Vote — approved

Bill Gates	yes
Clint Hickman	yes
Jack Sellers	yes
Thomas Galvin	yes
Steve Gallardo	yes

8.VILLAGES AT PLEASANT RIVER II Case #: Z2022119 Supervisor District: 4 Applicant & Owner: Brian Greathouse / EMC Management, LLC Request: Zone change from Rural-43 to R-5 RUPD Site Location: Generally located ¼ mile southeast of the SEC of Happy Valley Pkwy. and 115th Ave. in the Peoria area Commission Recommendation: On 10/20/22, the Commission voted 6-0, to recommend approval of Z2022119 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘j’: a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Z

Item Text

8. VILLAGES AT PLEASANT RIVER II Case #: Z2022119 Supervisor District: 4 Applicant & Owner: Brian Greathouse / EMC Management, LLC Request: Zone change from Rural-43 to R-5 RUPD Site Location: Generally located ¼ mile southeast of the SEC of Happy Valley Pkwy. and 115th Ave. in the Peoria area Commission Recommendation: On 10/20/22, the Commission voted 6-0, to recommend approval of Z2022119 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘j’: a. Development of the site shall be in subs tantial conformance with the Zoning Exhibit entitled “Villages at Pleasant River“, consisting of one full-size sheet, dated August 30, 2022, and stamped received August 31, 2022, except as modified by the following conditions. b. Development of the site s hall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report entitled “Villages at Pleasant River II”, consisting of nine pages, dated August 31,2022, and stamped received August 31, 2022, except as modified by the following conditions. c. The two propert ies (APN 201-21-057 and APN 201-21-049B) shall be combined prior to the submission of building permits. d. A Plan of Development of the single project must be approved prior to submission of any building permits. e. The following Planning Engineering comments shall apply: 1. The Drainage waiver DRB2021006 must be approved prior to issuance of any building permits. 2. There are Special Flood Hazard Areas on the site. Any encroachment into these Special Flood Haza rd Areas requires a Floodplain Use Permit issued concurrently with the building permit. 3. The project site is within the jurisdiction of Maricopa County. However, Happy Valley Parkway adjacent to the site is under the City of Peoria jurisdiction. Develop er must coordinate with the City of Peoria for approval of proposed access onto Happy Valley Parkway. 4. The County has no objections to the proposed site access on 115th Avenue utilizing future QT commercial driveway. However, if the proposed development is constructed prior to the planned QT facility, developer must provide half-street improvements on 115th Avenue as outlined in the approved QT master plan by Maricopa County. 5. The proposed development is located in a Federal Patent Easement Area. App licant will be required to go through Federal Patent Easement Abandonment Process prior to building permit approval. No encroachments allowed within the patent easements unless abandoned or otherwise approved by MCDOT Planning. 6. A 60-foot replacement ea sement will be required for a local roadway along the eastern boundary of the proposed development to provide access for neighboring properties. 7. The proposed development is located along a section line alignment on the south requiring setbacks be based upon a future half width right-of-way of 55-feet, per Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 1105. However, this section line requirement along the south property line is no longer required. 8. The subject site is not located within the County’s Urban ized Area; and thus, will not require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) from the County. This does NOT preclude the requirement to obtain a Construction General Permit (CGP) Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOI) from the State (ADEQ), as may be required. 9. Without the submittal of a precise plan of development, no development approval is implied by this review, including, but not limited to drainage design, access and roadway alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans progr ess and are submitted to the County for further review and/or entitlement. 10. Any development must ensure that historic drainage patterns are maintained at the up and downstream limits of development. 11. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time o f application for construction. f. The required infrastructure of the site must be permitted in conjunction or prior the submission of permits for individual housing units. Any phasing shall be identified on site plans of the Plan of Development. If infra structure is to be phased, the phased improvement must be able to stand alone, and the phased infrastructure must be completed prior to the housing units being served by that infrastructure. g. The following R-5 RUPD development standards shall apply: 1. Minimum front yard of three feet. 2. Minimum rear yard of three feet. 3. Minimum interior side yard of three feet. 4. Minimum street side yard of three feet. 5. Required guest parking of zero percent. 6. Maximum height for residential perimeter wall signs of eight feet. h. Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for initiating a revocation of this zone change as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance . i. The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution in value if the County takes action to rescind approval due to noncompliance with conditions. j. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply wi th any condition, the property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone Change enhances the v alue of the property above its value as of the date the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted. (C-44-23-129-X-00)

Attachments (1)