Z260046 PZ Report with attachments

Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: Z260046 – Happy Valley Commercial
Hearing Date: October 22, 2026
Supervisor District: 4
Applicant: Chris Webb, Rose Law Group
Owners: Sea Mink, LLC; Antlia, LLC; Imperial Agua Fria II, LLC; Imperial Agua Fria IV,
LLC
Request: Modification of Conditions to the C-3 CUPD zoning district (Z2024019)
Site Location: Generally located at the NEC of Happy Valley Pkwy. and 115th Ave., in the
Peoria area
Site Size: Approx. 11.45 acres
Density: N/A
County Island: Yes, City of Peoria
County Plan: White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan – Single Family/Transitional Lot
Municipal Plan: City of Peoria - Rural Residential & Parks/Open Space
Municipal Comments: None
Support/Opposition: None
Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Z260046
Page 1 of 5

Project Summary:
1. This request is a staff-initiated modification of conditions of the recently approved case
Z2024019. After the first Planning & Zoning Commission hearing on 7/23/26, the applicant was
granted a two-week continuance to work with the community on appropriate conditions to satisfy
concerns over the proximity of the development to nearby existing residences in the community.
Given the short timeframe, the applicant was unable to request updated conditions until closer to
the hearing. In the interim, staff drafted conditions based upon concerns heard at the hearing.
Condition d.1 originally read as follows:
1. Maximum building height: 30', except 40' for self-storage buildings and automobile
sales, service and rental uses
a. No building over 30 feet in height shall be located within 150 feet of
APN 201-21-040A.
2. On 8/5/26, one day before the second Commission hearing, the applicant provided updated
conditions they had negotiated with neighbors, which modified condition d.1. to read as follows:
d. The following C-3 CUPD standards shall apply:
1. Maximum building height: 30’, except 40’ for one self-storage buildings and
automobile sales, service and rental uses building, and 23’ for any buildings located
on APN’s 201-21-041D and/or 201-21-041E east of the floodway.
3. Staff inadvertently combined the two conditions to read as follows:
d. The following C-3 CUPD standards shall apply:
1. Maximum building height: 30’, except 40’ for one self-storage, automobile sales,
service and rental building, and 23’ for any buildings located on APNs 201-21-041D
and/or 201-21-041E east of the floodway. No building over 30 feet in height shall be
located within 150 feet of APN 201-21-040A.
This is the version that was approved by the Board of Supervisors on 9/2/26.
4. The agreed upon conditions by the applicant and the community should have been what was
recommended by the Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors. This report intends
to correct this typographical error. The revised condition reads as follows:
d. The following C-3 CUPD standards shall apply:
1. Maximum building height: 30', except 40' for one self-storage, automobile sales,
service and rental building, and 23' for any buildings located on APNs 201-21-041D
and/or 201-21-041E east of the floodway.
a. No building over 30 feet in height shall be located within 150 feet of
APN 201-21-040
Z260046
Page 2 of 5

Recommendation:
5. Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors
approve Z260046 subject to the following amended condition ‘d.1’ with the full list of conditions
'a' – 'o' shown below:
a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report
entitled "Happy Valley Commercial," consisting of 12 pages, dated August 4, 2026, except
as modified by the following conditions.
b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan entitled
"Conceptual Site Plan," consisting of 5 full-size sheets, dated February 17, 2026, 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 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. All offsite flows and drainage improvements along Happy Valley Parkway will need to
be coordinated and permitted through the City of Peoria.
3. A Traffic Study/Statement must be submitted with future entitlement (POD)
application(s). See following link to MCDOT Traffic Impact Manual (RDM 7.1.4):
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/303
4. There are Federal Patent Easements within the parcels. No encroachments are
allowed within the area unless abandoned.
5. Applicant must contact MCDOT for further interest in the Patent Easement
Abandonment Process.
6. The above comments do not include identification of utilities or underground facilities
within or adjacent to the required right-of-way that may have prior rights and/or require
relocation.
7. Applicant to notify ADOT of proposed development through the Red Letter Process,
RedLetter@azdot.gov, due to proximity to Loop 303.
8. The Site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Disturbance to any
floodplain will require a floodplain use permit concurrent with the building permit.
9. Happy Valley Parkway is within the jurisdiction of the City of Peoria. The applicant will
be responsible for coordinating with the City to review any traffic impact, right-of-way
dedication, permitting or roadway improvement requirements.
10. 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 current engineering policies,
standards and best practices at the time of application for construction.
d. The following C-3 CUPD standards shall apply:
1. Maximum building height: 30', except 40' for one self-storage, automobile sales,
service and rental building, and 23' for any buildings located on APNs 201-21-041D
and/or 201-21-041E east of the floodway.
2. Min. Front Setback: 10'/25' adjacent to any rural or residential zone boundary.
Z260046
Page 3 of 5

