Extracted text (via pymupdf)
134137 characters
August 17, 2022
CPA2021009
Page 1 of 3
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date:
August 17, 2022
Case #/Title:
CPA2021009 – Santa Barbara Ranch
Supervisor District:
4
Applicant/Owners:
Tiffany & Bosco / Sunrise Airpark LLC, Surprise Commercial
Development LLC, Surprise Industrial Properties LLC, and
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona LLC
Request:
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change
the land use designation in the White Tank/Grand Avenue
Area Plan from Rural Residential (0 – 1 d.u./ac.) to Single-
Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.). CPA case approval is
by Resolution, attached.
Site Location:
Generally located north of the U.S. 60, south of Hwy 74, west
of the 243rd Ave. road alignment, and east of the 251st Ave.
road alignment in the Morristown area
Site Size:
Approx. 1,003 acres
County Island Status:
N/A
Additional
Comments:
At the May 18th Board of Supervisors’ hearing the case was
remanded to the Planning and Zoning Commission to
evaluate the request with the change in land use category
to Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.).
Most of staff’s concerns with this Major CPA request to
achieve a density range of 3 – 5 d.u./ac. have been
addressed with the project modifications. The applicant has
gained City support and are set up for further discussions to
obtain
future
Pre-Annexation,
Development,
and
Utilities/Services agreements with the City of Surprise. If this
CPA were to be approved, the related Zone Change request
(Z2021078) would be subject to more detailed parameters for
how traffic/access, open space, lot sizes, buffer areas, and
commercial
land
use/zoning
designations
would
be
incorporated into the overall future plan and site layout for
Santa Barbara Ranch.
At the 7/21/222 Commission hearing there was one area
resident that spoke in opposition regarding water and sewer
August 17, 2022
CPA2021009
Page 2 of 3
service with the City of Surprise and cost impacts the project
would have to residents in the City and surrounding vicinity.
The Commission was provided additional documentation
that included 1 e-mail in support and 1 e-mail in opposition.
The total public comment figures are as follows as of the
completion of the Board report: 5 in support, 67 in opposition
and a single petition in opposition with 163 signatures.
There are no outstanding concerns from reviewing agencies.
Commission
Recommendation:
On 7/21/22, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of CPA2021009 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘d’:
a.
Development and use of the site shall be in general conformance with the
narrative report entitled “Santa Barbara Ranch” consisting of 24 pages, dated
stamped received on October 15, 2021, except as modified by the following
conditions. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall provide staff with an
updated narrative report covering the changes as discussed within the applicant
provided memo dated April 21, 2022.
b.
The land use designation of Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.) approved
as part of case CPA2021009 shall be subject to any time limits set forth in the
subsequent zone change. The following requirements shall be applied to any
future development for this site:
1.
Minimum 80 gross acres to be used for commercial land uses.
2.
Minimum 150 gross acres to be reserved for open space. No less than 30
gross acres to be dedicated for active/recreational open space.
3.
Maximum residential dwelling units shall not exceed 5,000.
4.
Maximum of 832 gross acres to be used for residential land uses.
c.
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 uses 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 land use designation 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 change of
the land use. The land use enhances the value of the property above its value as
of the date the land use change is granted and reverting to the prior land use
designation results in the same value of the property as if the land use change had
never been granted.
d.
The following Luke Air Force Base condition shall apply:
August 17, 2022
CPA2021009
Page 3 of 3
The owner or developer shall notify future occupants/tenants that they are
located near a military airport with the following language:
“You are locating in a residential dwelling inside the “territory in the vicinity of a
military airport,” however aircraft flying in this area are authorized to fly as low as
1,500 feet above the ground. You will be subject to direct overflights and noise by
Luke Air Force Base jet aircraft in the vicinity.
Luke Air Force Base executes an average of approximately 165 overflights per day.
Although Luke’s primary flight paths are located within 20 miles from the base, jet
noise will be apparent throughout the area as aircraft transient to and from the
Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range and other flight areas.
Luke Air Force Base may launch and recover aircraft in either direction off its
runways oriented to the southwest and northeast. Noise will be more noticeable
during overcast sky conditions due to noise reflections off the clouds.
Luke Air Force Base’s normal flying hours extend from 7:00 a.m. until approximately
midnight, Monday through Friday, but some limited flying will occur outside these
hours and during most weekends.
For further information, please check the Luke Air Force Base website at
www.luke.af.mil/urbandevelopment or contact the Maricopa County Planning
and Development Department.”
Such notification shall be permanently posted on not less than a 3 foot by 5 foot
sign in front of all leasing or home sales offices and be permanently posted on the
front door of all leasing offices on not less than 8½ inch by 11 inch sign.
Reviewed by:
Darren Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
7/21/22 P&Z Packet (202 pages)
7/21/22 PZ Handouts (1 support & 1 opposition 3 pages)
Updated land use exhibit (1 page)
CPA2021009 Resolution (2 pages)
Note:
7/21/22 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report, but can
be provided upon request later when available.
CPA2021009
Page 1 of 13
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
CPA2021009 – Santa Barbara Ranch
Hearing Date:
July 21, 2022 (remanded to P&Z at May 18, 2022 BOS)
Supervisor District:
4
Applicant:
Tiffany & Bosco
Owners:
Sunrise Airpark LLC, Surprise Commercial Development LLC, Surprise
Industrial Properties LLC, and Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona
LLC
Request:
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change the land
use designation in the White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan from
Rural Residential (0 – 1 d.u./ac.) to Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 –
5 d.u./ac.)
Site Location:
Generally located north of the U.S. 60, south of Hwy 74, west of the
243rd Ave. road alignment, and east of the 251st Ave. road
alignment in the Morristown area
Site Size:
Approx. 1,003 acres
Density:
Approx. 5 d.u./ac.
County Island:
No
County Plan:
White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan – Rural Residential (0 -1
d.u./ac.)
Municipal Plan:
City of Surprise – Neighborhood, Open Space, and Commerce &
Office Character Areas
Municipal Comments:
Surprise – support; Apache Junction - no concerns
Support/Opposition:
4 documents of support/66 documents of opposition and/or
concerns (including duplicate individuals) and 1 petition of
opposition with 163 signatures
Recommendation:
Approve with conditions
CPA2021009
Page 2 of 13
Project Summary:
1.
Tiffany & Bosco is requesting a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change
the land use designation in the White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan from Rural
Residential (0 – 1 d.u./ac.) to Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.) for the subject
site. The proposal is to allow for future development of a single-family residential
subdivision with commercial and open space. There is a related request for a Zone
Change with Overlay (Z2021078) on the subject site from Rural-43 to R1-6 RUPD. This case
was indefinitely continued at the request of the applicant at the November 4, 2021 P&Z
hearing.
2.
