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces. This
goal is addressed in Stipulation No. 3, which requires a minimum of two GI
techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in this development.

13. Conservation Measures for New Development:
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five
Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to “Build the Sustainable
Desert City”. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes
direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning
cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific
categories. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 10 through 12.

COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
14. As of the writing of this report 25 letters of opposition have been received for the
request. Concerns raised were regarding the proposal's architecture, impacts on
adjacent home values, the number of existing self-service storage uses in the area,
impacts on traffic, and the obstruction of views. Two letters of support has been
received for the request.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Street Transportation Department recommended that right-of-way be
dedicated for Baseline Road, that a detached sidewalk be built on Baseline Road,
and that attached sidewalks be built along Highline Lane, 41st Street, and 42nd
Street. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 15 through 19. The Street
Transportation Department also required the developer to replenish landscaping
within the right-of-way and construct all improvements in the right-of-way with all
required elements and to ADA standards. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 20
and 21.

16. The Public Transit Department required that a bus stop be constructed on

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

eastbound Baseline Road. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 13.

OTHER
17. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If
further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and
immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological
projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that
archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II
archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the
results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in
consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities must
cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology
Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the
materials. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 22 through 24.

18. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 25.

19. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other
formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments
may be required.

Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Commercial.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, will create a strong pedestrian environment along
Baseline Road with detached sidewalks and a multi-use trail. These pathways will
convey individuals safely and comfortably to the nearby educational uses,
commercial uses, and residential neighborhoods.

3. The site is appropriately located along a major arterial roadway, and as stipulated
will be compatible with surrounding uses..

Stipulations:

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped March 15, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable.

5. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department

6. Four bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location inside
the building and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by Planning
and Development Department.

9. All public and private pedestrian pathways including sidewalks shall be shaded
to a minimum 75%, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

10. In addition to the landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List, Cercidium Hybrid (Desert Museum Palo Verde), Quercus Virginiana

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

(Live Oak), and Pistacia X 'Red-Push (Red Push Pistache), may be permitted
as approved by Planning and Development Department and shall be utilized,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

11. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.

12. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

13. The developer shall dedicate right‐of‐way and construct a bus stop pad on
eastbound Baseline Road. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to
bus stop pad shall be spaced from 41st Street according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide minimum 50% shade
coverage to bus stop pad.

14. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT)
shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Baseline Road, adjacent to the development.

16. The sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment for installing the required plants.

17. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of
Highline Lane, adjacent to the development.

18. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 41st
Street, adjacent to the development.

19. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the west side of 42nd
Place, adjacent to the development.

20. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb and median islands shall be
replenished with the approved landscaping and trees along Baseline Road, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.

24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

25. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024

Writer
Samuel Rogers
March 28, 2024

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped March 15, 2024 (3 pages)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped March 15, 2024
Conceptual Renderings date stamped March 15, 2024 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped March 15, 2024
Correspondence (66 pages)

POLLACK ST R-2 * PARK ST
Z-27-02

41ST WAY
RIDGE RD

R-5 *
R1-6
40TH ST
Baseline Area Plan Z-SP-19-69
and Overlay District
DARROW ST
C-2 *
Z-27-02
S-1
C-1 *
C-1 Z-64-91
Z-24-11

BASELINE RD
C-2 CP/BP C-1*
PCD * Z-12-16
C-2 * R1-6
Z-116-81

R-2 PRD*
Z-112-04
PC
Z-15-07

42ND ST
41ST ST 42ND WAY
R-2 * 42ND PL 43RD
PL
Z-112-04
R1-6
R1-6 PRD
41ST PL DNS/WVR *
40TH PL
Z-15-07
RE-35 * RE-35 *
FAWN DR
Z-15-07
Z-15-07
R1-10

I
BROADWAY RD
Z-SP-6-23
SOUTHERN AVE

Miles BASELINE RD

0.06 0.03 0 0.06
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE 75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD

67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR

51ST AVE
27TH AVE

43RD AVE 35TH AVE

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
FROM:
C-2 ( 3.84 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
9/14/2023
Z-SP-6-23 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.84 Acres QS 01-37 D-10 TO: C-2 SP ( 3.84 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 55 67
C-2 SP 55 67

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-SP-6-23.mxd
POLLACK ST R-2 * PARK ST
Z-27-02

41ST WAY
RIDGE RD

R-5 *
R1-6
40TH ST
Baseline Area Plan Z-SP-19-69
and Overlay District
DARROW ST
C-2 *
Z-27-02
S-1
C-1 *
C-1 Z-64-91
Z-24-11

BASELINE RD
C-2 CP/BP C-1*
PCD * Z-12-16
C-2 * R1-6
Z-116-81

R-2 PRD*
Z-112-04
PC
Z-15-07

42ND ST
41ST ST 42ND WAY
R-2 * 42ND PL 43RD
PL
Z-112-04
R1-6
R1-6 PRD
41ST PL DNS/WVR *
40TH PL
Z-15-07
RE-35 * RE-35 *
FAWN DR
Z-15-07
Z-15-07
R1-10 Maricopa County Assessor's Office

I
BROADWAY RD
Z-SP-6-23
SOUTHERN AVE

Miles BASELINE RD

0.06 0.03 0 0.06
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE 75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD

67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR

51ST AVE
27TH AVE

43RD AVE 35TH AVE

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
FROM:
C-2 ( 3.84 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
9/14/2023
Z-SP-6-23 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.84 Acres QS 01-37 D-10 TO: C-2 SP ( 3.84 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 55 67
C-2 SP 55 67

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-SP-6-23.mxd
TSC-Civil-120 Jan 04 2023

W BASELINE RD

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR SITE

SAFStor SELF-STORAGE S 40TH ST S 41ST ST S 42ND ST S 42ND PL S 48TH ST
4125 E BASELINE RD
PHOENIX, AZ 85042
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, GILA
AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

W GUADALUPE RD (ALIGNMENT)

VICINITY MAP
E BASELINE RD ML/CL
2 1 2 2 3 3 CIVIL ENGINEER ARCHITECT

TERRASCAPE CONSULTING, LLC ARCO DESIGN/BUILD
645 E. MISSOURI AVE. SUITE 420 2100 S TYRON ST, SUITE 205
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 CHARLOTTE, NC

CONTACT: SCOTT KROUS CONTACT: JOSH WARKENTINE
PHONE: (602) 297-8732 PHONE: (770) 508-3952
SCREEN WALL/ EMAIL: SKROUS@TERRASCAPE.US EMAIL: JWARKENTINE@ARCODB.COM
RETAINING WALL
S45° 07' 22"W 28.50' PROPERTY OWNER
25' BLDG & LS SB
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
466.90'
10' S89° 41' 32"W 10 SAFStor REAL ESTATE CO., LLC HIGHLINE INVESTMENT, LLC
' 4111 N 39TH ST
10' 444 SEABREEZE BLVD, STE 840
N44° 52' 14"W 28.07' BEACH, FL 32118 PHOENIX, AZ 85018
30' 4'
100' CONTACT: CHRIS RUSS, P.E.
115' PHONE: (704) 578-3161
5' 4 EMAIL: CHRIS.RUSS@SAFSTOR.COM
6 30' RAMP
15'
SCREEN WALL/ RETAINING WALL 4'
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
75' PAVEMENT TO BE FLUSH WITH SW
70'
SCAPEGOAT DESIGN STUDIO
645 E MISSOURI AVE, SUITE 420
6' 6'
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
S00° 33' 12"W 178.25' 5 3 4
CONTACT: STEVE VOORHEES, RLA
25' BLDG & LS SB
PHONE: (480) 454-8015
70' OFFICE EMAIL: SVOORHEES@SCAPEGOATDS.COM
50'
160' 160' 25' BLDG & LS SB
55'
S 42ND ST
10' 5.7' 10' SITE DATA

JURISDICTION: CITY OF PHOENIX
ADDRESS: 4125 E BASELINE RD
TWO-STORY BLDG PHOENIX, AZ 85042
APN#: 301-19-108 SAFStor
BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 52,500 SF
S 41ST ST EXISTING ZONING: C-2 SELF-STORAGE
TOTAL GFA = 105,000 SF 15.8' CL TO PROP F/C EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT
4 PROPOSED ZONING: C-2 SP 4125 E BASELINE RD
3 PROPOSED LAND USE: COMMERCIAL PHOENIX, AZ 85042
PROP RDWY WIDENING
CL 405' (WIDTH VARIES)
20' NET AREA: 2.65 AC (115,386 SF)
GROSS AREA (TO CL): 3.86 AC (168,124 SF)
CL
L=54.37' R=54.78' CONCEPTUAL SITE
N00° 34' 00"E 220.77'

LEGEND PLAN
N89° 22' 08"E 212.46' 10' LS SB
50' BLDG SB PROP VC&G PROPERTY LINE
20' CL 18' BOUNDARY LINE
N89° 27' 19"E 228.15'
CENTERLINE
SETBACK
E HIGHLINE LN PROPOSED ASPHALT EASEMENT
N45° 02' 20"W 27.99'
25' BLDG & LS SB
444 SEABREEZE BLVD,
73.3' SCREENWALL
STE 840,
PROP 25' R/W ADA ACCESSIBLE ROUTE z z z z z z BEACH, FL 32118
25' TA NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS PER ROW X
S 41ST PL
PER EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
CONCRETE
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
ASPHALT

ABBREVIATIONS ZONING STANDARDS (C-2 SP) REQUIRED PARKING CALCULATIONS DATE DESCRIPTION
SCALE IN FEET

AVG AVERAGE MUTE MULTI-USE TRAIL MIN BLDG SETBACKS REQ'D PROV'D STANDARD PARKING CALCULATION REQ'D SPACES 0 30 60
B/C BACK OF CURB ESMT
ADJACENT STREET 25' AVG 25' 734 STORAGE UN (1 SPACE/35 UN) 21
BLDG BUILDING PUE PUBLIC UTILITY ESMT
ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY 50' 50' 900 SF OFFICE SPACE (1 SPACE/ 300 SF) 3
BOT BOTTOM PROP PROPOSED
CB CATCH BASIN PROV'D PROVIDED MIN LS SETBACKS ADA PARKING CALCULATION REQ'D SPACES
CL CENTERLINE REQ'D REQUIRED
ADJACENT STREET 25' AVG 25' STANDARD (1 TO 25 TOTAL SPACES*) 1
COMM COMMUNICATION RDWY ROADWAY
ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY 10' 10'
CONC CONCRETE R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 24
COP CITY OF PHOENIX SB SETBACK MAX BLDG HEIGHT 30' (2 STORIES) 30' (2 STORIES)
DWY DRIVEWAY SD STORM DRAIN * NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES PER TABLE 1,
LOT COVERAGE 50% 45.5%
ELEC ELECTRIC SF SQUARE FEET SECTION 702.G.1.c PER CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING CODE
EOP EDGE OF PERMIT SP SPECIAL PERMIT LOADING REQUIREMENTS
ESMT EASEMENT SS SANITARY SEWER PROVIDED PARKING CALCULATIONS CHECKED BY: SAK
EX EXISTING SWK SIDEWALK REQUIRED NUMBER OF LOADING SPACES IS BASED OFF
PROVIDED PARKING CALCULATION PROV'D SPACES DRAWN BY: ICB
Plotted: 03/04/24 - 12:28 PM, By: nreichman

F/C FACE OF CURB SVT SIGHT VISIBILITY TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA PER TABLE A, SECTION
FH FIRE HYDRANT TRIANGLE 702.H.1.a OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING CODE. STANDARD VEHICLE PARKING (9'X18'*) 18 TITLE:
GFA GROSS FLOOR TYP TYPICAL ADA PARKING (11'X18' W/ 5' AISLE*) 1
AREA UN UNIT LOADING SUMMARY REQ'D PROV'D CONCEPTUAL
IRR IRRIGATION VC&G VERTICAL CURB TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 19**
105,000 GFA 3 3 SITE PLAN
LS LANDSCAPE & GUTTER * TOTAL STALL LENGTH OF 18' INCLUDES A 2.5'
ML MONUMENT LINE SHEET No.
OVERHANG FROM THE F/C
** A PARKING VARIANCE WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET 1 of 3
PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN SECTION
702(C) OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING CODE. PROJECT No.
File: M:\1515_W&A Eng_Baseline Storage_Phoenix\DWG\Preliminary\1515 PR_SIT.dwg, ---> 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

TSC-Civil-120 Jan 04 2023

1252 1252

TOP OF BLDG = 1247.67
HEIGHT OF BLDG = 24.67'
1248 1248

1244 1244

R/W R/W
℄ R/W
℄ 1240

EX 8' PUE
1236 25' BLDG & LS SETBACK 1236
25' BLDG & LS SB
EX 30' MUTE & DRAINAGE ESMT
EX 10' PUE
EX 1' VANE

EX 20' R/W
1232 1232
PROP 25' R/W

EX 30' R/W

1228 1228

PROPOSED
BUILDING
EX 4' SWK
1224 FFE = 1223.00 2' BENCH 1224
EX ROLL CURB
LANE
HIGHLINE
4 4
M :1
MA :1 AX
PROP 10' MUT PROP BLDG STEMWALL X
EX VC&G EX PAVEMENT
1220 PROP GRADE EX GROUND 1220
EX 4' SW 2' BENCH SWALE

BASELIN
E ROAD

1216 1216
EX PAVEMENT EX VC&G

1212 1212
SECTION 1
H SCALE 1"=20' V SCALE 1"=4' V

SAFStor
1252 1252 SELF-STORAGE
TOP OF BLDG = 1250.00
HEIGHT OF BLDG = 27.00' 4125 E BASELINE RD
PHOENIX, AZ 85042

1248 1248

CONCEPTUAL SITE
PLAN
EX STREETLIGHT
1244 1244

℄ R/W R/W
℄
1240 1240
EX 8' PUE 444 SEABREEZE BLVD,
EX 60' R/W STE 840,
25' BLDG & LS SETBACK 30.3' BEACH, FL 32118
1236 EX 30' MUTE & DRAINAGE ESMT EX 10' PUE 1236
25' BLDG & LS SB
EX 10' R/W ABANDONMENT
EX 1' VANE

1232 1232
EX 21' R/W

DATE DESCRIPTION
EX 4' SWK
1228 1228
E LANE
HIGHLIN
PROP 10' SW PROPOSED
20' TRUCK LOADING BUILDING
FFE = 1223.00 2' BENCH EX PAVEMENT
1224 PROP GRADE 1224
EX GROUND EX VC&G
1 4
EX MEDIAN 4: XA MA :1
IES M X
VAR
PE
PROP VALLEY GUTTER SLO
1220 SWALE 1220
BASELIN PROP ASPHALT
E ROAD CHECKED BY: SAK

DRAWN BY: ICB
Plotted: 03/04/24 - 12:28 PM, By: nreichman

1216 EX PAVEMENT 1216 TITLE:
PROP CONC DRIVEWAY
CONCEPTUAL
SITE PLAN
SHEET No.
1212 1212
SECTION 2 2 of 3
H SCALE 1"=20' V SCALE 1"=4' V
PROJECT No.
File: M:\1515_W&A Eng_Baseline Storage_Phoenix\DWG\Preliminary\1515 PR_SIT.dwg, ---> 2 GRADING SECTIONS

TSC-Civil-120 Jan 04 2023

1252 1252

TOP OF BLDG = 1247.67
HEIGHT OF BLDG = 24.67'
1248 1248

1244 1244

℄ R/W R/W

50' BLDG SB
EX 30' PUE
1236 1236
EX 8' PUE EX 1' VANE
25' BLDG & LS SETBACK EX 60' R/W ABANDONMENT
EX PUE & ACCESS ESMT

EX 30' MUTE & DRAINAGE ESMT
1232 1232

10' LS SB
EX 18' PAVEMENT

1228 1228

PROPOSED PROP PAVEMENT
BUILDING EX GRADE

1224 FFE = 1223.00 2' BENCH 1224

1 4
4: XA
MA :1
X
EX MEDIAN PROP 10' MUT 2' BENCH M
EX SW PROP BLDG STEMWALL
1220 BASELIN 1220
E ROAD

SWALE
PROP GRADE
EX PAVEMENT EX VC&G

1216 1216

1212 1212
SECTION 3
H SCALE 1"=20' V SCALE 1"=4' V
SAFStor
SELF-STORAGE
1252 1252
4125 E BASELINE RD
TOP OF BLDG = 1250.00
HEIGHT OF BLDG = 27.00' PHOENIX, AZ 85042

1248 1248
CONCEPTUAL SITE
PLAN

1244 1244

℄ R/W R/W ℄
1240 1240
444 SEABREEZE BLVD,
STE 840,
BEACH, FL 32118

1236 PROP 25' BLDG & LS SB 1236
PROP 25' BLDG & LS SB
EX 22' DRAINAGE ESMT
EX 8' R/W ABANDONMENT
EX 5' R/W ABANDONMENT
EX 5' R/W ABANDONMENT
1232 1232
EX 25' R/W EX 25' R/W DATE DESCRIPTION

1228 1228
PROP 8' SW

S 42ND ST
PROPOSED EX GRADE
BUILDING
1224 FFE = 1223.00 1224
PROP VC&G
EX PAVEMENT
PROP 4' SWK HWE PROP PAVEMENT
S 41ST ST PROP BLDG STEMWALL
1220 1220 CHECKED BY: SAK
PROP BLDG STEMWALL
X ROLL CURB
PROP GRADE
EX ROLL CURB DRAWN BY: ICB
EX PAVEMENT
Plotted: 03/04/24 - 12:28 PM, By: nreichman

BASIN
TITLE:
1216 1216 CONCEPTUAL
PROP GRADE SITE PLAN
SHEET No.
1212 1212 3 of 3
SECTION 4
PROJECT No.
H SCALE 1"=20' V SCALE 1"=4' V
File: M:\1515_W&A Eng_Baseline Storage_Phoenix\DWG\Preliminary\1515 PR_SIT.dwg, ---> 3 GRADING SECTIONS

%$6(/,1(52$'
6$)6725%$6(/,1(&2/256&+(0( (/(9$7,21 )5217

2)),&(
6(/)6725$*(
%8,/',1*
(/(9$7,21 6,'( (/(9$7,21 6,'(

.(<3/$1
6&$/(

) ( ' & $ $ (

7678' 7<3 7678' 7<3

6725$*( 6725$*(

6725$*( 6725$*(

(/(9$7,21 6,'( (/(9$7,21 6,'(
6&$/( 6&$/(

7678' +,*+

7678' 7<3

6725$*(

6725$*(

(/(9$7,21 )5217
6&$/(

COMPOSITE WOOD CLADDING ALUMINUM COMPOSITE LOW ENERGY INSULATED EXTERIOR INSULATED FAUX GLAZING SYSTEM MANUFACTURED STONE
PANELS (ACM) GLAZING SYSTEM FINISHING SYSTEM (EIFS) WITH SPANDREL COATING VENEER SYSTEM

6&+(0$7,&
6$)6725%$6/,1( (/(9$7,216

(;7(5,25'(6,*1
,QWHUVWDWH1RUWK3NZ\6($WODQWD*$

6XLWH

%$6(/,1(52$'
3+2(1,;$= 'DWH

10/4/23, 3:13 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-SP-6-23
Mike Davis
Thu 9/28/2023 4:59 PM
To: Samuel S Rogers
Hi Samuel,

I hope this email finds you well. I would like to share some comments about a proposed development (Z-SP-6-23)
of a self-service storage warehouse in a C-2 zoned property near my house. The notice I received from the
developer's attorney lists you as the City of Phoenix contact person.