3. Min. Side Setback: 10'.
4. Min. Street-Side Setback: 10'.
5. Min. Rear Setback: 0'/25' adjacent to any rural or residential zone boundary.
6. Min. Perimeter Setback to automobile laundry vacuum equipment and wash bays: 100'
adjacent to any rural or residential zone boundary.
7. Min. Perimeter Setback to drive-through speaker/menu board: 200' adjacent to any
rural or residential zone boundary.
8. Min. Perimeter Setback to drive-through stacking lanes: 50' adjacent to any rural or
residential zone boundary.
9. Min. Perimeter Setback to loading docks and delivery areas: 80' adjacent to any rural
or residential zone boundary.
10. Min. Perimeter Setback to outdoor dining: 50' adjacent to any rural or residential zone
boundary.
11. Min. Perimeter Setback to outdoor amplified music: 150' adjacent to any rural or
residential zone boundary.
12. Min. Perimeter Setback to self-storage, automobile sales, service and rental buildings:
40' (for buildings under 30' in height) and 100' (for one building over 30' in height)
adjacent to any rural or residential zone boundary.
13. Min. Screening: 8' solid wall adjacent to the west side and rear property lines, and a 3'
parking screen wall adjacent to the east side property line, abutting any rural or
residential zone boundary.
14. Min. Parking per ordinance, except self-storage facility office area: 1 space per 300 SF
of floor area, and self-storage facility storage area: 1 space per 3,000 SF of floor area.
15. Min. Perimeter Setback to gasoline service stations: 100' adjacent to any rural or
residential zone boundary.
16. Min. Perimeter Setback to drive-thru restaurant refuse containers/dumpsters: 100'
adjacent to any rural or residential zone boundary.
17. Permitted Uses:
a. All permitted uses in C-1 per MCZO Section 601 excluding residential
uses;
b. Automobile laundry (aka car wash); drive-in restaurants and
refreshment stands;
c. Restaurants and cafes, including patios, cocktail lounges, and outside
dining and drinking areas;
d. Self-storage facilities;
e. Automobile sales, service, and rental; and
f. Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to the above.
e. Prior to approval of a Plan of Development, the applicant shall obtain City of Peoria
approval for all proposed access points onto Happy Valley Parkway.
f. 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.
g. Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this Zone Change
by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be grounds for revocation in
Z260046
Page 4 of 5

accordance with the requirements and procedures as set forth in the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
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.
j. The one self-storage, automobile sales, service and rental building over 30' in height shall
be located along the Happy Valley Parkway right-of-way, at the northeast corner of its
intersection with 115th Avenue.
k. No gasoline service stations or restaurants that include a drive-thru shall be permitted on
APNs 201-21-041D or 201-21-041E.
l. Any automobile laundry uses shall incorporate sound attenuation measures into the
building design and construction, as necessary, to ensure sound levels at any adjacent
residential property lines are no more than 55 dBA.
m. Outdoor amplified music shall not exceed 55 dBA measured at a distance of at least
twenty-five feet (25') from the property line of the property on which the noise source is
located.
n. The maximum final pad elevation for the one self-storage, automobile sales, service and
rental building over 30' in height shall be 1275'. The maximum final pad elevation for any
other buildings located on APN 201-21-043A shall be 1271'.
o. The existing 20' wide ingress, egress and utility easement on north side of APN 201-21-
043A, which benefits the residential properties to the north, shall remain accessible,
drivable, and undeveloped.
Presented by: Joel Landis, Planner
Reviewed by: Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor
Attachments: Case Map (1 page)
Email from Applicant re: Condition (2 pages)
Z260046
Page 5 of 5