The site is comprised of fifteen (15) private contiguous parcels under four separate
ownerships (see the “Parcel/Ownership Exhibit” within the attached narrative report). The
subject site is generally located north of the U.S. 60, south of Hwy 74, west of the 243rd
Ave. road alignment (southern portion is adjacent to 239th Ave.), and east of the 251st
Ave. road alignment in the Morristown area. The site is approximately 3.8 miles from the
City of Surprise jurisdiction to the east starting near 211th Ave. Surrounding properties are
zoned Rural-43 and are mostly vacant with some existing single-family residential
development contiguous to the west of the site where Morristown is located. To the south
of the property across U.S. 60 is Circle City with some existing single-family residential
development. Also, to the south of Circle City is a Development Master Plan (DMP) known
as Broadstone Ranch. This DMP includes multiple land use designation and has since
been rezoned to different rural, residential and commercial zoning districts. There is also
Walden Ranch and Rancho Maria DMP’s to the south of Broadstone Ranch.
3.
This CPA was remanded back to the P&Z at the May 18, 2022 BOS hearing to further
discuss at the Commission. It was previously continued at the December 8, 2021 BOS
hearing. Since this hearing, staff has received a City of Surprise support letter from Mayor
Skip Hall to add to the already 3 letters of support received from the City of Surprise. Since
the last P&Z hearing for this case back on November 18, 2021 and as presented at the
last BOS hearing, the applicant has agreed to include a minimum of 80 gross acres
reserved for commercial land use, minimum open space at 150 gross acres with at least
30 of these acres for dedicated active/recreational open space, limiting the maximum
residential dwelling units to 5,000 (within the density range being requested) and limiting
the maximum gross acreage reserved for residential land uses to 832 gross acres.
4.
The applicant’s narrative asserts that the proposed development meets the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria in the following manner (quoted responses
from related narrative):
Whether the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the Comprehensive Plan
and is not solely for the good or benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a particular
point in time.
“The WTGA Area Plan designates the area already for single family uses at a lesser density.
The minor increase in density from maximum two (2) d.u./ac. to five (5) d.u./ac. will allow
for appropriate planning of infrastructure (water, sewer, paved roads) as well as
community amenities such as community and neighborhood parks, schools and worship
CPA2021009
Page 3 of 13
uses. A coordinated and planned approach such as this proposal is an overall
improvement to the Comprehensive Plan, the surrounding community and the County.
Although Applicant requests amending the Comprehensive Plan of approximately 1,003
acres for Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.), Applicant will consider stipulations in
the companion rezone case (Z2021078) to guarantee a variety of residential sizes and
product types. Furthermore, the companion rezone case (Z2021078) will consider
stipulations for requiring supporting uses and construction of integrated roadways and
utilities throughout the Property when development eventually occurs. The City of Surprise
will ultimately oversee the development and infrastructure of the Property as a
development agreement will be in executed prior to approval of the companion zoning
case (Z2021078).”
Whether the amendment will adversely impact all or a portion of the planning area.
A.
Altering acceptable land use patterns to the detriment of the plan
“The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will not be to the detriment of
the plan. The Amendment will be a net positive to the area. The existing land use
designation is single family residential use and the proposed land use is single
family residential use. The increase in density allows for a coordinated and
planned residential development adjacent to primarily large undeveloped and
unplanned ASLD parcels. The companion rezone case (Z2021078) is considering
stipulations and additional amendments to the land plan to meet the expected
future needs of the area, namely, providing a well-rounded community with
sufficient residential, open space, commercial and school components.
Approximately fifteen (15) privately owned parcels are adjacent to this 1,000+
acre proposal. Approximately half of those private parcels are developed within
the County’s RU-43 zoning district.”
B.
Requiring public expenditures for larger or more expensive infrastructure
“The cost of the infrastructure will be borne by the developers in the future. Certain
necessities such as schools may certainly require public expenditure; however, this
would not be for a number of years until growth in the area takes hold. Applicant
does not foresee any necessary large public expenditures to infrastructure at the
moment that fall within the scope of the plan.”
C.
Requiring public improvements to roads, sewer, or water systems that are needed
to support the planned land uses
“The increase in density will result in the preservation of wash corridors and require
the developers or home builders to construct the public improvements including
roads, sewer or water systems to support the increase in density. Single family
residential was designated within the WTGA Area Plan and this proposal continues
that land use. At whatever point in time a residential development moves forward
on any phase of the Property, all of the infrastructure will have to be planned and
approved by either the County, or Surprise if annexed into the City. Moreover, the
companion rezone case (Z2021078) will include supporting land uses to
supplement the residential neighborhoods such as open space and schools. The
CPA2021009
Page 4 of 13
Property will also contain areas capable of a retail and office component to
bolster the area.
The proposal will be able to complete major roads through the Property and
connect to SR 74 and U.S. 60 for access. All of the construction and connection
costs would be borne by the developer at the time of development. Additional
roadway connections and accessibility to two (2) major valley transportation
corridors is sound planning for the request increase in density. The increase in
density allows for open space preservation, planning and community and
neighborhood parks. Current development within the RU-43 zoning classification
does not provide for any community amenities or open space preservation on
private property. The provision of these types of amenities improves the livability of
the area. With density, neighborhoods are created, social interaction is increased
and livability improves the health and safety of the present and future residents.”
D.
Adversely impacting planned uses because of increased traffic
“The area is currently designated for single family residential and will remain single
family residential under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The projected
density of the area will increase under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
the companion rezone case (Z2021078), but this is not to the detriment of the plan
or to the area. The SR 74 and US 60 currently provide two (2) major points of access
for the Property. When development of the Property does eventually occur,
proper street infrastructure will be constructed by the developers to handle the
projected traffic. The companion rezone case (Z2021078) will include stipulations
to provides for integrated roadways throughout the neighborhoods that will
eventually be developed on the Property.”
E.
Affecting the livability of the area or health or safety of present and future residents
“While the livability of an area is a subjective standard, this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would ultimately set the tone for a harmonious development
capable of supplying the residential needs of future residents. The health and
safety of the area and surrounding area will remain unchanged at a minimum and
will likely be improved. The addition of a higher density residential area will
ultimately require fire and safety services be provided to the area. An agreement
with the City of Surprise is currently in discussions and it is expected that the City
will provide these services when development is undertaken.”
F.
Adversely impacting the natural environment or scenic quality of the area in
contradiction to the plan
“The concentration of density into smaller lots allows for the larger wash corridors
to be preserved and even enhanced with some passive and active open space
areas. This can be accomplished by creating tracts, separate from on lot
drainage, which is the current make-up of the wash corridors in this area, and
provide for amenities for present and future residents. Planned residential
neighborhoods, while preserving key open space and environmental features is
not in contradiction to the Comprehensive Plan.”