The proposed vehicular access is not compatible with the adjacent residential district. Vehicular access is
proposed via 41st Street which is adjacent to the residential district to the west. 647.A.2.i.5 states that "All parts
of the perimeter which are adjacent to a residential zone shall be screened by a fence or wall with a landscaped
area at least ten feet wide, additional setback and the reorientation of buildings may be required to ensure
compatibility with surrounding properties." Adjacent property to the south and west are zoned R1-6 and
developer is obligated to screen the perimeter in these directions. The current plan includes unscreened
driveway to the west. Furthermore, 41st street is a local street (i.e. not designated an arterial or collector road on
the Street Classification Map). A better choice will be to utilize access from Baseline Road which is designated a
Major Arterial street

Also, access via 41st is problematic from a safety standpoint. The intersection at 41st Street and Baseline is in
close proximity to a unique intersection of 40th St and Baseline. 40th St and Baseline is unique because it is a T-
intersection of two major arterial streets, and the light patterns are non-standard. Access to my neighborhood is
via 41st St and I know this intersection well. I always warn guests/new neighbors that the non-standard light
patterns can give a false sense of when it is safe to turn on/off Baseline Rd. There will be serious accidents
involving moving trucks driven by inexperienced drivers at this intersection unless the access plan is changed.

Finally, the notice did not include any details about the location of industrial equipment (e.g. chiller system for
climate control) and I am concerned about the possibility of a large noise source in the neighborhood. I would
like assurances that no such noise source will exist. The Zoning Code gives a metric that applies all the way up to
A-2 Industrial Districts that I think makes sense to include as a stipulation. This stipulation has also been added to
other Special Permit uses. Please stipulate “The average noise level, measured at the property line, shall not
exceed fifty-five dB (l dn) when measured on an "A weighted" sound level meter and according to the procedures
of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Thanks,
Mike Davis

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOkV0yMCIxhMpci%2FcgzU… 1/1
10/10/23, 8:48 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Comments on Case # Z-SP-6-23 Storage facility at 41st Street and Baseline Rd.
Laurie Pheil
Tue 10/3/2023 4:05 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Hi Samuel,

Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about this project today. I am a spokesperson for the Baseline
Area Resident’s Association.

After a careful review of the packet sent to by Snell and Wilmer, here are my concerns about the
project as it stands now.

1. There are already several storage buildings in the area. There are 2 structures at 48th Street and
Baseline already and I was surprised to hear that they are at almost 90 percent capacity, plus an
additional one on 15th Street and Baseline. Do we really need yet another storage facility in our
neighborhood?
2. Traffic coming in and out of their facility at 41st Street is sure to cause back ups and accidents
on Baseline. New people visiting our neighborhood don’t realize that the lights at 40th Street
and Baseline are not timed the same, so when the west-bound traffic is stopped, east-bound
traffic is still coming, usually over 50 MPH. This will cause accidents in the beginning, especially
as people move in and out of a new storage facility. I would appreciate it if you could ask the
developer why they’re not using Baseline as the access point. Probably because it would reduce
their building footprint to do so or interfere with the wash on the east end of the property.
3. Additional traffic congestion will come from people wanting to turn left from 41st Street onto
Baseline Rd. This is usually not possible during normal business hours, so as residents, we turn
right and make a U-turn at 42nd Street. They won’t necessarily know that, so they will most likely
sit and wait for traffic to clear, or pull out and block people trying to turn into our community
from Baseline.
4. The building height is 24 feet which will definitely block the mountain views, as shown by their
own illustration. There are no other 2 story buildings in the area, especially not something with
such a big footprint.
5. There is minimal landscaping. It’s all gravel with a few trees. There’s a small wash on the east
side at 42nd Street that they are just going to put in gravel, so it doesn’t look like they’re going
to deal with the water run off from their own building as far as I can see.
6. The vision for the Baseline Corridor Master Plan was to promote community gathering. This type
of commercial use will not do that at all. Some possible alternative uses could be a
bookstore/coffee shop or a vet clinic, or even a bakery might be a good use for this site. They
could be a little more creative than just constructing a huge windowless building that does
nothing more for the community than a place to stash their un-used stuff!

If you have any questions for me, please feel free to contact me by email or the phone number below.

Thanks!
Laurie

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHuER0UWOAxOg8135iBGO… 1/2
10/10/23, 8:48 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Laurie Pheil
Creative Benefit Communications
Phone: 602-696-3800
E-mail: creativebenefitcommunications@gmail.com

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHuER0UWOAxOg8135iBGO… 2/2
10/10/23, 8:53 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Special Permit for 2 story Storage facility on Baseline and 41st Street
Cynthia Standage-Beier
Wed 10/4/2023 12:10 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Laurie Pheil
Cynthia Standage-Beier
3633 E Highline Canal Road
Phoenix, Az 85042

Planning and Development Department
(submitted via email) Samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov

Dear Mr. Rogers

No Application number listed-
The "Special Permit for 2 story Storage facility on Baseline and 41st Street" is proposed at the
only entrance to our foothills neighborhoods.

Here are my initial observations-

This proposal is immediately next to a many stable foothills neighborhoods. The neighborhood
immediately south has been deed restricted to one story (and enforced) for many years.

The proposal is along the south side of Baseline Road at the eastern edge of the overlay
district. All development in the immediate area both residential and commercial including the
high two story warehouse is not consistent with the character of our area.

Many of my neighbors (South mountain residents) have represented this area for decades to
ensure we were not overrun by warehouses. It would be an unfortunate failing of long range
planning for one of the final remaining infill parcels to be approved for the very land use that so
many have worked to prevent.

This proposal utilizes queuing on 41st to operate. The proposed warehouse creates access and
exit problems on a residential street for the residents that rely on 41st as their only access.
Additionally, the site plan shows an additional access point on Highline Lane further in the
neighborhood. Traffic accessing Baseline Road is already a challenge with the closeness of
41st to the 40th st and Baseline intersection with a traffic light.

There is no way this application for a Special Permit is compatible with the surrounding area.

My family and I are opposed to this proposal at this location.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Standage-Beier
Standage-beier@gmail.com
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAErRG5XtTdVMqKO%2BJSr… 1/2
10/10/23, 8:53 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAErRG5XtTdVMqKO%2BJSr… 2/2
10/10/23, 8:55 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Fwd: Special Permit
Olga Klem
Wed 10/4/2023 1:15 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

Date: October 4, 2023 at 12:24:09 PM MST
To: samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov
Cc: JEFF KLEM
Subject: Special Permit

To: Mr. Samuel Rogers

After a more careful review of the packet, here are our concerns
about the project as well as it stands now.

1. There are already several storage buildings in the area.
There are 2 structures at 48th Street being at almost 90
percent capacity, plus an additional one on 15th Street and
Baseline. Having another storage facility in our
neighborhood would be overkill.
2. Traffic coming in and out of their facility at 41st Street will
cause back ups and accidents on Baseline. New people
visiting our neighborhood don’t realize that the lights
at 40th Street and Baseline are not timed the same, so when
the west-bound traffic is stopped, east-bound traffic is
coming, usually over 50 MPH. This will cause accidents in
the beginning, especially as people move in and out of a
new storage facility. Will Baseline be used as the access
point? Does this reduce their building footprint to do so?
3. Safety! Additional traffic congestion will come from people
wanting to turn left from 41st Street onto Baseline Rd. This
is usually not possible during normal business hours, so as
residents, we turn right and make a U-turn. They won’t
necessarily know that, so they will most likely sit and wait
for traffic to clear, or pull out and block people trying to
turn into our community from Baseline.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOdbDNqmHQJJj1C1rLojPdk… 1/2
10/10/23, 8:55 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

4. The building height is 24 feet which will definitely block the
mountain views. There are no other 2 story buildings in the
area, especially not something with such a big footprint.
5. The landscaping is gravel and littered It’s all gravel with a
few trees. There’s a small wash on the east side at 42nd
Street that they are just going to put in gravel, so it doesn’t
look like they’re going to deal with the water run off from
their own building as far as I can see.
6. The vision of the Baseline Corridor Master Plan is to
promote community gathering. How about a
bookstore/coffee shop or a vet clinic, or even a bakery
might be a good use for this site.

Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOdbDNqmHQJJj1C1rLojPdk… 2/2
11/12/23, 10:57 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Case number Z-SP-6-23
Ron Bruce
Sun 10/22/2023 8:17 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (278 KB)
StorageBldng.jpg;

To: Mr. Samuel Rogers
Fm: Ron Bruce

I was playing around a little with my idea of mirror imaging the building. I don't have the dimensions
to make an accurate representation and the wash on the east side presents a bit of a problem. At the
meeting, I asked about installing a culvert and I was told the city objects because it would increase the
flow rate due to the smoothness. I assume they were proposing it for the full width of the property. I
don't think that is necessary. I would suggest just bridging about a 20ft width with abutments on each
end and using double tee concrete beams of maybe 50ft. They could install a retaining wall along the
sides of the wash if needed. This would eliminate the primary objection most people have to using
41st St. for access and avoiding 40th St. traffic control in that when west bound Baseline traffic gets a
red light, east bound is still green. Another problem is left turn traffic from south bound 40th St. often
switch lanes to the outside Baseline lane within the turn along with some red arrow violators. Also the
right lane east bound traffic on Baseline view is partially blocked by the canal arch, especially for
people with a long hood if you use the stop line. Most days Baseline traffic speed is above 45 mph.
See attached.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHPlSFR9RWhJmMlpg%2FN… 1/1
10/25/23, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Case number Z-SP-6-23
Jason Edwards
Tue 10/24/2023 2:34 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Hello Mr. Rogers,
I understand that there is a review of a potential storage facility near 41st and Baseline Road. I am
concerned about this for a couple of reasons, however, the most important reason is that it is
proposed to have entry from 41st st.

This is a very hard location to get out onto Baseline from and even harder to get to west bound
Baseline. It’s already a dangerous intersection due to the proximity to 40th St where there is a stop
light. Increasing traffic coming in and out of that spot is going to cause congestion and likely many
more accidents (some of which will be fatal).

Please take this all into consideration before approving any business for that particular location.

Regards,
Jason Edwards
8243 S. 40th st
Phoenix, AZ 85042

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALn3a5hWwKdPhMtSTjV2jB… 1/1
12/18/23, 11:47 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

RE: Proposed development at 41st and Baseline
Eric Buskirk
Wed 12/13/2023 3:03 PM
To:Streets P STR
Cc:Samuel S Rogers ;Maja Brkovic ;Joshua A Rogers

Sam,

I’m not sure if this is related to a zoning case or not around 41st St & Baseline, so wanted to make you aware.
Please see the resident’s comments below.

Eric Buskirk
Special Projects Administrator
Street Transportation Department
602.262.7580 (o)
480.915.4585 (c)

Please be advised I have taken a new role in the Street Transportation Department. David Goodman will assume
Team Leader responsibility for all projects I am previously assigned. Please include David, at
david.goodman@phoenix.gov, on all future correspondence as part of the transition.

From: Streets P STR
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 2:47 PM
To: Eric Buskirk
Subject: FW: Proposed development at 41st and Baseline

Good afternoon,

Is this something that Streets handles or should this go to PDD?

Thank you,
Toni Dueñas
Administrative Secretary
602-262-6136

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJVYmBwSn1xKt%2FprMoC… 1/2
12/18/23, 11:47 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Iosue
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 4:31 PM
To: Streets P STR
Subject: Proposed development at 41st and Baseline

I’m writing to say my husband and I oppose the Safe Store storage facility making their ingress and
regress on 41st Street. This is the only access to 80 plus families who live in this area. Please suggest
that developers make the ingress and regress on Baseline Road, with a bus storage lane to avoid the
congestion. Too many accidents are happening now with just the traffic on Baseline. We can almost
never turn west on Baseline, and instead have to make a u-turn. This will be much worse with so much
more traffic.
Thank you,
Laurie Iosue
Sent from my iPad

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJVYmBwSn1xKt%2FprMoC… 2/2
12/18/23, 11:43 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

FW: emdist8 - Form Submission
Council District 8 PCC
Fri 12/8/2023 2:53 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Hi Sam,

I wanted to share this constituent comment and recommendation with you because I think this item is on the
agenda for the VPC meeting on 12/12.

Have a great weekend!

Sincerely,

Kalea Moore
Constituent Services Manager
Office of Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington
Phoenix City Council District 8
Main Office: 602-262-7493

From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 6:46 PM
To: Council District 8 PCC
Subject: emdist8 - Form Submission

FROM : Laurie Iosue

SUBJECT : Zoning exception for land at Baseline Road & 41st Street

MESSAGE : Dear Ms. Hodge-Washington,
I would like to state my disapproval of the 2 story zoning exception for the storage facility to be built
at 41st and Baseline Roads. Also, and more importantly, I would like to request that the builder provide
ingress/regress on Baseline Road, which would include removing part of the divider in order to keep
people from making u-turns in front of 41st Street. This is the only access that our neighborhood has
and there are many accidents in this intersection. The current plan is ingress/regress on 41st Street,
and there is no benefit to this other than to reduce costs for the developer/builder. If the 41st Street
plan goes forward, it's imperative that the developer add a 3rd lane on their property. There will be
moving trucks on the street daily, which will add to road congestion for homeowners. Please keep our
South Mountain Village a safe and beautiful place to live.
Best regards,
Laurie Iosue

Email : fiveofnine@cox.net

AREA : 480

PHONE : 2052396

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFwJuOQhxiBEkFYvMGAizX… 1/2
12/18/23, 11:43 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

ADDRESS : 8035 S 38th Way

CITY : Phoenix

STATE : AZ

ZIP : 85042

Submission ID: 6328bb4adc45401a91a9fb0fa8fca456

Form Submission On : 12/7/2023 6:46:56 PM

Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district8/contact-district-8

This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFwJuOQhxiBEkFYvMGAizX… 2/2
1/18/24, 2:00 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

FW: emdist8 - Form Submission- Z-SP-6-23
Council District 8 PCC
Thu 12/28/2023 10:02 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Hi Sam,

I just wanted to forward this email to you to add to the case file regarding zoning case Z-SP-6-23, as I know this one is
coming up at VPC.

Happy New Year!

Sincerely,

Kalea Moore
Constituent Services Manager
Office of Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington
Phoenix City Council District 8
Main Office: 602-262-7493
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 9:40 AM
To: Council District 8 PCC
Subject: emdist8 - Form Submission

FROM : Chris Calacci

SUBJECT : Lot on 41st St. south of Baseline- zoning exemption

MESSAGE : Dear Honorable Councilman Washington,

My wife and I live on E. Pollock St., Phoenix, AZ 85042. Living a block north of baseline and 40th St. we
often travel to Highline Canal and the Hancock Park neighborhood which is just south of Baseline off
of 41st. street.

A law firm representing developers of the lot at 41st St. and baseline have proposed building a huge
storage facility on the lot. It would have no entrance off of Baseline. They propose entering a it would
have no entrance off of Baseline. They propose entering and exiting on 41st St. very near baseline. The
business would average at least 11 cars an hour entering and exiting this neighborhood/church street,
just south of baseline.

