Vote — approved

Thomas Galvin	yes
Kate Brophy McGee	yes
Mark Stewart	yes
Debbie Lesko	yes
Steve Gallardo	yes

Ayes: Thomas Galvin, Kate Brophy McGee, Mark Stewart, Debbie Lesko, Steve Gallardo

Item Text

6. PEAK VIEW Case #: Z2023060 Supervisor District: 4 Applicants/Owner: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC/GH Peak View Request: Zone change with overlay from Rural-43 to R1-35 RUPD Site Location: Generally located at the east side of 235th Ave north of Patton Rd. in the Wittman Area Commission Recommendation: On 4/24/25, the Commission voted 7-0 (motion by Commissioner Leighton D4, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez D5) to adopt a motion recommending the Board of Supervisors approve Z2023060 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘h’: a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning Exhibit entitled “Peakview Subdivision Zoning Exhibit “, consisting of 1 full-size sheet, dated December 9, 2024, and stamped received March 7, 2025, except as modified by the following conditions. Staff may determine slight refinements to remain in substantial conformance with the approved site plan. Minor and major amendments to the site plan will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. Within 30 days of Board of Supervisor approval, the applicant shall provide staff a revised zoning exhibit to reflect the 40 acres being rezoned. b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report entitled “Peak View Zone Change with Overlay Narrative”, consisting of 6 pages, dated February 4, 2025, and stamped received March 7, 2025, except as modified by the following conditions. Within 30 days of Board of Supervisor approval, the applicant shall provide staff a revised narrative report to reflect the 40 acres being rezoned. c. This rezone should only apply to 40 acres of parcel 503-34-033A, located outside of the 65 LDN. Future development of the eastern portion of the site, within the MAAMF overlay should be subject to a Military Compatibility Permit. d. The following R1-35 RUPD standards shall apply: 1. Minimum Lot Width measured from the required front yard setback: 130 ft. 2. Maximum Gross Density: 1 du/ac. e. 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 building lots/units, 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. A traffic impact study, grading and drainage plans, and drainage reports must be submitted with future entitlement (POD or Preliminary Plat) application(s). 3. Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR/LOMR) is required for the proposed subdivision. The CLOMR must be approved by the Flood Control District prior to approval of the Final Plat. The applicant’s decision to continue the design with the understanding that design is proceeding “At-Risk” considering FEMA has not approved the CLOMR/LOMR a. CLOMR/LOMR expectations are for homes/residents within the proposed subdivision does not have to incur extraordinary requirements such as limitations in development, flood insurance and other floodplain related restrictions. f. 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. g. 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. h. 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 with 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 value 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-44-25-097-X-00)

Attachments (1)