CPA2021009
Page 5 of 13
Whether the amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
“As stated above, the current intent of the Comprehensive Plan is for this 1,003 acres to
develop with single family uses. The proposed land use amendment is to develop the
same single family uses albeit at a higher density. Single family to single family is consistent
with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan. With the additional density comes a
broader planning of the Property for coordinated access and roadway connections,
infrastructure, open space and wash preservation, community amenities and the
creation of neighborhoods. These factors ensures the amendment is consistent with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.”
The extent to which the amendment is consistent with the specific goals and policies
contained within the plan.
The applicant’s narrative contains a substantial list of Goals and Policies from the Vision
2030 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan. This staff report identifies which Goals and
Policies the applicant’s narrative addressed. Specific information from the applicant
regarding these goals and policies is included in their narrative report.
Vision 2030 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element – Goal 1, Policy 2, Policy 4, Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 26
Transportation Element – Goal 3, Policy 4
Environment Element – Goal 1
Economic Growth Element – Goal 1, Policy 9
Growth Area Element – Goal 1
Open Space Element – Goal 4
Water Resources Element – Goal 1
Energy Element – Goal 3
Cost of Development Element – Goal 2
White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan
Land Use Element – Goal L1, Objective L3.3
Transportation Element – Goal T1
Environment Element – Goal E1, Objective E1.1
Economic Development – Goal ED1
CPA2021009
Page 6 of 13
2021 Aerial Map
Zoning Map - Rural-43 & Surrounding Districts
CPA2021009
Page 7 of 13
Land Use Exhibit – Current Land Use (Rural Development Area)
Land Use Exhibit – Proposed Land Use (Single Family Transitional Lot)
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
5.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Vacant
North:
Rural-43 (ASLD) then highway/ Vacant then Hwy 74
South:
Rural-43 then highway/ Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad then
U.S. 60
East:
Rural-43 (partially ASLD) / Vacant
West:
Rural-43 / Vacant and single-family residential
Utilities and Services:
6.
Water:
TBD – EPCOR or City of Surprise
Wastewater:
TBD – EPCOR or City of Surprise
Electric:
APS
School Districts:
Morristown Elementary School District #75
Nadaburg Unified School District #81
Fire:
TBD – Rural Metro or City of Surprise
Police:
TBD – MCSO or City of Surprise
CPA2021009
Page 8 of 13
Right-of-Way:
7.
The following table includes existing and future right-of-way and the future classification
based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Major Streets
and Routes Plan.
Street Name
Existing R/W
Future R/W*
Future
Classification**
243rd Ave.
Varies
100’ (half-width)
Parkway
Additional Section and
Mid-Section Alignments
Varies
55’ and 40’ (half-
widths)
Section and Mid-
Section
Alignments
** Required dedication/preservation and future classification of ROW is tentative and
subject to change and will be established by MCDOT during a future Plan of
Development review.
Adopted Plan:
8.
Maricopa County White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan: The entire site (approx. 1,003
acres) is designated as Rural Residential (0-1 d.u./ac.). The Rural Residential (0 – 1
d.u./ac.) land use designation encourages low-density rural residential and agricultural
uses.
9.
City of Surprise General Plan 2035: Most of the site lies within the Neighborhood Character
Area which supports a variety of residential densities. The northeastern corner of the site,
as well as the southernmost portion of the site have portions within the Commerce and
Office Character Area, which supports Residential / Commercial Mixed Use, Regional
Commercial, and Commercial Office uses. Lastly, a portion of the westernmost parcel
crosses a portion of the Open Space Character Area.
10.
Scenic Corridors: The subject site is also located within two Scenic Corridors: Wickenburg
Highway Scenic Corridor and Highway 74 Scenic Corridor. Both of these scenic corridors
have regulations per the MCZO Chapter 10 Overlay Zoning Districts which would need to
be discussed with the related Zone Change request.
Public Participation Summary:
11.
The applicant posted the subject site and staff notified all property owners within 300’ of
the site. Pursuant to state law, staff issued enhanced notification letters to all adjacent
and internal jurisdictions to Maricopa County, select state and regional agencies, and
Luke Air Force Base (LAFB). LAFB stated that the site is within a territory in the vicinity of a
military airport. Staff received documents from two jurisdictions (City of Surprise and City
of Apache Junction) expressing no concerns. The City of Surprise provided four separate
memos with three of these memos including support for the request from the Mayor,
Community
Development
Department,
and
Water
Resources
Management
Department. Moreover, state agencies such as ADOT, ASLD, and SHPO also issued
comments. ADOT provided no objections, and ASLD issued an email with no objections
but indicated the need for future coordination for access to Hwy 74. Staff also received
an email from the Superintendent for the Nadaburg Unified School District and Morristown
CPA2021009
Page 9 of 13
Elementary District. The applicant has reached out and mentions that discussions are
ongoing.
12.
County staff has received 4 received support documents, approximately 66 opposition
and/or concerns documents and a signed petition of opposition with 163 signatures
(originally presented with a memo to the BOS on December 8, 2021). The applicant also
provided staff with an updated Public Participation Report, where details were included
regarding a neighborhood meeting held on September 30, 2021 at an on-site ranch
house to discuss the subject request and the related zone change. Approximately 75
individuals attended the meeting and the applicant listed the following community
concerns based on each topic:
• Water
- General water availability
- Shrinking water table for domestic water wells
- Where does City of Surprise access water?
- Access for wastewater
• Traffic
- Increased traffic along SR 74 and US 60
- Increased traffic within Morristown
- Traffic safety and an increase in usage of surrounding dirt roads
- Access to the Property over the railroad parallel to US 60
- Unwanted street lights
• Housing
- Proposed application has higher density than surrounding area
- Will subdivision be age restricted?
- Height of potential buildings
• Services
- Who will provide fire and police services?
- Access to post office
- Location and availability of schools for future residents / which
school district?
• General
- Future annexation into City of Surprise
- Will developments be an island or connect to City of Surprise
- Destruction of natural vegetation, wildlife, trails
- Tax increase
- Crime
- Homeowner’s insurance increase due to crime
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
13.
N/A
CPA2021009
Page 10 of 13
Staff Analysis:
14.
As discussed within the May 18, 2022 BOS short report, staff believes this comprehensive
plan amendment request is supportable at this time. The applicant worked to address
project deficiencies that were previously detailed within the original P&Z staff report.
Please see the attached memo from the applicant outlining project modifications since
the November 11, 2021 P&Z staff report was authored. Staff notes that most of their
concerns with this Major CPA request have been address with the project modifications
as detailed below:
•
Urban/Municipal Services: The City of Surprise support indicates that the owner
and applicant have been discussing future agreements to provide city level
services including water, wastewater, police, and fire. Applicant is also in
discussions with the local school district.