I fear this develop that would further adversely effect the safety of the intersection of 40th St. and
Baseline which is already a very dangerous intersection. It has more than its share of fatalities and
crashes potentially injuring children (Skyline School Traffic) and adult pedestrians and motorists. This is
a messed up intersection that on a school day has a lot of chaotic traffic. I’ve asked the street
department for the number of fatalities around the intersection of 40th and Baseline.

If you need to exit 41st street onto baseline west your life is in danger as the traffic lights you see
exiting appear red but on the other side ( to oncoming speeders) are green and the traffic is going 55-
60 miles an hour.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIR8UAeIQd9Mghv0kKL2PZc… 1/3
1/18/24, 2:00 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Besides the concern of traffic safety, the Hancock park neighborhood character would be greatly
changed negatively and their views to the south significantly blocked.

In contacting the south mountain village planning group yesterday, 12/26/23, I received a response
from one of the board members a Trent Marchuck, suggesting my vigorous opposition of this
development wasn’t in line with my neighbors or the group working with the developers on a
“compromise”. I didn’t hear a lot of copper guys in the meetings I went to, so I’m a little confused.

Since there’s been no meeting on this matter by the Neighborhood group since before Christmas and
the December meeting of the South Mountain Village Planning Group was canceled. I’m not sure
what’s going on. In the two meeting I went to there was strong and vocal opposition to this
development. Yet it’s implied there’s a deal being struck.. Why? There’s been no update to the email
list by the group coordinator Catherine Napoli in this time.

There is this notion that the owner has a “right to develop” and a right to some sort of exemption or
compromise. No. This is not the case. The current zoning expressly prohibits storage facilities and
ought not be changed. The end.

Why are the laws for normal citizen put aside when big firms like these guys come into push us
around. They want to make our existence more perilous and negatively affect our property values and
neighborhood.

Please look into this matter. There's a meeting of the SMVP coming up that should be very well
attended.

Thank you for your representation and service to the community, Chris Calacci

Ps the traffic on baseline is too fast can we ever get it lowered to 40 from 45. A reduction to 40 mph
would save lives on baseline.

Email : chris.p.calacci@gmail.com

AREA : 480

PHONE : 5402652

ADDRESS : 3903 E Pollack St

CITY : Phoenix

STATE : AZ

ZIP : 85042

Submission ID: 9557779a6d3e45b2b3c2cf57643883f0

Form Submission On : 12/27/2023 9:40:39 AM

Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district8/contact-district-8

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIR8UAeIQd9Mghv0kKL2PZc… 2/3
1/18/24, 2:00 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIR8UAeIQd9Mghv0kKL2PZc… 3/3
3/11/24, 10:03 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Recap of meeting 2/12/24
Catherine Napoli
Fri 2/16/2024 1:34 PM
To:Brian Harvey ;Laurie Pheil ;
trentchristopher@gmail.com ;mmaerowitz@swlaw.com ;
mdellow@swlaw.com ;support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Cc:Sina Matthes ;Council District 8 PCC ;Samuel S Rogers
;PDD South Mountain VPC
Present at Meeting:
Marcia Busching, Michael Maerowitz, Maggie Dellow, Christopher Russ, Trent Marchuk, David Soltysik, Scott
Krous, Catherine Napoli, Laurie Pheil

Thank you members of SMVPC, Snell & Wilmer, and SafStor for meeting with Laurie and I as the representatives of
the neighborhood south of the proposed storage facility.

Working together, the building proposal has come a long way to fitting into our established, historical, unique
neighborhood. However, there are still several points that the neighbors feel must be addressed and solutions be
found before we are fully behind the project.

We want to acknowledge the positive changes to the original plan.

The new color palette and materials, including the wood and stone, are more in keeping with the feel of the area.
The palo verde trees are native and a better choice than the pines on the original plan. Also, Trent Marchuk
mentioned there are an additional 5 tree species that are native and very drought resistant. We look forward to
seeing how they will be incorporated into the design.

The entrance and exit on Baseline Road is one thing the neighbors really wanted and we are glad that worked out.
We thank you for getting with City of Phoenix Streets Department to clarify our misunderstanding about the left
turn lane on the westbound side of Baseline Road onto 41st Street. We also confirmed that lane will remain.

Because of no longer needing to add traffic to 41st Street, there is no reason the developer should restripe 41st
Street to create 3 lanes. As discussed, making the southbound lane narrower onto 41st Street will cause additional
problems because the turn is sharp and most people end up going a bit far over the line currently.

Per David Soltysik, the wash on the east side of the property will be dug out to provide a deeper wash and better
water flow to Baseline Road. Because of this, we understand the finished floor elevation (FFE) as measured on the
SE corner of the property will be 2 foot lower than the current elevation. As per the comment by Trent Marchuk,
lower would be even better, bringing it as close as possible to the elevation against Baseline Road.

We applaud the re-use of the current sidewalk along Baseline Road with the added feature of a mixed use trail
that meanders away from Baseline, giving people a choice where to walk.

The change of the entrance and exit onto Baseline Road brought its own issues. And we are still wanting
resolution on the views from Baseline Road up to the mountain and vice versa, specific to 41st Place.

The new layout of the building, with entrance/exit and parking on Baseline Road has brought the building far to
the west side of the property. This adds a new area of views blocked for everyone on 41st Street and for the entire
neighborhood because our only way in and out of the area is on 41st Street. We request that the building move as
far east as possible to preserve the views looking both north by the neighborhood and looking south toward the
mountain from Baseline Road. Moving the building east preserves the views along the Baseline Scenic Route by
not blocking the views up 41st Street.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMqLVZUEEkBPvNMRYRIQ… 1/2
3/11/24, 10:03 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

While the original request of the neighbors was that the building be only a single story throughout, we
understand that is not economically feasible for the developer. We do request that the second story be taken out
of the area just behind the south end of the parking lot. That area, with some shifting, lines up with 42nd Place.
Lining up a view corridor of a single story, moving the units to the east end of the building, preserves views of the
neighborhood looking north and preserves the views from Baseline Road looking south.
At the time of the Baseline Area Master Plan and subsequent revisions, Baseline Road was designated a view
corridor. Moving the building east away from 41st Street and eliminating the second story from the area adjacent
to 41st Place will preserve the views.

These adjustments will also add interest to the building, breaking it up in the middle.

As a side note, in an earlier conversation, the possibility of a third story was brought up as a way to capture some
of the lost units if the second story was eliminated from part of the building. The neighborhood wants to be
extremely clear on this, under no circumstances will we accept a third story. That sentiment has been echoed by
numerous officials and volunteers.

We thank you for working with the neighbors and for the improvements already made.

We look forward to the last 2 updates that will correct a problem created (moving the building east) and address
the very first concern brought by the neighbors (the second story).

Thank you,
Catherine Napoli for the neighborhood

NOTE - I didn't have everyone's email address. Please forward as needed.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMqLVZUEEkBPvNMRYRIQ… 2/2
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Fwd: FW: Storage Facility in North Phoenix
Catherine Napoli
Wed 2/28/2024 12:12 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Shane had your email address incorrect. I am including my response back to Shane below.

Catherine Napoli
602-295-3411

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shane Gore
Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Storage Facility in North Phoenix
To: , , , Josh
Bednarek
Cc: , , Nick
Klimek ,

Hi Catherine—

I'm following up on my previous email to see if you had any updates on your community's feedback
and position overall on this project. I look forward to speaking with you!

Sam, Sarah, Josh—

Generally, I think self storage is already overbuilt in the city and this project would be a poor use of the
site. I've compiled the below map which shows existing storage facilities with red dots, with the subject
property indicated with a red X. The circles around the X represent 1, 3 and 5 mile radii around the
subject property.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 1/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Moreover, I have a few concerns about this project which I'll discuss in detail below.

Complete Streets
Reviewing the site plan for Z-SP-6-23 and looking at the existing streetscape, I noticed that
accommodations in the site plan for the existing bus stop on the south side of Baseline Road, just east
of 41st Street are essentially the bare minimum—maintaining the existing stop, but without any special
improvements or consideration for Complete Streets. The existing bus stop appears in the renderings
of the building, but is represented with what looks like the existing shade canopy and bench structure.

It's also worth noting—though this may be a minor discrepancy due to limitations of rendering
software—that the renderings do not indicate separated sidewalks or appropriate shade cover and
heat mitigation for sidewalk users. This point should be clarified and included as a stipulation in the
staff report for the project.

In reviewing the Adopted Complete Streets Policy Dated June 28, 2017, I believe there's a strong
argument to be made that the private developer has a responsibility to contribute much more
significantly to a true "Complete Street" adjacent to their project—especially when the project is a not-
especially-desirable commercial use such as self storage:

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

(A) While the Street Transportation Department will lead implementation of Complete Streets
for projects, transformation of the Phoenix street environment to be more inclusive of
pedestrians, cyclists, and transit-users will require coordination with and support of many City
departments and adjacent landowners. These departments may include, but are not limited to:
Public Transit, Planning and Development, Neighborhood Services, Water Services, Police, Fire,
and Community and Economic Development.
(B) The Planning and Development Department will provide guidance for privately funded
projects to implement the Policy, and will encourage coordination and support of private
landowners, developers, builders, city departments, and other stakeholders.
(C) The City will continue efforts to coordinate with adjacent municipalities and agencies to
encourage interjurisdictional connectivity.
(D) The City will work with builders, developers, utilities, and industry trade associations to
encourage the use of the Policy for privately funded projects and all relevant partners for
publicly funded projects.

Likewise, the Complete Streets Principles Ordinance S-41094 makes clear that projects should
contribute to Complete Streets by—among other things:
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 2/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

WHEREAS, transportation improvements will include an array of integral facilities that contribute to
Complete Streets, including, but not limited to: street and sidewalk lighting; pedestrian and bicycle
safety improvements; accommodations for freight; access improvements including compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act; public transit facilities accommodation including, but not limited
to, pedestrian and bicycle access improvements to transit stops and stations; landscaping; drainage;
and street amenities like street furniture and shade accommodations;

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. City streets will be planned, designed, constructed, and maintained to support and
encourage walking, bicycling and transit use while promoting safe and effective operations for all
users in accordance with current design standards, to be supplemented by the Complete Streets
Design Manual upon adoption.
SECTION 4. The City will coordinate with persons over which Phoenix has permitting authority to
facilitate compliance with this Ordinance.

Should this rezoning application be granted, this property owner should be encouraged—if not
compelled—to create a more thoughtful transit stop that is consistent with the Complete Streets
objectives of creating safe, comfortable, and convenient transit access for pedestrians and cyclists. This
could include:

additional trees to provide heat mitigation and shade to the transit stop
bicycle lockers for transit users who may bike to the bus stop and wish to secure their bicycle
there before using bus transit to reach their destination
appropriate types and quantities of seating to accommodate bus transit users

This is something that seems to be a commonly overlooked item in many proposed projects—more
emphasis needs to be placed on expecting private developers to "do their part" for complete streets.
Separated sidewalks with a landscape strip is not sufficient.

Building Design
While I recognize that the renderings could be limited in their ability to accurately illustrate the final
appearance of the building—I would point out that although the application cover letter states that
storage units will only be accessible from inside the building and that no warehouse or bay doors will
be visible to the outside—the architectural treatments of the "front" elevation facing Baseline Road
includes tall gray rectangles that look like two-story high warehouse doors. This feature should be
modified as necessary to eliminate this appearance.

Building Height
The building's proposed height is likely to have the effect of negatively impacting views and vistas of
South Mountain Park to the south of the subject property for the existing residential properties on the
north side of Baseline Road. A two-story mini warehouse does not provide adequate "step down" to
the adjacent residential land uses. It is not clear how the proposed project would be compatible with
the adjacent land uses.

Traffic
The developer's traffic and parking statement indicates that the facility could generate 160 or more
trips per weekday, all of which will ingress and egress from 41st Street. It is important to note that

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 3/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

residential properties south and west of the project have only one ingress and egress point for their
neighborhood, which is likely to be substantially impacted by the trips generated into the proposed
project.

Due to the proximity of a traffic signal at 40th Street, it's unlikely that another traffic signal at 41st
Street would be feasible or recommended, which raises important questions about how traffic to the
proposed project as well as existing residents to the south and west will safely enter and exit the
neighborhood.

Parking
The developer's traffic and parking statement indicates that on weekdays, the project will be
"underparked" by 1 space or 4%. This raises important questions about where potential overflow
traffic will park to visit the site or to load/unload, given the potential for "peak" days and the limited
possibility for the parking needs to "average out" onto non-peak days.

Conclusion
Based on my review of the available documents, I'm not sure this project is ready for the "prime time"
of being presented at the VPC on March 12. I believe my concerns above should be strongly
represented in the Staff Report, and communicated to the applicant so that the applicant isn't
blindsided by what will likely be substantial public opposition to their project.

Thank you and I look forward to your feedback.

Shane Gore (he/him)
FUTURE PHX
(602) 315-2734
shane@futurephx.org
www.futurephx.org [futurephx.org]
The People Shape The Future.

Catherine Napoli 11:51 AM (19 minutes
to Shane, sam.rogers, sarah.stockham, Josh, creativebenefitcommunications, contact_me, Nick,
ago)
contact

Shane -

Thank you so much for all this information and research. I am including the information in an email to the neighbors
as we speak. I added you to the email list and as soon as all this is complete, go ahead and unsubscribe.

There are so many things the developer can do that would make the property more appealing without destroying
completely the views of 2 blocks of houses and the views from Baseline Road, a Scenic Corridor, up toward South
Mountain.

I am including the links you sent to me in the email to the neighbors. Brian Harvey, one of three neighborhood
residents asked to represent us (Laurie Pheil, myself, Catherine Napoli, and Brian) designs building and spaces for a

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 4/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

living. He has created a beautiful design that preserves views, gives the developer all the units they want, and gives
character to the building.

Some of the changes we requested have been made, specifically taking the entrance off the residential street and
putting it on to Baseline Road. However, the redesign of the building blocks even more views! And again, Brian
created an amazing solution for the developer.

You are absolutely correct, the developer is doing nothing to improve the lot when it comes to the bus stop. We do
not know if the City is requiring a cut out for the bus stop. We hope they do.

I will look over the new information you sent and include it in my newsletter as appropriate. We have another meeting
with the attorneys for the developer on Friday.

Thank you again for all your hard work on our project.

Catherine Napoli
602-295-3411

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 10:58 AM Shane Gore wrote:
Hi Catherine,

I am so glad you reached out to Nick and that Nick was able to connect us! I am not at all keen on
self storage in general, and it is especially upsetting when it is proposed in a location that has so
many other potential uses that can offer more to the neighborhood and strengthen our
communities.

Z-SP-6-23
I don't see that Planning has published a staff report yet for this proposed rezoning, so I went ahead
and filed a public records request for the application and any supporting or related documents so I
can get more information on what the developer is planning to do, and how they are framing it to
the village planning committee. I also googled SafStor and found on their website that they tend to
look at a 1, 3, and 5 mile radius around locations in their analysis—so I've put together a map that
begins looking at the area around their site.

Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities

Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [google.com]

Z-32-23

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 5/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

In the case of the self storage that I opposed in North Mountain Village, the proposed rezoning was
from R1-10 to C-3. We were able to argue that potential land for housing shouldn't be repurposed
for commercial use, and that C-3 was much too broad and would allow the property owner to pull a
"bait and switch" and build any number of undesirable things on the parcel if given the C-3 zoning.

In my research for this proposed storage in my area, I looked at a 1, 5, and 10 mile radius:

Within 1 mile there are 4 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 42 self storage facilities
Within 10 miles there are 169 self storage facilities

This strengthened our argument against self storage because the area is already so saturated with
them.

Here is some of the written documentation I put together when opposing the facility in North
Mountain Village:

Fact Sheet: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7nmszzdbe9s1pbnz9lnhw/FPHX_flier-case-
against-self-storage.pdf?rlkey=uhvx1dukawar81atkc03ttomt&dl=0 [dropbox.com]
Policy Paper: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/euzco4jau4y26rn8yb7ug/Policy-Paper-2-Self-
Storage-2023_reducedfilesize.pdf?rlkey=2rho05oxe4rnbree7hbm8rtzo&dl=0 [dropbox.com]
Policy Paper Addendum: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bukh8adsuvkjxxldc6cr8/Policy-
Paper-2-Addendum-1-Additional-Background-Analysis-Commentary.pdf?
rlkey=voaupsc0f5rfxfmmvbjaz8k92&dl=0 [dropbox.com]

Your Goals
I would love to hear more about your thoughts on the proposed project on Baseline and what your
desire would be for the site instead of self-storage. The map link I shared above has toggles for
different layers including grocery, apartments, and restaurants to get an idea of what's in the area
around the project site and what might be lacking.
Admittedly I do not know the area very well myself, so I don't have a feel for what might be a good
use for it instead—generally, I think many of our communities need more density (housing) in order
to support quality restaurants, public schools, and grocery stores in the area.

Let's talk more about what you want for the area and how I can help you oppose this project. I
would be happy to put together a similar policy paper or fact sheet with infographics, and I can help
connect you with other civic activists who might be able to help show up at the village and speak in
opposition to the SafStor project.

Keep me posted on your neighborhood meeting and I'll try to be in attendance to share my
experience and give you guys whatever support I'm able to.