10/2/26, 8:00 AM Mail - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
Outlook
RE: Plan Z2024019: Updated Staff Report Available
From Chris Webb <CWebb@roselawgroup.com>
Date Thu 9/10/2026 2:35 PM
To Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov>; Jon Gillespie <jgillespie@roselawgroup.com>; Darren Gerard
(PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>
Cc Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
3 attachments (11 MB)
Re: Plan Z2024019: Updated Staff Report Available; RE: Plan Z2024019: Updated Staff Report Available; Z2024019 Handout
Memo_2026.08.06.pdf;
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Joel, Darren & Rachel:
We need your help fixing a “typo” that somehow found its way into the final conditions of approval for this
case. Somehow nobody caught it, us included, until our engineer pointed it out to us yesterday. As you’ll
recall, one of the main sticking points here was reaching a mutually agreeable solution with our
neighbors on the location of the 3-story U-Haul building. We did reach an agreement with them, which
was well-documented, and it included the following; (i) it couldn’t be on the two northernmost parcels
(APN’s 201-21-041D & 041E), (ii) it had to be at least 100’ from any residentially zoned parcel, and (iii) it
had to be located along Happy Valley Parkway at the NEC of the intersection with 115th.
For some reason, condition of approval ‘d.1’ ended up with outdated language at the end of it that says
“No building over 30 feet in height shall be located within 150 feet of APN 201-21-040A”. We had asked
this to be removed after we reached our agreement with the neighbors, but for some reason it wasn’t,
and none of us noticed. Quick history reminder:
We first went to P&Z on 7/23 and got continued to 8/6 so we could try and reach an agreement
with our neighbors. At that point in time we were looking at a possible 150’ setback for the 3-story
building from APN 201-21-040A, but still allowing it on the two northernmost parcels. We
discussed this during the 7/23 hearing but the neighbors were not satisfied with that.
On 8/3, the staff report for the 8/6 P&Z hearing was issued and incorrectly referenced this 150’
setback we had been discussing with the neighbors (condition ‘d.1’). Keep in mind that on 8/3 we
had still not reached an agreement with them.
On 8/4, I emailed Staff indicating that we were close to reaching an agreement, and also pointed
out that the staff report incorrectly referenced a 150’ setback and needed to be corrected. Staff
replied and acknowledged that. See attached email.
On 8/5 we reached an agreement with the neighbors that did NOT include the above-referenced
150’ setback. The agreement regarding the 3-story building was exactly as outlined above: (i) it
couldn’t be on the two northernmost parcels (APN’s 201-21-041D & 041E), (ii) it had to be at least
100’ from any residentially zoned parcel, and (iii) it had to be located along Happy Valley Parkway
at the NEC of the intersection with 115th. This was to be memorialized via a “handout memo”
issued by Staff to P&Z with a modified set of conditions and documentation of our agreement with
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAMkADliNzA5Yzk4LWFjY2UtNGUxNi05NDc0LTE5N2FkNDdmMTI2YgBGAAAAAACc7QkU8G78QbNGKgvH… 1/20

10/2/26, 8:00 AM Mail - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
the neighbors. I have also attached my email providing this documentation. You can see that it
was to be addressed via the redlines to stips ‘d.1’, ‘d.12’ and ‘j’. This is what we agreed on with
the neighbors and the neighbors’ rep even emailed Staff to confirm this.
For some reason the “handout memo” issued to P&Z on 8/5 included the above revisions and
documentation of our agreement with the neighbors, but failed to remove the language about the
150’ setback from condition ‘d.1’ (see attached).
Unfortunately we didn’t notice this in the rush and chaos of getting this agreement done with the
neighbors.
Finally, this 150’ language in condition ‘d.1’ also stayed in the BOS staff report for the 9/2 BOS
hearing where the case was approved.
My intention here it not to case blame anywhere, honest mistakes by all of us, but we need to fix it as it
is 100% clear and understood by all of us that a 150’ setback was NOT our agreement with the
neighbors, we asked it to be removed from condition ‘d.1’ to accurately reflect our agreement, but it
inadvertently wasn’t. So, how do we quickly fix this? Can we call it a “typo” or “scrivener’s error” and
simply have an updated approval letter issued with the corrected condition? It has a big impact so its
really important. Thanks for your attention to this!
​Partner and Director of Land Development Solutions
7144 E Stetson Drive, Suite 300, Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Direct: 480.240.5648 F: 480.505.3925 Mobile: 602.214.6286
Subscribe to our newsletters!
.
roselawgroup.com roselawgroupreporter.com
.
@roselawgroup @roselawgroupmeta
RLG is Service​ :: ​Winner "Best places to work in Arizona"
The author of this email is not an attorney. This communication does not constitute legal advice and should not
be construed as such. The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential. It is intended only
to be read by the individual or entity named above or their designee. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at 480.505.3936 or
fax 480.505.3925 and delete or destroy any copy of this message. Thank you.
P Think green, please don't print unnecessarily
v04232021
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAMkADliNzA5Yzk4LWFjY2UtNGUxNi05NDc0LTE5N2FkNDdmMTI2YgBGAAAAAACc7QkU8G78QbNGKgvH… 2/20