•
Open Space: The applicant has updated the 150 acres of proposed open space
area to also require no less than 30 gross acres to be designated for
active/recreational open space. This would ensure that if the site develops in the
future, this community would have usable open space (trails, parks, sports fields,
etc.) in addition to other non-developable open space including washes.
•
Transportation/Site Access: Future site access points to be determined, with most
likely access to Hwy 74 through State Trust Land. There is mention that
ingress/egress would also be from the US 60. This part is still a staff concern but
would involve further technical review with traffic studies and coordination with
ADOT, ASLD, and BNSF. Which would be required for evaluation if related and
future entitlements move forward.
•
Balanced and Additional Land Uses: Staff raised concerns with the original
proposal only including residential land uses for such a large-scale development.
The applicant has since agreed to set aside no less than 80 gross acres of the site
for commercial land uses. This along with residential, open space, and possible
school site(s), would provide a variety of options for development of a more
complete community. The applicant also includes an exhibit showing BNSF
acquiring a large amount of acreage from ASLD adjacent to the eastern
boundary of the subject site. This potential development could create more
employment opportunities for the area and a need for housing within availability
of larger communities in the nearby vicinity.
15. The applicant has gained City support and are set up for further discussions to obtain
future Pre-Annexation, Development, and Utilities/Services agreements with the City of
Surprise. If this CPA were to be approved, the related Zone Change request (Z2021078)
would be subject to more detailed parameters for how traffic/access, open space, lot
sizes, buffer areas, and commercial land use/zoning designations would be incorporated
into the overall future plan and site layout for Santa Barbara Ranch.
16. With staff’s updated recommendation in support of this request based on the discussion
above, staff recommends changes to suggested conditions ‘a’ & ‘b’, for the P&Z to
consider for approval of this Major CPA:
CPA2021009
Page 11 of 13
Proposed changes to suggested condition ‘a’:
a.
Development and use of the site shall be in general conformance with the
narrative report entitled “Santa Barbara Ranch” consisting of 24 pages, dated
stamped received on October 15, 2021, except as modified by the following
conditions. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall provide staff with an
updated narrative report covering the changes as discussed within the applicant
provided memo dated April 21, 2022.
Proposed changes to suggested condition ‘b’:
b.
The land use designation of Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.) approved
as part of case CPA2021009 shall be subject to any time limits set forth in the
subsequent zone change. The following requirements shall be applied to any
future development for this site:
1.
Minimum 80 gross acres to be used for commercial land uses.
2.
Minimum 150 gross acres to be reserved for open space. No less than 30 gross
acres to be dedicated for active/recreational open space.
3.
Maximum residential dwelling units shall not exceed 5,000.
4.
Maximum of 832 gross acres to be used for residential land uses.
Recommendation:
17. For the reasons outlined in this report, staff recommends the Commission motion for
Approval of CPA2021009 with conditions ‘a’ – ‘d’ for Commission consideration:
a.
Development and use of the site shall be in general conformance with the
narrative report entitled “Santa Barbara Ranch” consisting of 24 pages, dated
stamped received on October 15, 2021, except as modified by the following
conditions. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall provide staff with an
updated narrative report covering the changes as discussed within the applicant
provided memo dated April 21, 2022.
b.
The land use designation of Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.) approved
as part of case CPA2021009 shall be subject to any time limits set forth in the
subsequent zone change. The following requirements shall be applied to any
future development for this site:
1.
Minimum 80 gross acres to be used for commercial land uses.
2.
Minimum 150 gross acres to be reserved for open space. No less than 30
gross acres to be dedicated for active/recreational open space.
3.
Maximum residential dwelling units shall not exceed 5,000.
4.
Maximum of 832 gross acres to be used for residential land uses.
c.
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
CPA2021009
Page 12 of 13
the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the uses 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 land use designation 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 change of
the land use. The land use enhances the value of the property above its value as
of the date the land use change is granted and reverting to the prior land use
designation results in the same value of the property as if the land use change had
never been granted.
d.
The following Luke Air Force Base condition shall apply:
The owner or developer shall notify future occupants/tenants that they are
located near a military airport with the following language:
“You are locating in a residential dwelling inside the “territory in the vicinity of a
military airport,” however aircraft flying in this area are authorized to fly as low as
1,500 feet above the ground. You will be subject to direct overflights and noise by
Luke Air Force Base jet aircraft in the vicinity.
Luke Air Force Base executes an average of approximately 165 overflights per day.
Although Luke’s primary flight paths are located within 20 miles from the base, jet
noise will be apparent throughout the area as aircraft transient to and from the
Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range and other flight areas.
Luke Air Force Base may launch and recover aircraft in either direction off its
runways oriented to the southwest and northeast. Noise will be more noticeable
during overcast sky conditions due to noise reflections off the clouds.
Luke Air Force Base’s normal flying hours extend from 7:00 a.m. until approximately
midnight, Monday through Friday, but some limited flying will occur outside these
hours and during most weekends.
For further information, please check the Luke Air Force Base website at
www.luke.af.mil/urbandevelopment or contact the Maricopa County Planning
and Development Department.”
Such notification shall be permanently posted on not less than a 3 foot by 5 foot
sign in front of all leasing or home sales offices and be permanently posted on the
front door of all leasing offices on not less than 8½ inch by 11 inch sign.
CPA2021009
Page 13 of 13
Prepared by:
Matthew Holm, AICP, Planning Supervisor
Presented by:
Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Applicant Memo from 4/21/22 (11 pages)
Narrative Report (24 pages)
Land Use/Road Alignments Exhibit (1 page)
MCESD Comments (1 page)
MC Parks Email (1 page)
City of Surprise Mayor’s Support Letter (2 pages)
City of Surprise Comments (8 pages)
City of Apache Junction Memo (1 page)
ADOT Email (1 page)
ASLD Email (1 page)
LAFB Email (2 pages)
SHPO Email (1 page)
School District Email (2 pages)
Support documents (5 pages)
Opposition/Concerns documents (104 pages)
Opposition Petition Document (21 pages)
Opposition (2 pages)
MARICOPA COUNTY
Legal Description:
T6N, R3W, Sections 20, 28, 29, 32, & 33
Applicant: Tiffany & Bosco
P&Z Hearing Date:
November 18, 2021
MARICOPA COUNTY REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PHOENIX, ARIZONA
CPA2021009
Aerial Date: 2021
Case Address: TBD
Parcels: 503-13-003 +
SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT NO 4
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation in the White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan from
Rural Development Area (0 – 1 d.u./ac.) to Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.)