Shane Gore (he/him)
CO-CHAIR
SHAW BUTTE NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE
(602) 315-2734
shane@shawbuttephx.org
www.shawbuttephx.org [shawbuttephx.org]
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 6/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

linktr.ee/shawbuttephx [linktr.ee]
CIVIC PRIDE • PUBLIC SAFETY • COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT • INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:12 AM Nick Klimek wrote:

Hi Shane,

FYI – See the below correspondence between some neighborhood leaders and me. I passed along
your email address. I hope that’s ok.

And thanks for the message a few weeks ago about the PV VPC meeting! I shared your kind words
with Adrian Zambrano.

Nick

Nick Klimek, AICP
Acting Planner III – Transit Oriented Communities

Growth, Infrastructure, & Special Projects Division

Office: 602-534-7696

E-mail: nick.klimek@phoenix.gov

Planning & Development Department

200 West Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85003

Online appointment scheduling is now available!

https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Pages/Planning-and-Development-Online-Appointment-
Scheduling.aspx

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 7/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Shape PHX Portal:

https://shapephx.phoenix.gov/s/

From: Nick Klimek
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 8:50 AM
To: Catherine Napoli
Cc: Laurie Pheil ; Brian Harvey
; Chase Hales
Subject: RE: Storage Facility in North Phoenix

Good morning, Catherine –

Thanks for reaching out. I’ve cc’d my colleague and the current North Mountain Village Planner,
Chase Hales, to loop him in on the conversation.

I assume you are referring to Z-32-23-3 near Mescal Avenue and Cave Creek Road. This project
was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission in the face of public opposition. At this
time, the applicant has not submitted a new site plan or requested to proceed back to the City
Council.

You may be interested in talking with North Mountain VPC Member Shane Gore. Shane was the
primary contact for the opposition, and I bet he’d be willing to chat.

shane@shawbuttephx.org

The South Mountain Village Planner is my colleague, Samuel Rogers. If you and/or your neighbors
wish to provide written testimony in opposition to the proposal, I suggest you email
samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov and speak at the VPC Meeting.

Kind regards,

Nick

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 8/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Nick Klimek, AICP
Acting Planner III – Transit Oriented Communities

Growth, Infrastructure, & Special Projects Division

Office: 602-534-7696

E-mail: nick.klimek@phoenix.gov

Planning & Development Department

200 West Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85003

Online appointment scheduling is now available!

https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Pages/Planning-and-Development-Online-Appointment-
Scheduling.aspx

Shape PHX Portal:

https://shapephx.phoenix.gov/s/

From: Catherine Napoli
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 8:17 PM
To: Nick Klimek ; Laurie Pheil
; Brian Harvey

Subject: Storage Facility in North Phoenix

Nick -

My neighbors and I are faced with the prospect of a huge storage facility being built at the
entrance of our older (my home was built in 1949 and is not the oldest home in the

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 9/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

neighborhood) mixed, residential neighborhood at the base of South Mountain Park on the
corner of 41st Street and East Baseline Road.

As the representatives chosen by our 85 home, one-way-in, one-way-out neighborhood (the
facility is at the corner of our only entrance to our neighborhood) we have been petitioning the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee, our Councilwoman, the attorneys for the developer,
Snell and Wilmer, and the developer, SafStor.

Of the four main things the neighborhood has been asking for, they gave us one, which created a
new problem, did a slight remodel on the look of the building so it isn't as warehouse looking.
However they have blocked a majority of the views from the residents by putting in a 2 story
building. Working tirelessly trying to reach a compromise, they have not given in at all, ruining the
views both from the mountain and from Baseline Road, a scenic corridor according to the City.

Laurie and Brian met with Grading and Drainage at the City of Phoenix today to get some
understanding of what can and cannot be done. It is there they learned North Valley denied the
application to put the building in a residential neighborhood.

Could you explain the resident's concerns and why the planning commission denied the storage
facility its application? A phone call or Zoom would be greatly appreciated so we can understand
how this process went.

Do you know if the developer is going to resubmit a revised site plan to the commission and
when so we can follow the progress.

This goes to Village Planning March 12. We are organizing a meeting the Monday or Tuesday
before to update the neighbors and create our position. Would it be possible for you to meet with
the three of us before our neighborhood meeting?

Feel free to call me or "reply all."

Thank you so much!

Catherine Napoli

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZ… 10/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

602-295-3411

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZ… 11/11
Analysis & Commentary
in Opposition to Self Storage

Z-SP-6-23 SafStor 41st St & Baseline Rd

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Executive Summary 2

Relentless Growth 3

Housing Displacement 4

Permanence of Physical Infrastructure 4

Effect on Neighborhood Density 5

Economics of Self Storage 6

Conclusion 7

Appendix: Citations 8

03/10/2024
Introduction
The purpose of this policy paper is discussion and analysis of broad self storage industry
trends to inform neighborhood leaders and residents about development trends that affect our
communities. This paper also discusses and responds to a specific proposal for new self
storage being proposed at 41st Street & Baseline Road in Phoenix.

Executive Summary
Self storage companies have been on a record growth streak for more than five years,
occupying key parcels throughout the city—which for all practical purposes permanently
precludes the possibility that those parcels might be developed into other land uses that
contribute to vibrant, livable neighborhoods.

Self storage isn’t something most people think about every day, but the presence of these
often benign-looking facilities in our city can have far-reaching consequences to the fabric of
our communities.

In terms of vibrancy and vitality in cities, one of the most critical issues is the vacuum that self
storage creates, where people and activity are—by design—low volume. Most facilities have
few employees, operate primarily during daytime hours, and “self-serve” systems are gaining
popularity with operators—leading to some facilities being completely unstaffed 24 hours a
day. While these facilities generally enjoy tall fences and security systems for their property,
the activity vacuums they create have ripple effects for the surrounding properties and
neighborhoods.

An often overlooked aspect of growth in the self storage industry are troubling lease terms and
a regulatory structure which allows facility operators wide latitude in the disposition of a
defaulting tenant’s personal property—leading to property loss. Operators can dispose of a
defaulting tenants’ medical or tax records, family ashes, heirlooms, etc. the same way they
would chairs or a bookshelf. People experiencing housing insecurity, or facing hurdles like
medical emergencies, job loss, or other financial hardship are among the most likely storage
users to default.

03/10/2024
Lastly, while it’s not the most pressing neighborhood concern, we should be honest with
ourselves about the carbon footprint of an industry built almost exclusively from steel and
concrete—two of the most carbon-intensive building materials—and which is designed to
exploit the growing mountains of mass produced “stuff” which fills our homes.

Relentless Growth
The self storage industry has experienced significant growth across the U.S. and in Phoenix
since at least 2018. New self storage facilities are being built in close proximity to each other,
and to existing facilities—regardless of need or the presence of competitors.

For major self storage companies the purpose of overdeveloping new facilities is to capture
market share for the purpose of reporting positive growth metrics to their boards and
shareholders. Like many industries—they are flush with cash and morally bankrupt—so they
continue developing new facilities regardless of the impact to the neighborhood and local
community. They believe if they can only grow fast enough and large enough, they can
eliminate the competition.

As a result of the way “Big Self Storage” has pursued non-stop development of new facilities,
market research companies continue to breathlessly report record growth in the industry, which
has also drawn in “mom and pop” investors who may not be sophisticated enough to
independently evaluate market conditions and the need for additional new facilities. The big
self storage companies have no moral qualms about watching people sink their life savings
into expensive new facilities, because they know their companies have the power and leverage
to buy up any struggling independent self storage facilities in the future.

03/10/2024
Housing Displacement
Due to relatively low overhead and the recent growth of the industry, self storage facilities
continue to proliferate in the city by buying up and developing any available piece of
land—regardless of location or the other potential uses a parcel could sustain.

Traditionally, self storage has been developed on unique, odd-shaped and/or physically
constrained parcels. The industry’s boom of the last five years has led major storage
companies to seek and obtain large or more traditionally shaped parcels for new facility
development.

Big Storage also buys up and develops long-vacant parcels into self storage facilities, betting
that neighborhoods typically won’t object to self storage uses because they are desperate for
any development that will convert a long-vacant parcel in their community to any productive
use.

Land in cities is a finite resource—self storage concerns itself with physical property, and
profits above all else. In the self storage arms race to capture market share—housing
developers—including affordable housing developers—are forced to compete with
well-capitalized storage behemoths who can pay virtually any price for properties they want.

Perhaps not legally—but morally, this is an outright theft from the city’s residents—theft of
housing units, theft of neighborhood density, and theft of the conditions necessary for vibrant,
livable cities.

Permanence of Physical Infrastructure
Self storage buildings are typically constructed primarily from steel and concrete—making
these buildings effectively permanent fixtures in our neighborhoods. While it can be useful and
convenient to have that reliable storage, the permanence of construction methods should be a
key consideration in the regulatory approval of self storage facility locations.

These facilities lack design features like sufficient utilities, windows, and other architectural
elements that make them largely incompatible with most common commercial building uses,

03/10/2024
and because the design and materials are so permanent in nature—self storage facilities are
almost always poorly suited for future creative re-use or adaptation of the structure.

Effect on Neighborhood Density
Self storage facilities are typically low intensity industrial or commercial uses without
substantial second-order economic effects to nearby businesses or residences. They don’t
provide a significant number of jobs, or manufacture a physical product, or generate a
significant amount of vehicle or pedestrian traffic. They have minimal marketing needs and few
other opportunities to engage the local economy. And perhaps most detrimentally, they
contribute to lower densities in our neighborhoods which starves our communities of their most
important resource: the people.

03/10/2024
Economics of Self Storage
The economic structure of a self-storage facility is variable, but due to low overhead facilities
can withstand significant economic pressures by varying the rates they charge for
storage—either to induce more customers, or to extract additional revenue from existing
customers.

Self storage companies know that the cost and effort barrier to a customer moving their
belongings from one self storage facility to another is prohibitive, and they can often take
advantage of that fact with significant and arbitrary price increases to their existing customers
with short notice.

Across the board, self storage companies are generating enormous profits, in part due to the
shortage of affordable housing units. The leading seven publicly traded firms listed below
earned more than $4B (billion with a B) in net operating income.

2022 NET
STOCK 2022 ANNUAL 2022 NOI
NAME OPERATING
SYMBOL REVENUE MARGIN
INCOME

NYSE:PSA Public Storage $3,946,000,000 $2,077,673,000 52.65%

NYSE:EXR Extra Space Storage Inc. $1,924,170,000 $921,156,000 47.87%

NYSE:CUBE CubeSmart $1,009,624,000 $291,263,000 28.85%

NYSE:UHAL U-Haul (self storage revenues) $617,120,000 $168,492,900 27.30%

NYSE:LSI Life Storage, Inc. $917,100,000 $358,128,000 39.05%

NYSE:NSA National Storage Affiliates Trust $801,569,000 $183,765,000 22.93%

NASDAQ:SELF Global Self Storage, Inc. $11,944,850 $3,527,190 29.53%

$9,227,527,850 $4,004,005,090

$4,004,005,090 is equal to—

53,687 people earning 2022 Real median household income $74,580

11,503 homes at the 2022 average U.S. home price $348,079

18,366,995 square feet of multi-family housing at the Phoenix multi-family
average construction cost of $218 per square foot
03/10/2024
Conclusion
Self storage is a parasitic land use that preys on our collective obsession with stuff. It does not
provide substantial or meaningful employment. It does not contribute to active and walkable
communities. And it occupies key sites throughout the city and the purpose-built building
design and construction all-but makes them permanent fixtures which are unable to adapt to
changing cultural or economic conditions.

Even when a site or community is open to the possibility of self storage being developed, the
companies and their representatives frequently claim that the community’s desire for
appropriate building designs, necessary infrastructure improvements for pedestrians and
members of the community, and changes in size or scale of the facilities is simply not
economically viable—while these companies enjoy outsized returns that accrue and
accumulate significant wealth outside the community where the facilities are located.

Cities should carefully consider whether the net benefit of zoning changes or use permits to
allow self storage are worth the enormous costs that are borne by the communities where
these developments are allowed.

03/10/2024
Appendix: Citations
1. Market Trends & Sector Outlook U.S. Self Storage H1 2023 - Cushman & Wakefield
https://melestoragegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CWSSAG_Self-Storage-Performance-Quarterly-Overv
iew-2023-H1_WEB.pdf

2. Four Property Wrongs of Self-Storage Law - Jeffrey Douglas Jones - Associate
Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; J.D., The University of Michigan Law
School-Ann Arbor; Ph.D. Philosophy, The University of Wisconsin-Madison
https://www.pnrc.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Four-Property-Wrongs-of-Self-Storage.pdf

3. Phoenix Self Storage Market Statistics: Rent Prices, Local Inventory and Development
Trends (June 2023) - StorageCafe
https://www.storagecafe.com/self-storage-industry-statistics/us/az/phoenix/

4. “Pawtucket looks to put limits on self-storage” - Ethan Shorey - Valley Breeze
https://www.valleybreeze.com/news/pawtucket-looks-to-put-limits-on-self-storage/article_3cc43784-4b0d-11ee-bd
69-835222c2a2b6.html

5. “Too many things to keep for the future?” - Sharon Macdonald, Jennie Morgan and
Harald Fredheim
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv13xps9m.16

6. “Self-storage Market Revenues to Reach USD 72.15 billion by 2028 - Market Size,
Share, Forecasts, & Trends Analysis Report” - Mordor Intelligence - 07/26/2023
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/self-storage-market-revenues-reach-133000991.html

7. “The Fate of Oversupplied Self-Storage Markets and How to Pull Back From the Brink” -
Frank DeSalvo, David Perlleshi, Inside Self-Storage November 15, 2023
https://www.insideselfstorage.com/self-storage-investing-real-estate/the-fate-of-oversupplied-self-storage-markets
-and-how-to-pull-back-from-the-brink

8. 2022 Annual reports of Public Storage, Extra Space Storage Inc., CubeSmart, U-Haul
(self storage division), Life Storage, Inc., National Storage Affiliates Trust, & Global Self
Storage, Inc.

03/10/2024
3/11/24, 10:06 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Concered resident - Baseline/40th St.
Clea M. Edwards
Thu 2/29/2024 4:48 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Dear Mr. Rogers,

As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-
SP-6-23, I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my
neighborhood. Specifically, the extremely dangerous area around the intersection at Baseline
and 40th to 41st Sts.

Also, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city lights. And it has destroyed
all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View
Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down immediately. This does not serve the
residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered values.

In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a residential
street, to Baseline Road.

However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views,
has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an
additional street have also been completely blocked.

Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.

Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities

Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities

Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities

Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [google.com]. This map clearly shows
there are many storage facilities in the area already.

In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. On average, 85% of storage facilities build
a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a
profile that will destroy all views for the neighborhood.

City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view
properties. Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix, Maricopa
County, and the State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently proposed will
NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered property
values.

Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City to deny
a zoning change that would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage facility in his
neighborhood. Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood and offered input
which has been forwarded to the City of Phoenix.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMbbF5MkwBBGgpImraS5W… 1/2
3/11/24, 10:06 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building
to be built somewhere else. We are requesting that it be built in a way that does not destroy our
homes and property values.

Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, created a floor plan that includes some basement
units, bringing most of the building to only 1 story above ground. This plan would solve the biggest
issue still on the table, the destruction of our views and property values.

Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City
of Phoenix. Keeping the building to one story above the ground/above grade by building a basement
level allows the development to come into our neighborhood without destroying our neighborhood.

With respect,
Clea Edwards

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMbbF5MkwBBGgpImraS5W… 2/2
3/11/24, 10:10 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

SAFStor Building Z-SP-6-23 Baseline and 40th St, Phoenix
Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Thu 3/7/2024 6:13 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Sam Rogers, City Planner

Dear Sir,

I reside and I am property owner at 7649 S 41st Place, Phoenix, AZ 85042 south of the proposed
building. I am concerned with the damage this building will do to my neighborhood as proposed by
the developer.
1) Views will be destroyed...I will no longer be able to appreciate the historical views from the
airport as planes are landing or taking off. Not longer will I be able to see the Presidential planes
arriving or departing as well as other planes.
2) The property values in our homes will go down.
3) City of Phoenix and State of Arizona will lose revenue due to property values declining and
residents will be expected to accomodate any future tax increases.
4) As it stands today, too many automobile accidents have been experienced in this Baseline and
40th St corridor. The traffic we will encounter will create undesirable negative impact added to what is
presently in statistics.
5) Right now, there are far two many storage facilities in the Baseline Corridor. One more will take
away from our "Flower Garden", previously where we used to drive to admire the various flower
stores.

Do you in your respective situation, if you had a home in this area, will allow a developer to come in
and affect negatively your castle (home). Please, reconsider not allowing and not accepting this
project to go foward as proposed by the developer.

You depend on our vote, and we truly respect your positive endeavor in this matter.

Respectfully,

Carmen L. Rodriguez
7649 S. 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602-510-3367

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHkULNzPEaVPvwuFoKHQW6A%3D 1/1
3/11/24, 10:08 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

safestor building Z-SP-6-23
cynthia harvey
Thu 3/7/2024 12:47 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-
6-23, I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my
neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city
lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is
designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down
immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will
lose revenue with lowered values.

In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a
residential street, to Baseline Road.

However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views,
has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an
additional street have also been completely blocked.

Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.

Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities

Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities

Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities

Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [email.mail.marketingsuccesspros.com].
This map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.

