Vote — approved

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

Ayes: Bill Gates, Clint Hickman, Jack Sellers, Steve GallardoRecused: Thomas Galvin

Item Text

8. SWC 115TH & HAPPY VALLEY COMMERCIAL Case #: Z2022151 Supervisor District: 4 Applicant & Owners: Chris Webb, Rose Law Group pc / Imperial Development LLC Request: Zone Change with Overlay Rural – 43 to C-2 CUPD Site Location: Approximately 310’ south of the SWC of Happy Valley Rd. and 115th Ave. Commission Recommendation: On 1/12/23, the Commission voted 8-0, to recommend approval of Z2022151 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘f’: a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning Exhibit entitled “Overall sit e Plan“ , consisting of 1 full-size sheets, dated December 12, 2022 and stamped received December 12, 2022, except as modified by the following conditions. Staff may determine slight refinements to remain in substantial conformance with the approved site pl an. Minor and major amendments to the site plan will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report entitled “SWC 115th Ave and Happy Valley Road”, consisting of 17 pages, dated December 12, 2022 and stamped received December 12, 2022, except as modified by the following conditions. c. The following Planning Engineering Conditions shall apply: 1. Without the submittal of a precise plan of development, no development approval is inferred by this review, including, but not limited to number of proposed site layout, drainage design, access, and roadway alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans progress and are submitted to the County for further review and/or entitlement. 2. An updated traffic impact study addressing MCDOT’s comments must be submitted with future entitlement (POD) application(s). 3. Engineering review of re-zone cases is conceptual in nature. 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 c urrent engineering policies, standards, and best practices at the time of application for construction. d. The following CUPD standards shall apply: 1. Uses Permitted: a. Uses allowed in C-1 b. Automobile laundry c. Drive-in restaurants & refreshmen t stands d. Restaurants & cafes including patios, cocktail lounges, and outside dinning and drinking areas e. Retail stores f. Self-storage facilities g. Accessory uses incidental to the above 2. Min. setback of speaker box to rural or residential zon ing districts: 50’ 3. Min. site screening: 3’ parking screen wall e. Administrative approval of a Plan of Development will be required prior to approval and issuance of construction permits to develop and establish use of the site. Prior to issuance of a building permit, written confirmation will be required from the emergency fire protection jurisdiction having authority that the facility has been designed in accordance with their regulations and requirements, and that emergency fire protect ion service will be provided to the facility. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, local fire protection jurisdiction review and approval will be required. f. 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 wit h 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 t he 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 va lue 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-44-23-184-X-00)

Attachments (5)