Phone: 602-255-6000
1
William E. Lally
Attorney at Law
602.452.2716
wel@tblaw.com
April 21st, 2022
From: William E. Lally
To:
Tom Ellsworth, Darren Gerard, and Ray Banker
RE:
Santa Barbara Ranch Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2021009)
The purpose of this correspondence is to address the deficiencies detailed in the Report to the
Planning and Zoning Commission regarding CPA2021009 – Santa Barbara Ranch (“Property”)
which was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 18th, 2021 and the
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on December 8th, 2021.
1. Sufficient potable water service and sewer service.
Skip Hall, Mayor of City of Surprise (“City”), confirmed in a letter that the City and the
Applicant are expected to enter into a Pre-Annexation, Development, and Services
Agreement which includes water and sewer services provided by the City prior to
annexation. See Exhibit A – Letter from Mayor Skip Hall dated March 25th, 2022.
Furthermore, Lee Lambert, City of Surprise Water Resource Management Department
Director, confirmed that the proposed solutions for water and sewer are sufficient to
accommodate the increased demands from the projects because of the multiple recharge
basins and reclaimed water reuse. See Exhibit B – Letter from Lee Lambert dated October
6th, 2021. Applicant suggests including a stipulation in the companion rezone case (Z2021078)
which requires the execution of a Pre-Annexation, Development and Services Agreement
with the City of Surprise which confirms water and sewer services prior to approval of a final
plat.
2. Adequate park, recreation and community facilities are available and proximate to serve
new residents.
The narrative for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment does not provide specific detail for
the parks, recreation and community facilities which will be available to new residents.
However, Applicant suggests approval of a stipulation in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA2021009) which requires at least 150 acres of total open space including 30
acres of active open space within the Property.
2
William E. Lally
Attorney at Law
602.452.2716
wel@tblaw.com
Applicant also suggests including stipulations in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) for a
required amount of open space and active open space ensure that parks, recreation and
community facilities are included and developed prior to approval of a final plat.
3. Dry Utilities (electric, telephone, natural gas, etc.) are available to serve new residents
and/or businesses.
An APS substation is currently located south of the Property across US60 just west of 251st
Avenue. Although access to other dry utilities is unavailable at this time, Applicant suggests
that approval of the companion rezone case (Z2021078) include stipulations for required
access to dry utilities prior to final plat approval.
4. Sufficient road capacity to accommodate expected traffic increases from residents and/or
businesses.
Sufficient road capacity is not available for the requested land use designation because almost
zero improvements to the road alignment have been made. However, as development of the
Property occurs, road improvements will be made to accommodate the increased traffic
demand. Applicant suggests that approval of the companion rezone case (Z2021078) include
a stipulation for a sufficient traffic study prior to final plat approval.
5. Adequate school capacity to serve new residents, and that such schools are proximate to
applicable neighborhoods.
Applicant is working in conjunction with the Morristown Elementary School District
(“District”) on a Donation Agreement whereas a donation is paid to the District upon
construction and sale of a dwelling unit to a third party purchaser.
6. Adequate hospital or emergency medical facilities are available and proximate to serve
new residents.
Wickenburg Community Hospital is located approximately 13.1 miles from the US60/Landfill
Road intersection which will provide access to the Property (approximately a 15 minute drive
utilizing US60). The same hospital is approximately 14.3 miles from the 235th Avenue
alignment at SR74 which is also foreseeably providing access to the Property (approximately
a 17 minute drive).
3
William E. Lally
Attorney at Law
602.452.2716
wel@tblaw.com
7. That there is regional flood control infrastructure to protect new residents and/or
businesses as necessary.
Regional flood control infrastructure is not required for the Property.
8. Libraries are available and proximate to serve new residents.
The Morristown Volunteer Library is located adjacent to the Morristown Elementary School
approximately 1 mile west of the Property. Libraries will foreseeably be included with the
development of school sites on the Property.
9. Alternative transportation facilities are available and proximate to serve new residents as
necessary.
Alternative transportation facilities are not currently available in the area. As development
occurs in the area and foreseeably annexes into the City of Surprise, transportation facilities
will be implemented.
Staff Analysis also generally includes the following concerns:
1. Confirmation of services and infrastructure necessary to support urban development.
The City confirmed that water, sewer, and police & fire services will be provided to the
Property upon execution of the Pre-Annexation, Development and Services Agreement. The
City also confirmed that the proposed infrastructure for the water and sewer services was
sufficient to meet the needs of the requested density. As noted above, Applicant suggests
including stipulations in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) requiring a Pre-Annexation,
Development and Services Agreement which confirms the City will provide water, sewer,
and police & fire prior whether or not the property located within the proposed final plat is
annexed.
2. Timely annexation and strategy within the City of Surprise.
Applicant and City have discussed the annexation of the Property within the City. A Concept
Review meeting with the City of Surprise is calendared for Thursday, May 5th, 2022 to discuss
the draft Pre-Annexation, Development, and Services Agreement. The timeline and
annexation strategy will be discussed further with the City of Surprise at that time.
3. Balanced land use patterns
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment application remains a request to designate the
Property Single Family Transitional (3-5 d.u./acre). Applicant suggests including a stipulation
4
William E. Lally
Attorney at Law
602.452.2716
wel@tblaw.com
to require commercial uses to mitigate concerns that only residential uses will be located on
the Property. Further, the companion rezone case (Z2021078) requests a mix of residential,
commercial, open space and school uses.
The Arizona State Land Department (“ASLD”) recently sold approximately 3,500 acres of
land to BNSF (“BNSF Property”) which is located between the western boundary of the City
of Surprise (211th Avenue alignment) and near the eastern boundary of the Property (235th
Avenue alignment). The BNSF Property will provide a significant increase in the amount of
land used for employment purposes while decreasing the available area for residential land
uses. See Exhibit C – BNSF Property. The Property will foreseeably provide housing for a
number of future BNSF employees.
4. Access to the Property is limited from US60 and SR74.
SR74 and US60 will both provide access to the Property. As noted in Staff’s Analysis, ASLD
would provide a means of access over State Land to the northern portion of the Property from
SR74. In fact, the Property already has legal access from SR74 over State Land west of the 243rd
Avenue alignment through an easement recorded in the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office
at 98-0565982. Additional access will ultimately be determined according to the coordination
between ASLD and ADOT in conjunction with the developer of the Property. US60 will also
provide a means of access to the Property via further development of Landfill Road to the
west.
Exhibit A
Letter from Mayor Skip Hall
March 25, 2022
Honorable Clint Hickman
Maricopa County Supervisor
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
RE:
Letter of Support for Santa Barbara Ranch (CPA2021009, Z2021078), Walden Ranch
(CPA2022001, Z2022040) and Rancho Maria (CPA2022002, Z2022041)
Dear Supervisor Hickman,
This letter confirms my support for three projects currently located in unincorporated Maricopa
County (the “County”) known as Santa Barbara Ranch (CPA2021009, Z2021078), Walden Ranch
(CPA2022001, Z2022040), and Rancho Maria (CPA2022002, Z2022041) (collectively the
“Properties”) located in the northern planning area of the City of Surprise (the “City”). The City
has been working closely with the owners and developers of the Properties to evaluate options for
providing services to the Properties including sewer, water, police, and fire protection.