Please make note of my point of view about this developement,

--
Cynthia Harvey

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJuKot%2F%2FMF1HrF0NLFXRPo… 1/1
3/11/24, 10:14 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Input to proposed SafStor project: Z-SP-6-23
MARIE MITCHEL
Sat 3/9/2024 5:38 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

Emails and Calls
Send emails or letter to the following representatives. A sample letter is provided below.
Be sure to write to every person on this list and show up at every meeting. Only when we
show up in numbers and we write our concerns will our voices be heard.

Sam Rogers, City Planner
Phone: 602-534-4010
Email: samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov

Members of the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee Email: SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov

Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington
Phone: 602.262.7493
Email: council.district.8@phoenix.gov

Mayor Kate Gallego
Phone: 602-262-7111
Email: mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov

Michael Maerowitz, Attorney for the developer at Snell & Wilmer
Email: mmaerowitz@swlaw.com

To express your opinion, voice concern, or any comments on the case, use email or go
to Phoenix.gov and fill in the online form.

SAMPLE LETTER FOR Z-SP-6-23:

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANR7Xdsb8ShPvnSWFRZyarQ%3D 1/3
3/11/24, 10:14 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23, I am concerned with
the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has
destroyed all views from my home to the city lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South
Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down
immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered
values.

In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend SAFStor on changes to the
look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a residential street, to Baseline Road.

However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views, has not only never been
addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an additional street have also been completely blocked.

Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.

Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities

Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities

Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities

Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing
[email.mail.marketingsuccesspros.com]. This map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.

In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. About 75% to 80% of all storage facilities here in Phoenix build a
level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a profile that will destroy all
views for the neighborhood.

City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view properties. Destroy the
views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. Building on
this land as the developer has currently proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue
because of lowered property values.

Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City to deny a zoning change that
would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage facility in his neighborhood. Mr. Gore was kind enough to review
the case in our neighborhood and offered input which has been forwarded to the City of Phoenix.

The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building to be built somewhere
else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not destroy our homes and property values.

Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a designer, to create a floor plan that
includes some basement units, bringing most of the building to only 1 story above ground. This plan would solve the biggest
issue still on the table, the destruction of our views and property values.

Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City of Phoenix. Keeping
the building to one story above the ground/above grade by building a basement level allows the development to come in to
our neighborhood without destroying our neighborhood.

Sent from my iPad

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANR7Xdsb8ShPvnSWFRZyarQ%3D 2/3
3/11/24, 10:14 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANR7Xdsb8ShPvnSWFRZyarQ%3D 3/3
3/11/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Re: Z-SP-6-23. Urgent Appeal: Please Preserve Our Neighborhood's Character and
Property Values
Patrick McGrorty
Sun 3/10/2024 3:20 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

Dear Samuel Rogers,

As longtime residents of Hancock Park, we are writing to express our deep concern regarding
the proposed construction of a large storage unit building in our community. This development
threatens to irreversibly alter the character of our neighborhood and significantly diminish
property values for current residents.

One of the most cherished aspects of living in Hancock Park is the breathtaking scenic views of
the city and surrounding mountains that we enjoy from our homes. These views are not only
aesthetically pleasing but also contribute to the overall sense of tranquility and well-being that
residents have come to appreciate. The construction of a towering commercial building would
effectively block these views, robbing us of one of the key features that attracted many of us to
this neighborhood in the first place.

Furthermore, the proposed development poses a serious threat to our property values. Studies
have consistently shown that the presence of commercial and industrial structures, such as this
proposed building, can have a detrimental impact on nearby residential property values.
Potential buyers are likely to be deterred by the sight of a large storage unit building looming
over the neighborhood, leading to a decrease in demand for homes in the area and a
subsequent significant decline in the value of our property.

We urge you to carefully consider the long-term consequences of allowing this development to
proceed. Our neighborhood is more than just a collection of houses; it is a community where
families have put down roots and invested their hard-earned resources. The current plans also
encroach upon a protected wash, which not only channels water from the mountain, but also
acts as a travel corridor for wildlife. Allowing this SAFStor building to be built here, as currently
designed, would undermine the sense of community that we have worked so hard to cultivate
and would have far-reaching negative effects on the quality of life for residents and native
animals alike.

In light of these concerns, unless SAFStor is willing to compromise on the building height by
placing the first story underground, we respectfully request that you deny the permits needed
for the construction of the storage unit building in our neighborhood. Instead, we urge you to
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACsq2yQEwN5Ko6TVaZHiVjw%3D 1/2
3/11/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

explore alternative development options that are more compatible with the character of our
community and that will not jeopardize property values or the scenic beauty of our
surroundings.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our perspective on this important issue. We trust that
you will make the decision that is in the best interests of our neighborhood and its residents.

Sincerely,

Patrick and Lorina McGrorty

7635 South 41st Place

Phoenix, Az 85042

(480) 628-8911

pj.mcgrorty@gmail.com

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACsq2yQEwN5Ko6TVaZHiVjw%3D 2/2
3/11/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

41st and Baseline proposed storage units for March 12 meeting
Renee Lufkin
Sun 3/10/2024 2:02 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers ;council.district.8@phoenix.gov mayor.
;Mayor Gallego
Cc:c.lufkin@outlook.com

Dear Mr. Rogers,

I have been a resident of Phoenix for 65 years and love this city. I’m a second-generation Phoenician.
However, I would like to express my frustration and concern about the storage building proposed for
Baseline and 41 St. I am aware that eventually something will go at that location. We need a turn lane on
baseline for the business and a bus turnout at the least. If the one-story structure could be lower ground
level so the view isn’t restricted. There are so many accidents and fatalities at the corner of Baseline and
40th St. We can’t have more congestion in this location.

Because Phoenix is continuing to grow, I can understand why this storage business would want this
corner, I feel this suggestion would be helpful. It should push the building south so when we pull out of
the homes and Church, we can see the traffic coming from the east.

I will be attending the March 12 meeting at South Mountain Junior College.

Thank you for your time.

Renee Lufkin
3854 E. Vineyard Rd.
Phoenix, Arizona

602-799-8101

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAC4br1oPvUfwmYvxvgxE8d0%3D 1/1
3/12/24, 2:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Re: Opposition statements to Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage Facility
Debra McPeters
Mon 3/11/2024 6:36 PM
To:Laurie Pheil ;PDD South Mountain VPC ;
Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Brian Harvey ;catherine9196@gmail.com ;Joshua
Bednarek ;Nick Klimek

Very well spoken. We agree with you 100%.

Debra and Bill McPeters
Highline Canyon

Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]

From: Laurie Pheil
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 5:02:57 PM
To: SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov ; samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov

Cc: Brian Harvey ; catherine9196@gmail.com
; Debra McPeters ; joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov
; nick.klimek@phoenix.gov
Subject: Opposition statements to Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage Facility

Chair Marchuk, members of the committee and planning department:

We have made an earnest attempt to meet with Snell and Wilmer, to give them educated input and
solid proposals for how they could modify their development to gain support from the surrounding
neighborhood. After many weeks and countless hours of our volunteered efforts, we have come to an
impasse on improving safety and preserving views for the area residents.

We are now withdrawing our support for this development and recommending the Village Planning
Committee deny their rezoning application Z-SP-6-23 for a self storage facility at 41st Street and
Baseline Road.

Attached are some of the talking points that I will be sharing with the committee on Tuesday. When
you finish hearing their informative presentation, as a neighborhood, we hope that you will ask the
developer the following questions…

Have done all they can to ensure that surrounding property values are maintained?
Have they improved the lives of the residents in the village with improvements to infrastructure
regarding traffic, the multi-use trail or maintenance of city and mountain views?
Will they connect our village with access to jobs, services or arts and culture?
Have they taken the connectivity to the environment seriously in order to preserve natural open
space, view corridors, or low environmental impact for the future?
Have they even tried to incorporate the South Mountain Village Character Plan, or the new
Phoenix General Plan being approved in the next few months?
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGcR3cjxu7ZInnkKA0IY12k%… 1/2
3/12/24, 2:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

We hope you will consider all of these neighborhood concerns, read over our documented talking
points and let the applicants know that there’s still work to be done on this project before anyone can
get behind it.

Thank you for your time and attention!

Laurie Pheil
Representative of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association

Laurie Pheil
South Mountain Gateway Residents Association
Phone: 602-696-3800
E-mail: creativebenefitcommunications@gmail.com

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGcR3cjxu7ZInnkKA0IY12k%… 2/2
3/12/24, 2:59 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

SAFStor Building
Diego Munoz <40blockdesign@gmail.com>
Mon 3/11/2024 9:38 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Mr. Rogers

As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23, I
am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my neighborhood.
Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city lights. And it has destroyed
all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View
Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down immediately. This does not serve the residents
or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered values.

In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a residential street,
to Baseline Road.

However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views, has not
only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an additional street have
also been completely blocked.

Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.

Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities

Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities

Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities

Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [email.mail.marketingsuccesspros.com]. This
map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.

In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. About 75% to 80% of all storage facilities here in
Phoenix build a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground
with a profile that will destroy all views for the neighborhood.

City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view properties.
Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and the
State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently proposed will NOT increase revenue in
the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered property values.

Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City to deny a
zoning change that would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage facility in his neighborhood.
Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood and offered input which has been
forwarded to the City of Phoenix.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAO97nUqqcnBMr9%2FTSWt… 1/2
3/12/24, 2:59 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building to be
built somewhere else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not destroy our homes and
property values.

Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a designer, to create
a floor plan that includes some basement units, bringing most of the building to only 1 story above ground.
This plan would solve the biggest issue still on the table, the destruction of our views and property values.

Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City of
Phoenix. Keeping the building to one story above the ground/above grade by building a basement level
allows the development to come in to our neighborhood without destroying our neighborhood.

Regards,
Diego Munoz

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAO97nUqqcnBMr9%2FTSWt… 2/2
3/11/24, 2:10 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposing Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage
Shane Gore
Mon 3/11/2024 11:48 AM
To:PDD South Mountain VPC
Cc:Brian Harvey ;Catherine Napoli ;Joshua Bednarek
;Laurie Pheil ;Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (175 KB)
Z-SP-6-23%20Analysis%20&%20Commentary%20Self%20Storage%2041st%20&%20Baseline.pdf.pdf;

Chair Marchuk and members of the committee:

Please vote to recommend denial of rezoning application Z-SP-6-23 for self storage at 41st St and
Baseline Road.

Self storage represents a terrible land use that is contrary to virtually every part of the South Mountain
Village Character Plan and the City of Phoenix General Plan.

Attached is additional analysis and commentary for your review.

Thank you for your support in opposing this project.

Shane Gore (he/him)
FUTURE PHX
(602) 315-2734
shane@futurephx.org
www.futurephx.org [futurephx.org]
The People Shape The Future.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABbHpmkUYoBNmBcOpj4XD… 1/1
3/19/24, 12:59 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

SAFStor Building
Aaron Bernard
Tue 3/12/2024 4:34 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Dear Samuel,

As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-
SP-6-23, I am OPPOSED to this project. After the neighbors and neighborhood representatives met
with the developer and attorneys, the developer refuses to address the biggest areas of concern.
These concerns impact the beauty, property values, and safety of our neighborhood.

I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my
neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city
lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is
designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down
immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will
lose revenue with lowered values.

In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a
residential street, to Baseline Road.

However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views,
has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an
additional street have also been completely blocked.
Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities

Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [email.mail.marketingsuccesspros.com].
This map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.

In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. On average, 85% of storage facilities build
a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a
profile that will destroy all views for the neighborhood.

City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view
properties. Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix,
Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently
proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered
property values.

Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City to
deny a zoning change that would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage facility in

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIyjrLpo0wBAmGIBRtpsQP4… 1/2
3/19/24, 12:59 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

his neighborhood. Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood and offered
input which has been forwarded to the City of Phoenix.

The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building
to be built somewhere else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not destroy our
homes and property values.

Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a designer, to
create a floor plan that includes some basement units, bringing most of the building to only 1 story
above ground. This plan would solve the biggest issue still on the table, the destruction of our views
and property values.

Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the

Aaron Bernard

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIyjrLpo0wBAmGIBRtpsQP4… 2/2
3/19/24, 12:56 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Safe Storage Z-SP-6-23 - Letter of Opposition
Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Tue 3/12/2024 3:26 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers ;Council District 8 PCC ;Mayor Gallego
;Council District 3 PCC ;mmaerowitz@swlaw.com
;support@phxazdistrict3.zendesk.com

1 attachments (140 KB)
3.12.24 Baseline opposition points.pdf;

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABVeKm3XbcJNrIxQVoB7PB… 1/1
Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage - 41st St & Baseline Neighborhood Concerns

▪ We are able to acknowledge that Snell and Wilmer did meet with the neighbors on two
occasions to present their proposed vision for their project.

▪ The tone of their presentation and in all future negotiations made it quite clear to the
residents that this building could be 30’ tall by right and if we didn’t get on board with their
project, something a whole lot worse would be placed there.

▪ Well, a 2-story warehouse style storage facility cannot be built there by right, no matter what
its height. Which is why they are requesting your approval of their special permit application.

▪ Both the City of Phoenix and the South Mountain Village have approved and implemented
their vision for the future character of our neighborhood. This village has indicated that it
values the rich agricultural heritage of the area as well as bordering on the nation’s largest
municipal park. The City of Phoenix has classified Baseline Road as a Scenic Drive.

▪ Furthermore, the Village embraces modern development that harmonizes with the character
of its open spaces and connected neighborhoods. This development falls short of being
compatible in scale, design and appearance.

▪ Since this property is adjacent to, but not included in the Baseline Area Master Plan, the
Village has requested that the developer include those recommendations when presenting
their proposal. Michael indicated that they did include a sloping roof, some additional
landscaping setbacks to the south and the continuation of the multi-use trail in their
development. However, the multi-use trail abruptly stops with a retaining wall at the wash on
the east side of the property and does nothing to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety
along Baseline Road.

▪ One of the most important requirements of the BAMP is to protect views of both South
Mountain and the City for those living on the south side of Baseline Road. This project will
block views for neighborhood residents.

▪ The revised masterplan for the City of Phoenix that is scheduled to be approved by the City
Council in April talks about “Planning Equity” which relates to ensuring that urban and
regional planning processes and outcomes are fair, just and inclusive, to provide all of us
with equal access to resources within our community.

▪ Connectivity to retail, services, recreation and natural open space is outlined over and over
again in the revised plan for our city. This project does nothing to add neighborhood retail,
healthy restaurants or healthcare facilities which are the number one challenges for the
South Mountain Village.

▪ Goals setting a strategic path to growth, preservation and investment supports development
that enhances neighborhood retail and restaurants while maintaining walking and biking as
access to these amenities. This project does not facilitate employment generating uses for
our village or promote outdoor recreation like walking, hiking or biking.

▪ This storage facility will most likely not be accessed by the surrounding neighborhood since
most of the properties to the south of are larger lots with the potential of having their own
onsite storage, or not be economically viable to the other residents in close proximity.

Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage - 41st St & Baseline Neighborhood Concerns 1

Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage - 41st St & Baseline Neighborhood Concerns

▪ We have repeatedly asked the developer to include a few small things that would support
the traffic congestion that the residents are currently dealing with. We’ve asked them to
notch a small corner of their building to allow for 41st Street to be widened enough to
include a dedicated right turn lane that will greatly improve traffic flow in and out of our
neighborhood. We’ve also requested a deceleration lane leading into their parking area to
reduce back up on Baseline. We can see how valuable that has been at the Lins restaurant
just to the west of their proposed development.

▪ Because the access to their property is right in and right out only, there is a very good
possibility that people wishing to access their site will first turn into our only neighborhood
access point on 41st Street, then either try to make a U-turn or turn around at Highline Lane,
further blocking ingress and egress to our neighborhood. Bicyclists along the sidewalk in
front of their development will have limited views of cars leaving the neighborhood or those
making a quick U-turn to enter the storage facility, furthering the potential for serious or fatal
accidents along Baseline Road.

▪ There is already an overabundance of storage facilities within a three-mile radius of their
proposed project, including 2 existing facilities less than a mile to the east. Over time, once
a development no longer meets their profit margins, most buildings can be repurposed to
better fit the needs of the local community. However, this project with its very defined interior
storage units will forever be a storage facility with even the possibility of a vacant storage
facility in the future should there no longer be a need for this type of retail.

▪ We realize that this particular property poses some unique development challenges, but the
residents feel that it’s better to wait for a more appropriate development that meets the
criteria of the City’s vision of The Connected Oasis that enhances our neighborhood instead
of diminishing its value.

So, in closing, the residents would like you to consider the future of our neighborhood and the
South Mountain Village and ask the developer if they have done all they can to ensure that
surrounding property values are maintained? Have they improved the lives of the residents in
the village with improvements to infrastructure regarding traffic or maintenance of city and
mountain views? Will they connect our village with access to jobs, services or arts and culture?
Have they taken the connectivity to the environment seriously in order to preserve natural
open space, view corridors, or low environmental impact for the future?

Speaking on behalf of the residents, we feel that this is not the best commercial use for this
property and wholeheartedly oppose their special permit request.

To learn more about the “Connected Oasis” in the Phoenix General Plan Update, visit

https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/121823_60-Day%20Draft%20PlanPHX%202025%20Update_8.5x11.pdf

Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage - 41st St & Baseline Neighborhood Concerns 2

3/19/24, 1:02 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Re: SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23 OBJECTION
aw50
Tue 3/12/2024 4:45 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Anthony White

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Samuel S Rogers
Date: 3/12/24 3:03 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: aw50@cox.net
Subject: Re: SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23 OBJECTION

Good afternoon,

Thank you for the letter, can you please provide your name for my records?

