Vote: approved

Item Text

8. BALTERRA (Supervisorial District: 4) Case #: Z260018 Applicant and Owner: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC / Balterra Partners 590 Acres LLC Request: Zone change from Rural-43 to IND-2 IUPD Site Location: Generally located SE of the SEC of 411th Ave. & Camelback Rd. in the Buckeye area Commission Recommendation: On 8/6/26, the Commission voted 7-0 (motion by Commissioner Rochwalik D3, seconded by Commissioner Whitney D3) to adopt a motion recommending the Board of Supervisors approve case Z260018 subject to conditions ‘a’ to ‘i’: a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning Exhibit entitled “Balterra”, stamped approved June 17, 2026, except as modified by the following conditions. b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the narrative report entitled “Balterra”, consisting of 9 pages, stamped approved June 17, 2026, except as modified by the following conditions. c. Prior to grading the site, Developer shall complete and submit an archaeological/historical review to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). d. 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 protection 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. e. The applicant shall provide “Will Serve” letters for all utilities/service providers prior to issuance of building permits. f. The following IUPD development standards shall apply: 1. Maximum Height: 85 feet 2. Minimum Parking: Warehouse/Data Center Uses: 1 space per 2,500 square feet 3. Minimum Screening: 6-foot CMU wall, unless adjacent to a rural or residential zoning district, then 8-foot solid wall g. The following Engineering conditions shall apply: 1. Further entitlement for this parcel will require a plan of development. Plan of Developments require detailed grading and drainage plans, drainage report and Traffic impact study. 2. 100yr 2hr onsite retention is required to be shown during the POD phase. 3. Each phase of development will require a plan of development and Traffic Impact Study. Each phase must be able to stand alone with respect to site infrastructure, including utilities, access and storm water management. 4. R/W dedication and offsite improvement requirements will be determined by MCDOT. Traffic Design and MCDOT Planning based on submittal of a Traffic Impact Analysis/Traffic Impact Study. 5. At least two (2) points of access will be required to serve each phase of development. 6. The site is encumbered by a regulatory floodplain (FEMA Zone A). Development of the site as proposed will require re-delineation of the floodplains through the FEMA CLOMR/LOMR process (administered through the Flood Control District). For more information on this process, please contact the Flood Control District Stacey.Lapp@Maricopa.Gov. 7. Engineering and drainage review was based on a zone change without a plan of development. Therefore, 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. 8. Engineering review of re-zone cases is conceptual in nature. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 905 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 of application for construction. 9. The County does not provide fire service, therefore, it is incumbent that the applicant seek service and approval of plans from the jurisdictional fire service provider. h. 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. i. 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 may be considered for revocation 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-44-27-024-X-00)

Attachments (2)