As you know, Lee Lambert, Director of Water Resource Management Department for the City of
Surprise, drafted a letter to the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department dated
October 6, 2021, confirming that the proposed plans for water and sewer provide a “logical
regional solution for water and sewer in this area.” Additionally, the City and the Properties’
owners are expected to enter into a Pre-Annexation, Development, and Services Agreement which
will confirm that the City will provide water, sewer, police, and fire services for the Properties
whether the properties are annexed or not.
The Properties will be a welcome addition to the City in the future. As such, I support the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA2021009, CPA2022001, and CPA2022002) and Zone
Change (Z2021078, Z2022040, and Z2022041), and urge your support as well.
Sincerely,
Skip Hall
Mayor
City of Surprise
cc:
Bob Wingenroth, Surprise City Manager
bob.wingenroth@surpriseaz.gov
William E. Lally, Attorney
wel@tblaw.com
Exhibit B
Letter from Lee Lambert
Exhibit C
BNSF Property
BNSF Property
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request
from Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) to Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.)
Narrative for
Santa Barbara Ranch
Approx. south and east of the southeast corner of US 60 (Grand Ave.) and State Route 74
Maricopa County, Arizona.
Case # CPA2021009
Related Rezone Case # Z2021078
Submitted: May 28th, 2021
Second Submittal: August 31st, 2021
Third Submittal: October 15th, 2021
DEVELOPER
ATTORNEY
CONSULTANT
John Wittrock
Tiffany & Bosco
Walsh Design Group
18835 N. Thompson Peak #215
2525 E Camelback Rd.
6106 E. Rose Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Tel: 602.570.3957
Tel: 602.255.6000
Tel: 602-619-7581
Contact: John Wittrock
Contact: William E. Lally
Contact: Joe Walsh
2
Table of Contents
A.
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.
On-Site and Regional Location ..................................................................................................... 4
2.
CPA size and description of land use types by acreages ........................................................... 6
3.
Roads/transportation systems serving the proposed project .................................................. 6
4.
Suitability with surrounding land uses ........................................................................................ 6
Description of Proposal ................................................................................................................................................................ 8
B.
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) constitutes an overall improvement to the
Comprehensive Plan and is not solely for the good or benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a
particular point in time ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
C.
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) will adversely impact all or a portion of the
planning area .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
D.
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) is consistent with the overall intent of the
Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 11
E.
The extent to which the amendment (or condition modification) is consistent with the specific
goals and policies contained within the plan................................................................................................................. 11
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
3
A.
Executive Summary
The developer, John Wittrock, desires to develop a single-family residential community on property currently
located within unincorporated Maricopa County. The developer expects that construction of the community
will ultimately take place with the limits of the City of Surprise. The fifteen (15) properties are in the northwest
valley south and east of the intersection of State Route 74 (“SR 74”) and US Highway 60 (“US 60”) that total
approximately 1,003 acres (“Property”). To facilitate the future development of the Property, this application
seeks a major General Comprehensive Plan Amendment (“CPA”) to change the land use designation in the
White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan from Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) to the Single Family Transitional Lot (3-
5 d.u./ac.) land use designation. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will enable the developer to
master plan a future new residential community with ample open space offering varying residential lot sizes
and product types complimentary to current and future market demand. The development will also include
supporting land uses for the influx of residential units in the area. The proposal has a companion zoning case
(Z2021078) to rezone the Property to the R1-6 RUPD (Residential Unit Plan of Development) to facilitate the
design and construction of the single family communities proposed. An area to accommodate support non-
residential uses will also be included in the companion rezone case (Z2021078). The design of the residential
and supporting uses will evolve as growth continues towards the Property.
Vision 2030 Land Use Designation
4
1. On-Site and Regional Location
The site is identified as fifteen (15) Maricopa County Assessor Parcel Numbers, see Project Data below. (Refer to
Appendix A: Parcel Map and Appendix B: Parcel/Ownership Exhibit). The site is approximately ±1,003 gross
acres of undeveloped land and is currently zoned Rural-43 (RU-43). The Property is also within the City of
Surprise’s (“City”) Planning Area.
The Property is located in the northwest valley near Morristown in unincorporated Maricopa County.
Morristown is a census-designated place and is approximately 50 miles northwest of Phoenix, at the junction of
SR 74 and US 60. The Property is located east of the residential properties that make up Morristown. The
Property is comprised of fifteen (15) parcels running primarily in a north/south alignment of parcels from
approximately 1,000 feet south of SR 74 to the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad (“A T & S F”) Railroad
property along the north side of the US 60 alignment. There is one (1) single family home on one of the parcels
while the remainder of the parcels remain vacant, unimproved desert.
The Property is bounded by property owned by the Arizona State Land Department (“ASLD”) to the north and
mostly along the entire east side of the Property, except for a few developed and undeveloped private
properties to the southeast boundary, zoned RU-43. The west side of the Property is bordered by approximately
half with vacant ASLD property and the other half with vacant and developed RU-43 zoned parcels. The south
sides of the Property are adjacent to the A T & S F railroad property, just north of US 60.
Project Data
A.P.N.
503-13-003; 503-15-001; 503-15-002C; 503-15-002D; 503-15-002F; 503-15-002J;
503-15-002M; 503-15-003A; 503-15-003B; 503-15-004; 503-16-001; 503-16-002;
503-16-009; 503-86-004; 503-18-001c
Current Land Use
Vacant/Undeveloped/one single family home
Existing Area Plan Land Use
Designation
Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.)
Proposed Area Plan Land Use
Designation
Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.)
Current Zoning District
RU-43
Proposed Zoning District
R1-6 RUPD & potentially other supporting use zoning category
Gross Site Area
1,003+/- Acres
Area Plan
White Tank/Grand Ave
Supervisorial District
Supervisorial District 4 – Clint Hickman
School District
Morristown Elementary Unified School District
5
White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan – Planning Area Map
The Property is situated between the two (2) highways allowing for efficient vehicular travel to and from the
north valley (Carefree Hwy) and northwest valley (US 60). These two (2) major roadways provide for regional
access back to the Phoenix metropolitan area and other highway corridors. The Property is mainly undeveloped
with alluvial washes traversing in a north to south fashion with a small portion being encumbered by the larger
floodplain of the Iona Wash.