Thank you,

Samuel Rogers, AICP
Village Planner II*
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Samuel.Rogers@phoenix.gov
602-534-4010

From: aw50@cox.net
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 10:07 PM
To: Samuel S Rogers
Subject: SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23 OBJECTION

Thx,

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJTvKjcKOB5PrmjeszkvKKM… 1/1
LETTER FOR SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23 OBJECTION

As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building,
Z-SP-6-23, I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do
to my neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to
the city lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain.
Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property
values go down immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State
of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered values.

In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We
commend SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st
Street, a residential street, to Baseline Road.

However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our
views, has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on
an additional street have also been completely blocked.

Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.

Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities

Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities

Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities

Link to
Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8
&usp=sharing. This map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.

In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. About 75% to 80% of all storage
facilities here in Phoenix build a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building
completely above ground with a profile that will destroy all views for the neighborhood.

City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view
properties. Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix,
Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently
proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of
lowered property values.

Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City
to deny a zoning change that would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage
facility in his neighborhood. Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood
and offered input which has been forwarded to the City of Phoenix.

The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this
building to be built somewhere else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not
destroy our homes and property values.

Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a
designer, to create a floor plan that includes some basement units, bringing most of the building
to only 1 story above ground. This plan would solve the biggest issue still on the table, the
destruction of our views and property values.

Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and
the City of Phoenix. Keeping the building to one story above the ground/above grade by
building a basement level allows the development to come in to our neighborhood without
destroying our neighborhood.

3/12/24, 3:03 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Storage Facility
Hartman, Chris
Tue 3/12/2024 11:16 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

Subject: Storage Facility

As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-
23, I am NOT in agreement with the proposed site plan as it has been currently presented to us. I have
deep concerns with the damage this building will bring to our historic neighborhood.

Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city lights. And it has
destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a
Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down immediately. This does not
serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered
values.

Our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views, has not been acknowledged or
addressed by the development team and Right now, there are already too many storage facilities in
Phoenix and specifically our area.

In addition to the views, the site development as is currently proposed adds a further danger to the
inflow/outflow of our street as it blocks the sightline to pedestrians and bicycles that currently use the
sidewalk traveling against traffic to access canal entrance and bus stop.

In summary, I do not believe this development is a value add to our community and as such I do not
support nor want this proposed development.

Sincerely,
Christopher Hartman
7647 South 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
cmhemail@icloud.com
chartman@sfgiants.com
602-670-9555
Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHoRCbjBTksUrOakfTmZZL8… 1/1
3/19/24, 12:55 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

FW: emdist8 - Form Submission- Z-SP-6-23
Council District 8 PCC
Tue 3/12/2024 1:32 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

2 attachments (29 KB)
Storage Facility.eml; emdist8 - Form Submission.eml;

Hi Sam,

Below is another email regarding Z-SP-6-23 and we received 2 more which I have also attached to this email.

Sincerely,

Kalea Moore
Constituent Services Manager
Office of Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington
Phoenix City Council District 8
Main Office: 602-262-7493
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 12:32 PM
To: Council District 8 PCC
Subject: emdist8 - Form Submission

FROM : Jesus Diaz

SUBJECT : Proposed Storage Facility (Baseline/41st St)

MESSAGE : Dear Ms Washington,
With regards to the proposed storage facility, while the building height and location will not affect any
of our views in Highline Canyon, our neighbors on 41st Street and the next street will be affected as
their views will be obstructed or eliminated. Being that an action by the city of Phoenix would be to
allow such a structure that is outside the zoning, it probably would open the City to an Inverse
Eminent Domaine action by those whose property values are affected. Should the homeowners take
such an action and are awarded damages, the cost of these damages are shared by all residents of the
city. I am not certain that all members of the planning and zoning or city counsel are aware, but their
approval of this project could expose the city to substantial monetary damages.
It is my understanding that the developer has made changes to ingress and egress so that is attained
off of Baseline Road instead of 41st street. If that is the case, the only other issue to resolve is the
height of the building. I think if the developer would keep it's height to single story, they would
resolve most of the issues most homeowners have. This could be accomplished by putting one level
below ground instead of building 2 stories. Seems to me that should be a reasonable compromise.
Otherwise, I'm sure there will be attorney's salivating over creating an action on behalf of the
homeowners most affected.
Inverse eminent domain is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a
governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGCFwzzc80ZBrlLJikD%2BE… 1/2
3/19/24, 12:55 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Inverse condemnation is
initiated by the property owner when the government exacts a taking without following the eminent
domain procedures. This is often a land-use dispute in which a property owner challenges
development restrictions.
I sure hope this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction and all can live in harmony as they have
over the years. Looking forward to meet you in person some day and look forward to doing so.

Best Regards,
Jesus & Gracie Diaz

Email : jesus.a.diaz@outlook.com

AREA : 480

PHONE : 467-9505

ADDRESS : 8020 S 38th Way

CITY : Phoenix

STATE : AZ

ZIP : 85042

Submission ID: 8b778bf8c19245b6b37e1237abf06170

Form Submission On : 3/12/2024 12:32:44 PM

Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district8/contact-district-8

This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGCFwzzc80ZBrlLJikD%2BE… 2/2
3/28/24, 3:53 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

SAFStor Building opinion
patricia ragbir
Tue 3/19/2024 1:54 PM
To:mmaerowitz@swlaw.com ;Mayor Gallego ;Council District 8 PCC
;PDD South Mountain VPC ;Samuel S Rogers

Cc:dassa2009mama@gmail.com

My name is Patricia Ragbir and I am the owner of 7634 S 41st place Phoenix, Az 85042
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6_23, I am
OPPOSED to this project. After the neighbors and neighborhood representatives met with the developer and
attorneys, the developer refuses to address the biggest areas of concern. These concerns impact the beauty,
property values, and safety of our neighborhood.

I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my neighborhood.
Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city lights, and it has destroyed all
the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In
destroying the views, my property values go down immediately. This does not serve the residents or the city of
Phoenix and the State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered values.

In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend SAFStor on
changes to the look of the building and on moving with entry with 41st Street, a residential street to Baseline
Road.

However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views, has not only
never addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an additional street have also been
completely blocked. Right now, there are too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.

Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities

Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities

Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities

Link to map:
https://www.google.com/maps/search/storage+unit/@33.3853397,-112.0426803,13z/data=!4m2!2m1!6e6?
entry=ttu [google.com]
This ma5p clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.

In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. On average, 85% of storage facilities build a level as a
basement. Yet SAFStor in looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a profile that will destroy all
views for the neighborhood.

City light views are not just a “nice bonus.” Our property values include our homes being on view properties.
Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and the State
of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form
of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered property values.

Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to the City to deny a zoning
change that would allow an unneeded property-value-decreasing storage facility in his neighborhood.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIj3jIHqRUPFpaOGxXDsXIE… 1/2
3/28/24, 3:53 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood and offered input which has been forwarded to
the City of Phoenix.
The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building to be built
somewhere else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not destroy our homes and property
values.

Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a designer, to create a
floor plan that includes some basement units, bringing most the building to only 1 story above ground. This plan
would solve the biggest issue still on the table, the destruction of our views and property values.

Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City of
Phoenix. We believe this proposal should be rejected in its entirety.

Sincerely Patricia Ragbir

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIj3jIHqRUPFpaOGxXDsXIE… 2/2
ATTACHMENT C

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting March 12, 2024
Request From C-2
Request To C-2 SP
Proposal Self-service storage warehouse and underlying C-2
uses
Location Southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road

VPC DISCUSSION:

Committee Members Fatima Muhammad Roque and George Brooks joined the meeting
during this item bringing quorum to nine members (nine needed for a quorum).

27 members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item, 16 members of
the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak, and one member of the
public registered to speak in favor of this item. Seven members of the public donated
their time to Brian Harvey and three members of the public donated their time to Alberto
Rodriguez.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, presented the
proposal, outreach, subject site location, examples of by-right uses allowed in the C-2
zoning district, C-2 development standards, benefits of self-storage, and changes to the
proposal based on community feedback.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Darcy Thomas stated that she supports the project and stated the self-storage does
not produce much traffic.

Cynthia Standage-Beyer asked if the VPC had quorum. Chair Trent Marchuk
explained that the VPC needs one more member to reach quorum and stated that he is
hopeful another member will make it to the meeting.

Paul Sapio stated that he is opposed to the project, stated the neighborhood deals with
other uses, stated that the Baseline Corridor is nice but ends at 40th Street, stated
concerns about traffic, and stated that a child recently died on Baseline Road.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 649
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only

Bill McPeters stated that he is opposed to the project, stated that the project does not
provided benefits to the community, echoed Paul Sapio’s concerns about traffic safety
and the recent fatality, stated that there was an accident at 41st and Baseline earlier
that day, stated that Baseline Road has no traffic control at the intersection, stated
people will have to do U-Turns to access the property, stated that a nearby café built a
deceleration lane, stated that turning left onto Baseline Road is dangerous, that the
proposal does not address the dangerous left turns, and that the proposal makes
turning onto Baseline Road more dangerous.

Luis Enriquez stated that he is opposed to the project, stated he has been in area
since 1947, stated Baseline used to be two lanes and flowers, groves, farmland, and
citrus, explained he purchased a home in South Phoenix and stayed, explained that he
bought one of the first homes in the area, explained that District 8 has turned into
beautiful place, stated that District 8 used to be the a ghetto and where all the dumps
were placed, stated that the area has maintained the country architecture of homes,
stated that there will be four self-storage facilities in the area, and stated that another
self-storage facility is not needed.

Brian Harvey introduced himself, explained that he has 30 years of architectural
design, stated that he was asked by neighbors to speak about architecture, stated that
progress has been made on the refining the proposal’s traffic, safety, and design, but
explained that the preservation of view corridors had not been addressed, stated that
the proposal is massively out of scale, stated that the building positioning creates safety
risks, stated that the architecture does not reflect the history of area, stated that the
alternative designs from the community have been dismissed by the applicant team
without consideration, stated that he is in opposition to the project until the preservation
of view corridors is addressed, stated it feels like a large business rather than a local
business, and stated that other C-2 uses would offer the community amenities.

Laurie Pheil stated appreciation that the applicant team had met with her three times,
stated the applicant team’s tone in the meetings was always that things could be worse
if a by-right development comes to build, stated that the self-storage use is not allowed
to be 30 feet tall by-right, stated that building’s scale is not compatible with the
neighborhood, stated that the VPC requested incorporation of the Baseline Area
Overlay District (BAOD) and Mixed-Use Agricultural District design elements, stated that
the proposed Multi-Use Trail abruptly stops when it hits the wash, stated that the
proposal does not preserve view corridors like the BAOD requires, stated that Brian
Harvey produced drawings to build a basement while lowering the height, stated that
the applicant team has not given up any square footage of space since the initial
presentation, stated that City of Phoenix General Plan includes planning equity policies,
and stated that residents purchased properties with the belief that the BAOD would
protect property values and enhance the area.

Catherine Napoli explained that she has been a resident in the area since 1997, stated
that residents were told by the developer that the community should accept the proposal

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only

because the elevations had been updated and the ingress/egress had been moved to
Baseline Road, stated that the building’s proposed location will limit sight view triangles
when people are trying to turn onto Baseline Road, stated a U-turn will be required to go
westbound out of the development, stated that the development team refuses to bring
the height down, and stated that the development will create a potentially deadly
scenario.

Alberto Rodriguez explained his history in the area and background, stated that he is
opposed to the project, stated that other uses would support the Connect Oasis General
Plan Core Value, stated that the Circle K across Baseline is the only retail use that the
school to the north has access to, stated that an amenity that students could use would
be beneficial, stated that a proper crossing at 40th Street is needed, stated a need to
slow down traffic on Baseline Road, stated that self-storage will only employ two or
three people, echoed concerns about recent traffic accidents, and stated that the
development will make things more dangerous.

Julia Taggart explained that she had been through the same process in Sunnyslope,
stated that a HAWK costs $250,000 and requires a six month survey, stated that self-
storage did not help the community in Sunnyslope, stated that her community had been
dealing with traffic safety issues, stated that Cave Creek Road was approved for a
HAWK but it will not be built for 10 years, stated that law suits will happen, and
encouraged the community to attend the Planning Commission and City Council
hearings on the case.

Chair Marchuk stated that there had been some confusion on the role of the VPC and
asked staff to explain who the VPC members are and what they do. Mr. Rogers
explained that the VPC is voluntary committee made up of residents and workers in
South Mountain that are meant to represent the needs and wants of the South Mountain
community.

Brian Harvey explained some proposed design changes he had developed to provide a
more compatible and safer development, explained that 1/3 of the building could be a
basement and explained that he had sought out a quote for excavation, stated that
building setbacks will improve the design, stated that he had won a Tempe
beautification award on industrial building, stated that the development team had given
up zero square footage, stated that the development team needs to consider moving
somewhere else or changing the design massing, stated that when the building comes
in a whole block will have views blocked, and stated that the out-of-state developer is
unwilling to modify the design.

Shane Gore asked how the development will comply with the South Mountain Village
Character Plan and the General Plan, asked about the envisioned benefits for the
community, and stated that the top self-storage companies each made approximately 4
billion in profit and can afford to build a HAWK.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only

Patrick McGrorty stated he has been in the area since 2005, stated that the building is
out of character with the area, stated that the building should be one story, stated that
other C-2 uses would generally be one story, stated that he lives just south of the
subject site, stated the project will block his views and inhibit him from sitting with his
daughter to watch planes land, and stated that the notched building elevation is the
least he is willing to compromise on.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Mr. Maerowitz stated that in his experience you cannot please everyone, stated that
what is important is to invite the neighbors into the discussion, and stated that the
proposed self-storage use is low traffic generating use. Mr. Maerowitz explained that, in
response to community concerns, the development team had altered the proposal by
moving the ingress/egress to Baseline Road, spoke to the Street Transportation
Department to help with the timing of the intersection, changed the proposed building
materials and colors, changed the rooflines, and changed the landscaping. Mr.
Maerowitz explained that community outreach process is a negotiation, stated that
everyone needs to be reasonable, and stated that building a basement is not a
reasonable request because it is cost prohibitive. Mr. Maerowitz explained that self-
storage uses can benefit communities by providing extra space for storage, stated it is a
low traffic generating use, stated that there are no back-of-house functions that are
disruptive, stated that the proposal will provide certainty for the property, and explained
that the development team is planning to come back with a proposal that shows a
dedicated turn lane.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque asked for more information on the
traffic analysis conducted for this project and how many units are proposed. Mr.
Maerowitz explained that the applicant team had investigated the peak trip generation
and stated that during weekdays there will be approximately nine trips and on weekends
there will be approximately 20 trips, explained that the applicant team had worked with
the Street Transportation Department to fix the traffic light timing, explained that the
proposal is for 726 units, and explained that units are smaller interior units.

Committee Member Kay Shepard stated concerns about the building's aesthetics. Mr.
Maerowitz stated that the development team aims to create the most attractive self-
storage building possible and clarified that although the subject site is not within the
BAOD, the proposal has incorporated BOAD design elements such as the inclusion of
wood, stone veneer, and sloping roofs. Committee Member Shepard stated that the
design project aligns with a parking garage, stated that just because the proposal is
more attractive that most self-storage uses does not mean the proposal is desirable,
and stated that the development will block views. Mr. Maerowitz explained that the
building is lower than the maximum height allowed and stated that the City of Phoenix
says that view corridors are not protected.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only

Committee Member Darlene Jackson questioned the use of words like "give", brought
attention to the history of South Phoenix, highlighted issues such as drugs, crime, and
family member deaths, emphasized the importance of community engagement, stated
that community outreach should be engaging rather than telling, stated disappointment
in not seeing the humanity in the project, stated the need to connect with the
community, stated that suggestions are not being considered, questioned whether the
project is useful for the community, and expressed a desire to hear more about the
human side of the project. Mr. Maerowitz stated that he hopes it does not to sound like
the development team are brushing off the community, mentioned significant changes
made in response to community feedback, particularly regarding traffic, design, and
landscaping, explained that the proposed building aligns with what is expected to be
seen in Baseline areas, and highlighted the human side of the project, mentioning that
four units would be reserved free of charge for the community.

Committee Member Lee Coleman inquired about the zoning that allows self-storage
by right. Mr. Rogers responded that self-storage facilities are allowed in C-3 and above
zoning districts.

Committee Member Tremikus Muhammad asked why the company wasn't
considering the alternatives the neighborhood has offered. Mr. Maerowitz explained
that that the team made a lot of requested changes, emphasized the need for
reasonable requests, mentioned that they looked into building a basement, but it was
cost-prohibitive, and discussed dedicated right-in/right-out options to move traffic off of
41st Street. Committee Member Muhammad asked if it is reasonable for the community
to accept a drop in property value. Mr. Maerowitz explained that being adjacent to a
vacant C-2 property negatively impacts home values and stated that the proposal for
self-storage will improve values by removing the possibility of a use that includes
loading and other nuisances.

Committee Member Greg Brownell emphasized the importance of the community
standing firm against threats of "something worse," highlighted the community's courage
in risking something else rather than approving something they do not like, and stressed
the importance of not being afraid of something unknown.

Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III asked about the context behind the building's height
being lower than 30ft. Mr. Maerowitz explained that a higher building wouldn't be a
huge benefit and wouldn't impact views unnecessarily, while still being economically
sound.

Committee Member Muhammad Roque asked about the number of jobs and rental
rates and stated that four out of 726 units had been allocated to the community.

Mr. Maerowitz provided details on employment opportunities, rental rates, and
community units and explained that four units will be reserved for the community

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only

because Safestor will continue to own the property and wants to provide benefits for the
community. Committee Member Muhammad Roque asked about the standard
occupancy. Christopher Russ, with the applicant team, stated that the development is
expected to be 90% leased within two years. Committee Member Muhammad Roque
clarified that the vacancy rate would be around 10% and stated the four units reserved
for the community is much less than 10%.

Committee Member Coleman asked about due diligence in site selection and asked
why a C-3 site wasn't found. Mr. Maerowitz explained that if a suitable C-3 zoned
property were available, the applicant team would pursue it, and stated the benefits of
the site being next to residences. Committee Member Coleman stated that there are C-
3 zoned sites all over South Mountain.

Committee Member Brownell questioned the philosophy of picking a site with
opposition rather than settling for a site zoned C-3 and questioned the logic that the
self-storage use will be good for a neighborhood that opposes it. Mr. Maerowitz stated
that it is important that self-storage is close to residences and discussed the benefits of
the Special Permit process in showcasing the development to the community.

Committee Member Jackson summarized the discussion, emphasized the economic
benefits of further investing in the community, asked why they had not taken the hit and
invested in the community, and stated she believes the community is worth more than
just four units.

Committee Member Coleman commented on the need for the product but not in the
specific area and suggested that locating near a multifamily development would be
more beneficial than near an established single-family residential community.

Dr. Brooks asked for clarification that no decisions were to be made at the meeting.
Chair Marchuk stated that the meeting is for informational purposes only, emphasized
the importance of hearing the community and VPC perspectives, stated that more than
36 comment cards had been received, summarized various responsibilities outlined in
the Village Handbook, encouraged residents to not be afraid of the unknown, stated
residents should understand the risk, stated that the VPC are representatives of the
community, and stated that the process has multiple steps.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8

Date of VPC Meeting April 9, 2024
Request From C-2
Request To C-2 SP
Proposal Self-service storage warehouse and underlying C-2
uses
Location Southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 10-0-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

50 members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item, five members of
the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak, two members of the public
registered to speak in favor of this item, and one member of the public registered in
favor but did not wish to speak. Seven members of the public donated their time to
Brian Harvey and three members of the public donated their time to Alberto Rodriguez.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, presented the request, the location of the subject site, the
surrounding context, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the site plan,
proposed elevations, the staff recommendation, the staff findings, and concluded by
presenting the proposed stipulations.

Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, requested a
continuance to provided time to prepare plans that address community concerns.

Chair Trent Marchuk stated that in order to consider the continuance request there is a
need to consider the appropriateness of the proposed use. Mr. Maerowitz explained
that a development’s impact on a neighborhood is a function of the design, clarified the
difference between requesting a Special Permit and a C-3 designation, and stated that
one purpose of the Special Permit process is to address community design concerns.

Committee Member Greg Brownell stated that the request for the continuance needs
to be addressed before discussing the case. Chair Marchuk asked staff for clarification
on the process. Mr. Rogers stated that discussion of the land use is germane to the
continuance request. Chair Marchuk stated that the committee should discuss the land
use and continuance request.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 655
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8

Committee Member Kay Shepard stated that if the motion to continue fails the VPC
will hear the presentation and make a recommendation on the case. Committee
Member Emma Viera stated that it is important to consider the case’s issues today out
of respect to the people attending the meeting. Chair Marchuk stated that if the land use
is not acceptable it is not necessary for the applicant to revise their plans.

Chair Marchuk discussed public comment, asked the community members to raise
their hands if they wanted to deny the continuance request, and stated the community
wants to deny the continuance request.

MOTION
Committee Member Kay Shepard made a motion to deny the continuance of Z-SP-6-
23-8. Committee Member Emma Viera seconded the motion.

VOTE
5-6, motion to deny the continuance of Z-SP-6-23-8 failed with Committee Members
Brooks, Shepard, Smith, Viera, Marchuk in favor and Committee Members Brownell, F.
Daniels, T. Daniels, Falcon, Jackson, and Greathouse opposed.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, presented the
proposal, outreach, subject site location, examples of by-right uses allowed in the C-2
zoning district, C-2 development standards, benefits of self-storage, and changes to the
proposal based on community feedback.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Darcy Thomas expressed her support for the project, stated that the project had been
improved through negotiation with the neighborhood, stated that the project would be
the best look large box retail store in the neighborhood, emphasized the importance of
quiet uses and expressed a preference for a lower building, and stated that some
neighbors support the project, but explained she had difficulty in rallying them to attend
the meeting.

Brian Harvey shared his recent interactions with the community, highlighting
discussions at a budget committee meeting where advocates for marginalized voices
were heartening. Mr. Harvey questioned the benefits of a C-3 use for the community
and raised concerns about the proposed design, likening it to a massive industrial
warehouse. Mr. Harvey also discussed alternative design proposals and the importance
of considering design aspects such as view corridors and stepped design.

Laurie Pheil provided a summary of work with the development team, stated most
residents do not want self-storage, stated that the neighborhood was told that building a
basement was not financially viable, but now a basement is proposed, stated that self-

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8

storage will always be a warehouse type building and the neighborhood prefers a
commercial development, and stated it is better to wait for something more appropriate.

Cynthia Standage-Beyer stated that she sat through two hearing on this case, stated
that she used to serve on the VPC, and expressed concerns about the project's
alignment with long-range planning goals.

Catherine Napoli stated that the proposal will be the 12th self-storage use in the area,
stated that self-storage is an inappropriate use for this site, stated the proposal does not
align with the South Mountain Character Plan, raised safety concerns, stated that the
Village needs neighborhood retail, and asked VPC members to recommend denial.

Shane Gore criticized the project's design, stated that land is the Village’s most
valuable resource, and stated that the applicant team cannot get the design right
because the use is not appropriate for the subject site.

Mike Davis raised concerns about parking requirements, noting the need for a variance
and the additional parking spaces storage units would necessitate.

Bill McPeters expressed concerns about access to Baseline Road and the potential
impact of a large warehouse on property values and the neighborhood's aesthetic.

Carmen Rodriguez, explained her experience working in HR at a jail, likened the
project's design to a jail, and urged against its approval.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Mr. Maerowitz emphasized the importance of community dialogue in zoning cases,
stated that the applicant has addressed all concerns raised by neighbors prior to the
meeting, highlighted alternative uses for the site would result in higher traffic volumes,
stated that the applicant team moved access onto Baseline Road and proposed
dedicated turn lanes on 41st Street in response to community concerns, stated that the
applicant team had added materials and updated the design in response to community
concerns, and highlighted the shifting perspectives on design and land use, noting that
despite efforts to address concerns, some community members now express opposition
to the proposed use. Mr. Maerowitz clarified that if the application is approved, the
specific proposal would be the only permitted project and highlighted community
benefits in landscaping, design, and traffic management that would accompany the
project.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Chair Marchuk noted the substantial opposition with 56 cards against and only two in
support.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8

Committee Member Tamala Daniels stated that the distributed map shows other C-2
and C-3 zoned properties and stated that it is disappointing to hear that other
communities deserve this use. Ms. Pheil explained that many of the listed sites already
host industrial and multifamily properties, making them more appropriate for storage
facilities. Committee Member T. Daniels emphasized the importance of considering the
entire village and avoiding the implication that some areas are less valuable.

Committee Member Emma Viera stated that she is in opposition to the development
because it lacks service to the community.

Committee Member Shelly Smith inquired about the variance on parking
requirements. Mr. Maerowitz explained that the Phoenix's parking ratio system is based
on the number of units, stated that the proposal includes very small units, and explained
that the development will not need total number of required parking spaces.

Committee Member Darlene Jackson urged unity among the community and
reiterated the need to focus on the request.

Committee Member Greg Brownell stated that the project should go on a C-3 zoned
property and stated that there are a lot of appropriate places in the Village for the
proposed use.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Greg Brownell made a motion to recommend denial of Z-SP-6-
23-8. Committee Member Kay Shepard seconded the motion.

VOTE
10-0-1, motion to recommend denial of Z-SP-6-23-8 passed with Brooks, Brownell, F.
Daniels, T. Daniels, Falcon, Jackson, Shepard, Smith, Viera, and Greathouse in favor
and Chair Marchuk abstained.

Chair Marchuk explained that he abstained because there was not tie to break.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

ATTACHMENT D

To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: May 1, 2024

From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner

Subject: ITEM NO. 7 (Z-SP-6-23-8) – SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 41ST STREET
AND BASELINE ROAD

The purpose of this is memo is to update a stipulation to reference updated elevations
submitted by the applicant on April 26, 2024, and to convey additional updated plans and
correspondence that has been received regarding this rezoning request.

Rezoning Case No. Z-SP-6-23-8 is a request to rezone 3.84 acres located at the
southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)
to C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to allow a self-service storage
facility and underlying C-2 uses.

The South Mountain VPC heard this request on April 9, 2024, and recommended denial
by a vote of 10-0-1.

Staff recommends updating Stipulation No. 1, regarding general conformance to the
elevations, to reference the updated elevations date stamped April 26, 2024.

Enclosed with this memo are updated plans submitted by the applicant, a letter of support,
and a petition and letters of opposition received after the publication of the Staff Report.
The letters cite concerns with the proposed use, height, limited job creation, building
design, property values, crime, number of self-storage uses in already in the area,
obstruction of view corridors, compatibility with the surrounding area, and the proposal’s
misalignment with the South Mountain Character Plan and the City of Phoenix General
Plan.

The updated plans submitted by the applicant reflect changes made based on community
input. Updates include the following:

 Notched building design at the northwest corner of the site to improve site view
triangles;
 The center of the building was reduced to one story to preserve view corridors (a
basement is proposed to keep the unit count the same);
 Additional architectural variation and building materials; and
 Modification of the roof line.

Staff recommends approval, per the modified stipulations in bold font below:

Z-SP-6-23-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 1, 2024

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped March 15, 2024 APRIL 26, 2024, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable.

5. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department

6. Four bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location inside
the building and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by Planning
and Development Department.

9. All public and private pedestrian pathways including sidewalks shall be shaded
to a minimum 75%, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

10. In addition to the landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List, Cercidium Hybrid (Desert Museum Palo Verde), Quercus Virginiana
(Live Oak), and Pistacia X 'Red-Push (Red Push Pistache), may be permitted
as approved by Planning and Development Department and shall be utilized,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

Z-SP-6-23-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 1, 2024

11. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.

12. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

13. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad on
eastbound Baseline Road. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to
bus stop pad shall be spaced from 41st Street according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide minimum 50% shade
coverage to bus stop pad.

14. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT)
shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Baseline Road, adjacent to the development.

16. The sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment for installing the required plants.

17. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of
Highline Lane, adjacent to the development.

18. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 41st
Street, adjacent to the development.

Z-SP-6-23-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 1, 2024

19. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the west side of 42nd
Place, adjacent to the development.

20. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb and median islands shall be
replenished with the approved landscaping and trees along Baseline Road, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.

24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

25. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Attachments
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 26, 2024 (3 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped April 26, 2024 (2 pages)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped April 26, 2024 (2 pages)
Conceptual Rendering date stamped April 26, 2024 (2 pages)
Correspondence (143 pages)

SUPPORT

From: Darcy Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 6:00 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Safe Stor z-SP 6-23-8

I am Darcy Thomas. I live at 7636 S 41st in Phoenix AZ.

I am in favor of the Safstor unit being built on the corner of 41st and Baseline. Safstor has made many changed
requested by the neighborhood. I definitely approve of their final plans for this corner.

The entrance being moved to Baseline was very important to keep traﬃc our of the neighborhood. There will be li le
traﬃc or noise added to the neighborhood. There might even be less noise from Baseline since it will block traﬃc noise.

I am pleased with the changes Safstor made to accommodate the neighborhood concerns.

I do not want retail shops on that corner. Traﬃc, trash, noise, strangers in the neighborhood.

Darcy Thomas

OPPOSITION

From: Catherine Napoli
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 6:36 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-SP-6-23 No more self storage facilities in South Mountain Village
Attachments: Self storage in the area.docx; 27th Ave to 48th St.jpg

Members of the Planning Commission
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-
6-23, I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my
neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city
lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is
designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down
immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will
lose revenue with lowered values.

In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a residential
street, to Baseline Road.

However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views,
has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an
additional street have also been completely blocked.

Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area. There are a
total of 11 self-storage facilities from 48th Street to 19th Avenue in the South Mountain Village area.
There are an additional 3 facilities north of the river and south of the airport.

From 19th Avenue west to the 202 (Laveen) there are 5 self-storage facilities. This makes our
neighborhood the "Self-Storage Facility Capital of the World!"

In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. On average, 85% of storage facilities build
a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a
profile that will make entering and leaving our neighborhood at 41st Street, our ONLY WAY in and
out, dangerous.

City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view
properties. Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix,
Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently

proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered
property values.

This neighborhood and South Mountain Village are in desperate need of real retail. Another
unneeded self-storage facility brings one or two jobs and no needed retail.

Neighborhood representatives have been meeting with representatives of Snell & Wilmer and SafStor
in an effort to create something that would enhance the neighborhood. Brian Harvey, a designer, has
even created an entire plan that would preserve views, give SafStor additional units, and preserve the
views. SafStor has not budged beyond changing the color of the building and moving the entrance to
Baseline Road.

The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association were not asking for this
building to be built somewhere else. We demanded that it be built in a way that does not destroy our
homes and property values.

However - SafStor will not compromise. We now want the City of Phoenix to deny this petition
so that real retail that will enhance our neighborhood and the Village can come in.

Accepting the special use permit and allowing self-storage facility #12 to come into South Mountain
Village will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City of Phoenix.

Bring real retail into our neighborhood, NOT another box that will attract crime and be a blight to our
RESIDENTIAL community.

Catherine Napoli
Resident since 1996 & Neighborhood Representative
3928 E. Beverly Road
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602-295-3411

From: Catherine Napoli
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 2:46 PM
To: Samuel S Rogers; PDD Planning Commission; Mayor Gallego; PDD South Mountain VPC; Council
District 8 PCC
Subject: Letters against Z-SP-6-23
Attachments: Comment Card.pdf; Letter 1.pdf; Letter 1A.pdf; Letter 2.pdf; Letter 2A.pdf; Letter 3A.pdf; Letter 4.pdf;
Letter 4A.pdf; Letter 3.pdf; Letter 5.pdf; Letter 5A.pdf; Letter 6A.pdf; Letter 6.pdf; Letter 7A.pdf; Letter
7.pdf; Letter 8.pdf; Letter 9.pdf; Letter 9A.pdf; Letter 8A.pdf; Letter 10.pdf; Letter 10A.pdf; Letter 11
A.pdf; Letter 11.pdf; Letter 12.pdf; Letter 12A.pdf; Letter 13.pdf; Letter 13A.pdf; Letter 14A.pdf; Letter
14.pdf; Letter 15 A.pdf; Letter 15.pdf; Letter 16 A.pdf; Letter 17.pdf; Letter 16.pdf; Letter 17A.pdf;
Letter 18 A.pdf; Letter 18.pdf; Petition.pdf

Village Planning, Sam Rogers, Planning Commission, Councilwoman Hodge Washington, Mayor Gallego

At a recent neighborhood block party, a number of neighbors signed letters and a petition asking all of you to vote
against Z SP 6 23 and instead work on getting real retail, neighborhood retail, retail promised us over the last years,
retail that never happened.

I submit these letters on behalf of my neighbors and I will bring the originals to the South Mountain VIllage Planning
Committee meeting tonight.

Respectfully submitted
Catherine Napoli

From: Catherine Napoli
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 12:56 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Mayor Gallego; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Samuel S Rogers;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: Z-SP-6-23

Members of Planning Commission -
SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self-storage facility,
on a C2 zoned property (Z-SP-6-23). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road located
to the south and west of this self-storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use
permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.

From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against
having a self-storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story
building blocking both the views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values and well as
the view up the mountain from Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The look of
their building, which is a massive box and, while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the
gateway of South Mountain Village.

Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we
asked three neighbors, Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests
to the developer. We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as
non-offensive as possible.

Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then
create a slight variation of the request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns.
Our representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for
many hours.

The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is
not an appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South
Mountain Village, with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in
the form of plans and codes, were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The Baseline Area Master
Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The
PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of
these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land
use. Retail that has long been promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were
told retail was not coming in until rooftops came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture,
housing, socio-economics. Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated
for neighborhood retail.

Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including
neighborhood retail, would bring jobs. A self-storage facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.

The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place
for neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new
development is part of the plan.

The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self
storage facility that needs you to approve a special permit.

Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points
in the South Mountain Village Character Map? No.

Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can
currently be built by right? No.

The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The
neighborhood's needs are not taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been
considered. The Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not considered. And the
PhxCAN plan is ignored. South Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be
built there by right is far more in keeping with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit.
As a concerned resident, I am asking you not to allow this special permit to pass.