The SR 74 Scenic Corridor and Wickenburg Highway Scenic corridor along the US 60 intersect the Property on
the northern and southern borders respectively. The SR 74 Scenic Corridor only briefly overlaps the Property as
State Trust Land predominantly stretches a quarter mile from SR 74. However, the Wickenburg Highway Scenic
Corridor overlaps the Property for approximately half of a mile along US 60. The Applicant will comply with the
all guidelines and regulations as they relate to the SR 74 Corridor and Wickenburg Scenic Corridor.
State Trust Land borders a significant portion of the Property, particularly to the north and the east. Applicant
communicated with the Arizona State Land Department (“ASLD”), and ASLD does not oppose the CPA
application nor the companion rezone case (Z2021078).
6
2. CPA size and description of land use types by acreages
The request is to amend the County’s Comprehensive Plan from Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) to Single Family
Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.). The current land use designation allows for 0-1 dwelling units per acre (“d.u./ac.”)
and the request would be to allow up to five (5) dwelling units per acre. The proposal would allow for a planned
residential community utilizing the County’s RUPD overlay to amend development standards and provide for a
variety of single family lots sizes and open space amenities. Further, Applicant will include stipulations in the
companion rezone case (Z2021078) which require areas of supporting uses to compliment the residential
neighborhoods; including offices, commercial, schools, and parks.
3. Roads/transportation systems serving the proposed project
As described above, the Property is located just south of SR 74 and just north and east of US 60 in Maricopa
County. Tentative plans at this stage of the land use request would seek direct access to SR 74 along the N. 243rd
Avenue alignment to allow future residents to access SR 74. 243rd Avenue appears to provide the most
reasonable point of entry to the Property from SR 74; however, Applicant will work with ASLD and ADOT to
determine the most feasible access.
Landfill Road will provide the main entrance to the Property from US 60. (Refer to Appendix C: Zoning Exhibit).
The railroad that runs parallel to the US 60 prevents other access points at this time. Depending on the
requirements of crossing the railroad property, the plan would be to have 243rd Avenue connect to US 60 to the
south for the proposed main connection to the south at some point in the future. Moreover, it is likely that
future development will bring about more access points as demand increases. However, Rockaway Hills Drive
will not provide an entrance to the Property from the west through Morristown. Joy Ranch Road on the
southeast portion of the property will allow for another main access point to the property.
The proximity to both SR 74 and US 60 will allow for efficient and direct access to two (2) of the valley’s
connections to the north and northwest portions of the valley. SR 74 provides direct access to the I-17 corridor
and the US 60. The US 60 provides direct access to the City of Surprise, the Loop 303 and all points southeast
into the City of Phoenix.
The stipulations contained in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) will also require a master traffic plan to
efficiently connect the entire Property utilizing arterial and distributor roads, and further, the stipulations will
include requirements for a Traffic Impact Analysis prior for the Property.
4. Suitability with surrounding land uses
The proposed Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.) land use designation will allow for a master residential
developer to create a land plan that provides for thoughtful and sustainable residential development in the
northwest valley. The goal would be to annex the property within the City of Surprise (“Surprise”) limits so as
to provide this the essential services necessary for this type of residential density. The large Iona Wash
floodplain provides for a natural type buffer for the developed RU-43 lots to the west of the Property. As more
detailed planning of the Property occurs, transitional density to the larger lots can become a part of the design
of the residential community. The southwest corner of the Property is adjacent to a few developed RU-43
properties. As that phase is developed, transitional density may be appropriate to the existing developed
properties.
7
To ensure that development of the Property is consistent with the needs of future residents, Applicant included
proposed stipulations in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) which designate certain areas of the Property
to support residential, schools, commercial, or open space uses. Further, the Applicant also proposed
stipulations which require the allocation of different residential sizes and development standards to ensure a
diversity of products are offered throughout the Property.
The placement of denser residential communities along major transportation corridors is sound land use
planning. Coordinated and planned use of large sections of land ensure that necessary services, access and
community based amenities are carefully planned and developed. As with some of the master planned
communities further to the southeast off US 60 within Surprise, Santa Barbara Ranch will be able to learn from
their development plans and the logistics of infrastructure and service planning to the Property. With ASLD
property along the majority of the Property’s boundary, the proposed land use will set forth an appropriate
density to allow future planning of the state lands property. With minimal frontage on either SR 74 or US 60,
the state land parcels could be further planned to provide the commercial goods and service and employment
land uses necessary to serve the future density of this proposal.
.
The Property falls within Surprise’s General Plan 2035 Land Use planning area. See Surprise Land Use Map
above. The majority of the Property is designated with the ‘Neighborhoods’ land use designation with some
‘Open Space’ areas along the major wash corridors. The densities proposed are in line with Surprise’s ‘Suburban
Neighborhoods’ density of 2-8 d.u./ac. Densities around the five (5) d.u./ac. will be able to support the more
Surprise Land Use Map
8
intense future residential uses that typically are placed along major transportation corridors and nearer to the
main roads with commercial and employment services for the surrounding residential population.
The project lies within the City of Surprise’s future water and sewer service area, but a development agreement
between the City and Owner(s) will be necessary. However, the City of Surprise provided a letter in support for
this CPA application stating that, “[t]he solutions currently being proposed appear to provide a logical regional
solution for water and sewer in this area. . . Based on the information provided by the developer to date, the
Water Resource Management Department supports the proposed amendment.”
Description of Proposal
The proposal is a request to plan a larger portion of private lands mainly surrounded by ASLD property. It is
appropriate to plan the Property within one cohesive application for the County to consider versus several
smaller unconnected applications.
The proposal seeks to increase the density in an area of The White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan (“WTGA Area
Plan”) designated for Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) residential development at a maximum of 1 d.u./ac. The
County’s Planned Land Use map below shows that just to the south are large areas of Medium Density
Residential land use designations. The proposal for Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.) land use near
the intersection of two major transportation corridors and future planned commercial and employment centers
is an improvement to the plan. With future planning to be considered for the ASLD parcels, which are mostly
designated with the Single Family Large Lot (1-2 d.u/ac.) land use designation, additional modifications to the
Comprehensive Plan will be considered in order to handle growth towards this portion of the valley. Finally,
lands north and west of the SR 74 and US 60 should be considered for retaining large lot residential as they are
not bounded by the major transportation corridors and would require additional roads and infrastructure to
handle increases in density.
B.
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) constitutes an overall improvement
to the Comprehensive Plan and is not solely for the good or benefit of a particular
landowner or owners at a particular point in time.
The WTGA Area Plan designates the area already for single family uses at a lesser density. The minor increase in
density from maximum two (2) d.u./ac. to five (5) d.u./ac. will allow for appropriate planning of infrastructure
(water, sewer, paved roads) as well as community amenities such as community and neighborhood parks,
schools and worship uses. A coordinated and planned approach such as this proposal is an overall
improvement to the Comprehensive Plan, the surrounding community and the County.