Thank you for your consideration,

Catherine P. Napoli-Cohen
Resident since 1997 in a 75 year old house (built in 1949)
3928 E. Beverly Road, Phoenix 85042
602-295-3411

From: Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 12:41 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: From Carmen L. Rodriguez Re: SAFStor-Request to Deny Special Permit Z-SP-6-23 from Carmen L.
Rodriguez

Respected Members of Planning Commission

SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self storage facility, on a C2
zoned property (Z SP 6 23). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road located to the south and
west of this self storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use permit. However, the most
compelling fact to vote no, in accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is
that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.

From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self
storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the
views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from
Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The look of their building, which is a massive box and,
while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain Village.

Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked
three neighbors, Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer.
We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non offensive as possible.

Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a
slight variation of the request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our
representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many
hours.

The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an
appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village,
with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes,
were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in
place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active
Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.

Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail
that has long been promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not
coming in until rooftops came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio economics.
Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated for neighborhood retail.

Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would
bring jobs. A self storage facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.

The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for
neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is
part of the plan.

The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that
needs you to approve a special permit.

Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South
Mountain Village Character Map? No.

Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by
right? No.

The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The
neighborhood's needs are not taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The
Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South
Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be built there by right is far more in keeping
with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am asking you not to
allow this special permit to pass

Respectfully,

Carmen L. Rodriguez
7649 S. 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042

From: Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 8:21 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: SAF Stor Z-SP-6-23-8 Request to not allow the special permit to pass

Phoenix Planning Commission pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
Racelle Escolar with Planning Commission racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov
Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington council.district.8@phoenix.gov
Mayor Kate Gallego mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov

Members of Planning Commission

SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self storage facility, on a C2
zoned property (Z SP 6 23 / Z SP 6 23 8 Agenda Item 7). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road
located to the south and west of this self storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use
permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.

From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self
storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the
views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from
Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The look of their building, which is a massive box and,
while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain Village.

Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked
three neighbors, Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer.
We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non offensive as possible.

Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a
slight variation of the request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our
representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many
hours.

The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an
appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village,
with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes,
were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in
place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active
Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.

Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail
that has long been promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not
coming in until rooftops came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio economics.
Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated for neighborhood retail.

Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would
bring jobs. A self storage facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.

The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for
neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is
part of the plan.

The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that
needs you to approve a special permit.

Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South
Mountain Village Character Map? No.

Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by
right? No.

The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The
neighborhood's needs are not taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The
Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South
Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be built there by right is far more in keeping
with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am asking you not to
allow this special permit to pass.

Alberto Rodriguez
7649 S. 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602 882 9271

From: Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 8:28 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: SAF-Stor Z-SP-6-23-8 Request not to allow this special permit to pass.

Phoenix Planning Commission pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
Racelle Escolar with Planning Commission racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov
Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington council.district.8@phoenix.gov
Mayor Kate Gallego mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov

Members of Planning Commission

SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self storage facility, on a C2
zoned property (Z SP 6 23 / Z SP 6 23 8 Agenda Item 7). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road
located to the south and west of this self storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use
permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.

From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self
storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the
views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from
Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The look of their building, which is a massive box and,
while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain Village.

Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked
three neighbors, Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer.
We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non offensive as possible.

Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a
slight variation of the request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our
representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many
hours.

The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an
appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village,
with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes,
were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in
place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active
Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.

Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail
that has long been promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not
coming in until rooftops came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio economics.
Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated for neighborhood retail.

Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would
bring jobs. A self storage facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.

The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for
neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is
part of the plan.

The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that
needs you to approve a special permit.

Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South
Mountain Village Character Map? No.

Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by
right? No.

The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The
neighborhood's needs are not taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The
Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South
Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be built there by right is far more in keeping
with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am asking you not to
allow this special permit to pass.

Carmen L. Rodriguez (Resident and Wife to Alberto Rodriguez)
7649 S. 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602 510 3367

From: cynthia harvey
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: SafeStor Special permit application

Members of Planning Commission -

SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self-storage facility, on a C2 zoned property (Z-SP-6-
23 / Z-SP-6-23-8 Agenda Item 7). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road located to the south and west of this self-
storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in
accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.

From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self-storage facility at the
corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the views of my neighbors, that will result in
bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The
look of their building, which is a massive box and, while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain
Village.

Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked three neighbors, Laurie
Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer. We felt if we had to have this shoved into our
neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non-offensive as possible.

Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a slight variation of the
request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our representatives engaged in good faith conversations,
meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many hours.

The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an appropriate land use for
this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village, with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for
what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes, were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The
Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan
looks at creating Connected Active Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail that has long been
promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not coming in until rooftops came here. We have
the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio-economics. Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet
another area slated for neighborhood retail.

Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would bring jobs. A self-storage
facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.

The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for neighbors, and is sensitive to
the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is part of the plan.
The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that needs you to approve a
special permit.

Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South Mountain Village Character
Map? No.

Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by right? No.

The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The neighborhood's needs are not
taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and
Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can
be built there by right is far more in keeping with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am
asking you not to allow this special permit to pass.

Regards,

Cynthia Harvey
816.868.3829

From: Paul Sapio
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 8:48 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Save our neighbor

Members of Planning Commission -
SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self-storage facility, on a C2 zoned property (Z-SP-6-
23 / Z-SP-6-23-8 Agenda Item 7). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road located to the south and west of this self-
storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in
accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.

From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self-storage facility at the
corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the views of my neighbors, that will result in
bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The
look of their building, which is a massive box and, while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain
Village.

Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked three neighbors, Laurie
Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer. We felt if we had to have this shoved into our
neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non-offensive as possible.

Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a slight variation of the
request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our representatives engaged in good faith conversations,
meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many hours.

The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an appropriate land use for
this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village, with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for
what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes, were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The
Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan
looks at creating Connected Active Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail that has long been
promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not coming in until rooftops came here. We have
the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio-economics. Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet
another area slated for neighborhood retail.

Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would bring jobs. A self-storage
facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.

The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for neighbors, and is sensitive to
the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is part of the plan.
The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that needs you to approve a
special permit.

Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South Mountain Village Character
Map? No.

Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by right? No.

The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The neighborhood's needs are not
taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and
Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can
be built there by right is far more in keeping with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am
asking you not to allow this special permit to pass.

Sent from
Paul Sapio
7620 s 40th pl Phoenix 85042

From: Debra McPeters
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 10:54 AM
To: Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; PDD Planning Commission; racell.escolar@phoenix.gov;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: Z-SP-6-23

Members of the Planning Commission,

SAFStor is requesting a Special permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self-storage
facility on a C2 zoned property (Z-SP-6-23). As residents of the small neighborhood south of Baseline
Road located to the south and west of this proposed facility, there a number of reasons to vote NO on this
special use permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote NO, in accordance with the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.

From the beginning of this special permit request we, and the majority of our neighbors have been against
having a self-storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story
building blocking both the views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values as well
as blocking the view up the mountain from Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor.
The look of their building, which is a massive box and, while changes have been made, it is still a massive
box at the gateway of South Mountain Village.

Even though we and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In
fact, we asked three neighbors (Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli and Brian Harvey) to bring our concerns
and requests to the developer. We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could
hopefully make it as non-offensive as possible.

Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and
then create a slight variation of the request in hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our
concerns. Our representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their
attorney firm for many hours.

The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential
neighborhood is not an appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the
residents of South Mountain Village, with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our
Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes were created to guide the growth of this unique
areas. The Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in place to ensure we get what is so
needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active Neighborhoods. This
special permit request fits none of these guidelines. Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this
area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail that has long been promised the
residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix", we were told retail was not coming until rooftops
came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing and socio-economics. Where
is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated for neighborhood retail.

Jobs are needed in our Village. other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood
retail, would bring jobs. A self-storage facility may bring 2 or 3 jobs at most.

The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views, creates a gathering
place for neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any
new development is part of the plan. The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more
appropriate land uses than a self-storage facility that needs you to approve a special permit.

This change negatively affects the neighbors and area. It also not not have a majority of the 39 points in
the South Mountain Village Character Map.
Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can
currently be built by right? NO

The baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not being considered. South Mountain Village Planning
knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be built there by right is far more in keeping with the
City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As concerned residents in the neighborhood
for over 25 years, we are asking you not to allow this special permit to pass.

Thank You,

Debra & Bill McPeters
8040 S. 38th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85042
Highline Canyon Residents

From: Lorina McGrorty
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Z-SP-6-23. Urgent Appeal: Please Preserve Our Neighborhood's Character and Property Values

Dear Racelle Escolar,

As longtime residents of Hancock Park, we are writing to express our deep concern regarding the
proposed construction of a large storage unit building in our community. This development threatens
to irreversibly alter the character of our neighborhood and significantly diminish property values for
current residents.

One of the most cherished aspects of living in Hancock Park is the breathtaking scenic views of the
city and surrounding mountains that we enjoy from our homes. These views are not only aesthetically
pleasing but also contribute to the overall sense of tranquility and well-being that residents have come
to appreciate. The construction of a towering commercial building would effectively block these views,
robbing us of one of the key features that attracted many of us to this neighborhood in the first place.

Furthermore, the proposed development poses a serious threat to our property values. Studies have
consistently shown that the presence of commercial and industrial structures, such as this proposed
building, can have a detrimental impact on nearby residential property values. Potential buyers are
likely to be deterred by the sight of a large storage unit building looming over the neighborhood,
leading to a decrease in demand for homes in the area and a subsequent significant decline in the
value of our property.

We urge you to carefully consider the long-term consequences of allowing this development to
proceed. Our neighborhood is more than just a collection of houses; it is a community where families
have put down roots and invested their hard-earned resources. The current plans also encroach upon
a protected wash, which not only channels water from the mountain, but also acts as a travel corridor
for wildlife. Allowing this SAFStor building to be built here, as currently designed, would undermine
the sense of community that we have worked so hard to cultivate and would have far-reaching
negative effects on the quality of life for residents and native animals alike.

In light of these concerns, unless SAFStor is willing to compromise on the building height by placing
the first story underground, we respectfully request that you deny the permits needed for the
construction of the storage unit building in our neighborhood. Instead, we urge you to explore

alternative development options that are more compatible with the character of our community and
that will not jeopardize property values or the scenic beauty of our surroundings.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our perspective on this important issue. We trust that you
will make the decision that is in the best interests of our neighborhood and its residents.

Sincerely,

Patrick and Lorina McGrorty

7635 South 41st Place

Phoenix, Az 85042

(480) 628-8911

From: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Phoenix Planning Commission Agenda Item 7: Z-SP-6-23-8

From: Laurie Pheil
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:27 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Phoenix Planning Commission Agenda Item 7: Z SP 6 23 8

To the Planning Commission,

My name is Laurie Pheil and I am requesting a recommendation of denial for case number Z
SP 6 23 8.

This Special Permit requests is for a C3 or Industrial Use on a C2 zoned property. It is
surrounded by a Church, two schools, a Fire station, some small neighborhood retail and lots
and lots of housing.

A warehouse style storage facility does not fit into the local area in many ways. Based on their
last presentation to the Village Planning Committee in April of this year where the Village
Committee voted unanimously to deny their land use, their request falls short in several
ways

It does not preserve views for the adjacent neighborhood
The architecture does not reflect the areas agricultural heritage
It does not provide a good employment source for the Village for generations to come
Plus, it all but ignores the standards outlined in the Plan Phoenix General Plan for
Connectivity, Enhancing Neighborhood Retail, Healthy restaurants, or being a place
where neighbors can meet to have a cold drink, plan a hike or hike ride, or perhaps get a
bike tire repaired.

Thank you for your consideration!
Laurie

Laurie Pheil
Creative Benefit Communications
Phone: 602-696-3800
E-mail: creativebenefitcommunications@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
May 2, 2024

ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-SP-6-23-8
Location: Southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road
From: C-2
To: C-2 SP
Acreage: 3.84
Proposal: Self-service storage facility and underlying C-2 uses
Applicant: SAFStor Real Estate Company, LLC
Owner: Highline Investment, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 3/12/2024 Information only.
South Mountain 4/9/2024 Denial. Vote 10-0 (1 abstained).

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated May 1, 2024.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-SP-6-23-8, per the staff
memo dated May 1, 2024.

Maker: Mangum
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 5-4 (Vice-Chairperson Busching, Boyd, Jaramillo, Matthews)
Absent: N/A
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Commercial.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, will create a strong pedestrian environment along Baseline
Road with detached sidewalks and a multi-use trail. These pathways will convey
individuals safely and comfortably to the nearby educational uses, commercial uses,
and residential neighborhoods.

3. The site is appropriately located along a major arterial roadway, and as stipulated will
be compatible with surrounding uses.

Stipulations:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
March 15, 2024 APRIL 26, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater management
shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low
Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.

4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable.

5. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department

6. Four bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site through Inverted U and/or artistic
racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location inside the building and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of
the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper, drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the
parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by Planning and Development
Department.

9. All public and private pedestrian pathways including sidewalks shall be shaded to a
minimum 75%, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

10. In addition to the landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan Plant List,
Cercidium Hybrid (Desert Museum Palo Verde), Quercus Virginiana (Live Oak), and
Pistacia X 'Red-Push (Red Push Pistache), may be permitted as approved by Planning
and Development Department and shall be utilized, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.

11. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape irrigation.

12. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that demonstrates a
commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup program for a minimum of
15 years, or as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

13. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad on eastbound
Baseline Road. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be
spaced from 41st Street according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees
shall be placed to provide minimum 50% shade coverage to bus stop pad.

14. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the south side
of Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be
constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of Baseline
Road, adjacent to the development.

16. The sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and detached
with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of
curb and planted to the following standards, as approved or modified by the Planning
and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees
planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment for installing the required plants.

17. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of Highline
Lane, adjacent to the development.

18. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 41st Street,
adjacent to the development.

19. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the west side of 42nd Place,
adjacent to the development.

20. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb and median islands shall be replenished
with the approved landscaping and trees along Baseline Road, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall conduct
Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the development
area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to clearing and grubbing,
landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I
data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,

determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.

24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

25. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office
and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.

ATTACHMENT F

CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ Z-SP-6-23-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Southeast corner of opposition x applicant
41st Street and
Baseline Road

APPEALED FROM: PC May 2, 2024 3940 East Beverly Road
Phoenix, AZ 85042

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC June 12, 2024 Laurie Pheil
HEARING (602) 696-3800
creativebenefitcommunications@gmail.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Opposition to the special permit land use on this property.

RECEIVED BY: Greg Harmon RECEIVED ON: 5/9/2024

Alan Stephenson Camryn Thompson
Joshua Bednarek Paul M. Li
Tricia Gomes GIS
Racelle Escolar Byron Easton (for PHO Appeals only)
Sarah Stockham Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Stephanie Vasquez Village Planner
Heather Klotz Applicant

REVISED 9/18/2023 vcm
ATTACHMENT G

For additional correspondence, please see Z-SP-6-23-8 on the following website:

https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-reports

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-7/1/2024 complete

1. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on April 20, 2022

Item text

Supporting documents

2. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on May 11, 2022

Item text

Supporting documents

3. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on May 25, 2022

Item text

Supporting documents

4. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on Sept. 20, 2023

Item text

Supporting documents

5. ¶ Summary

Item text

Supporting documents

6. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Give 'Em A Break Foundation, Inc. (Nov. 1-3)

Item text

Supporting documents

7. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Give 'Em A Break Foundation, Inc. (Nov. 7-10)

Item text

Supporting documents

8. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Give 'Em A Break Foundation, Inc. (Nov. 14-16)

Item text

Supporting documents

9. ¶ Liquor License - Toso's Sports Bar & Grill

Item text

Supporting documents

10. ¶ Liquor License - Valle Luna Lunatics Mexican Cantina

Item text

Supporting documents

11. ¶ Liquor License - Trevor's

Item text

Supporting documents

12. ¶ Liquor License - Walker's Liquor

Item text

Supporting documents

13. ¶ Liquor License - 5th Avenue Cafe

Item text

Supporting documents

14. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Greek Orthodox Church - Holy Trinity

Item text

Supporting documents

15. ¶ Liquor License - Luci's at the Orchard Splurge Orchard Tavern Orchard Events &

Item text

Supporting documents

16. ¶ Liquor License - Luci's At The Orchard Splurge Orchard Tavern Orchard Events

Item text

Supporting documents

17. ¶ Liquor License - Luci's Marketplace The Coffee Bar & The Other Bar (Series 7)

Item text

Supporting documents

18. ¶ Liquor License - Luci's Marketplace The Coffee Bar & The Other Bar (Series 12)

Item text

Supporting documents

19. ¶ Liquor License - Cactus Cloud Cafe

Item text

Supporting documents

20. ¶ Liquor License - FPR Distributing Co. Inc.

Item text

Supporting documents

21. ¶ Liquor License - Home2 Suites Downtown Phoenix

Item text

Supporting documents

22. ¶ Liquor License - 7-ELEVEN #42313

Item text

Supporting documents

23. ¶ Settlement of Advantage Holdco, Inc.

Item text

Supporting documents

24. ¶ Settlement of Claim(s) Thinnes v. City of Phoenix

Item text

Supporting documents

25. ¶ Public Hearing on Adoption of Property Tax Levy for 2024-25 Fiscal Year

Item text

Supporting documents

26. ¶ Adoption of Property Tax Levy for 2024-25 Fiscal Year (Ordinance S-51149)

Item text

Supporting documents

27. ¶ Request for City Council to Call to Meet in Executive Session on Monday, Aug.