Although Applicant requests amending the Comprehensive Plan of approximately 1,003 acres for Single Family
Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.), Applicant will consider stipulations in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) to
guarantee a variety of residential sizes and product types. Furthermore, the companion rezone case (Z2021078)
9
will consider stipulations for requiring supporting uses and construction of integrated roadways and utilities
throughout the Property when development eventually occurs. The City of Surprise will ultimately oversee the
development and infrastructure of the Property as a development agreement will be in executed prior to
approval of the companion zoning case (Z2021078).
C.
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) will adversely impact all or a portion
of the planning area by:
•
Altering acceptable land use patterns to the detriment of the plan.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will not be to the detriment of the plan. The
Amendment will be a net positive to the area. The existing land use designation is single family
residential use and the proposed land use is single family residential use. The increase in density
allows for a coordinated and planned residential development adjacent to primarily large
undeveloped and unplanned ASLD parcels. The companion rezone case (Z2021078) is considering
stipulations and additional amendments to the land plan to meet the expected future needs of the
area, namely, providing a well-rounded community with sufficient residential, open space,
commercial and school components. Approximately fifteen (15) privately owned parcels are
adjacent to this 1,000+ acre proposal. Approximately half of those private parcels are developed
within the County’s RU-43 zoning district.
•
Requiring public expenditures for larger and more expensive infrastructure.
The cost of the infrastructure will be borne by the developers in the future. Certain necessities such
as schools may certainly require public expenditure; however, this would not be for a number of
years until growth in the area takes hold. Applicant does not foresee any necessary large public
expenditures to infrastructure at the moment that fall within the scope of the plan.
WTGA Area Plan – Planned Land Use Map
10
•
Requiring public improvements to roads, sewer, or water systems that are needed to
support the planned land uses.
The increase in density will result in the preservation of wash corridors and require the developers
or home builders to construct the public improvements including roads, sewer or water systems to
support the increase in density. Single family residential was designated within the WTGA Area Plan
and this proposal continues that land use. At whatever point in time a residential development
moves forward on any phase of the Property, all of the infrastructure will have to be planned and
approved by either the County, or Surprise if annexed into the City. Moreover, the companion
rezone case (Z2021078) will include supporting land uses to supplement the residential
neighborhoods such as open space and schools. The Property will also contain areas capable of a
retail and office component to bolster the area.
The proposal will be able to complete major roads through the Property and connect to SR 74 and
U.S. 60 for access. All of the construction and connection costs would be borne by the developer at
the time of development. Additional roadway connections and accessibility to two (2) major valley
transportation corridors is sound planning for the request increase in density. The increase in
density allows for open space preservation, planning and community and neighborhood parks.
Current development within the RU-43 zoning classification does not provide for any community
amenities or open space preservation on private property. The provision of these types of amenities
improves the livability of the area. With density, neighborhoods are created, social interaction is
increased and livability improves the health and safety of the present and future residents.
•
Adversely impacting planned uses because of increased traffic.
The area is currently designated for single family residential and will remain single family residential
under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The projected density of the area will increase under
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the companion rezone case (Z2021078), but this is not
to the detriment of the plan or to the area. The SR 74 and US 60 currently provide two (2) major
points of access for the Property. When development of the Property does eventually occur, proper
street infrastructure will be constructed by the developers to handle the projected traffic. The
companion rezone case (Z2021078) will include stipulations to provides for integrated roadways
throughout the neighborhoods that will eventually be developed on the Property.
•
Affecting the livability of the area or health or safety of present and future residents.
While the livability of an area is a subjective standard, this Comprehensive Plan Amendment would
ultimately set the tone for a harmonious development capable of supplying the residential needs
of future residents. The health and safety of the area and surrounding area will remain unchanged
at a minimum and will likely be improved. The addition of a higher density residential area will
ultimately require fire and safety services be provided to the area. An agreement with the City of
Surprise is currently in discussions and it is expected that the City will provide these services when
development is undertaken.
•
Adversely impacting the natural environment or scenic quality of the area in contradiction to the
plan.
The concentration of density into smaller lots allows for the larger wash corridors to be preserved
and even enhanced with some passive and active open space areas. This can be accomplished by
creating tracts, separate from on lot drainage, which is the current make-up of the wash corridors
in this area, and provide for amenities for present and future residents. Planned residential
neighborhoods, while preserving key open space and environmental features is not in contradiction
to the Comprehensive Plan.
11
D.
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) is consistent with the overall
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
As stated above, the current intent of the Comprehensive Plan is for this 1,003 acres to develop with single
family uses. The proposed land use amendment is to develop the same single family uses albeit at a higher
density. Single family to single family is consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan. With the
additional density comes a broader planning of the Property for coordinated access and roadway connections,
infrastructure, open space and wash preservation, community amenities and the creation of neighborhoods.
These factors ensures the amendment is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
E.
The extent to which the amendment (or condition modification) is consistent with the
specific goals and policies contained within the plan.
The following are several goals contained within the plan that are consistent with our proposal:
•
Land Use Goal #1: Achieve balanced and efficient development patterns.
o The increase in permitted dwelling units per acre will allow for an improved balance of residential
options for development. The increased dwelling units per acre will also entice a variety of
development patterns throughout the Property. The current 0-1 du/acre would likely lead to an
unbalanced uniform development throughout the Property. The Property will include a mix of
residential housing products supported by other uses to support the emerging neighborhoods.
•
Land Use Policy #2: Maricopa County supports phasing plans for new urban development to
coordinate such development with new urban services and infrastructure.
o This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the companion rezoning case establish the groundwork
for phasing in services and infrastructure. The permitted increase in dwelling units allows for a
multitude of options throughout the Property to be developed over time and in concert with the
services and infrastructure required. The City of Surprise executed a letter in support of the CPA
application and confirmed that water and wastewater infrastructure solutions will “provide a logical
regional solution for water and sewer in this area.” The companion rezone case (Z2021078) will also
include stipulations to guarantee the development of a harmonious transit system throughout the
Property.
•
Land Use Policy #4: To help limit impacts to taxpayers Maricopa County supports using homeowner
associations and related organizations and improvement districts to manage and maintain services,
infrastructure and amenities.
o Future residential developments on the Property will include improvement districts and
homeowner associations to create and maintain the infrastructure.
•
Land Use Policy #7: Maricopa County supports coordinating land use and infrastructure planning with
state agencies, counties, and municipalities.
Applicant is obviously in communication with Maricopa County with respect to this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and companion rezone case (Z2021078). Additionally, Applicant contacted the ASLD with respect
to the surrounding State Trust Land. ASLD does not oppose the CPA application and is willing to work with
developers with respect to access over State Trust Land to the Property. A pplicant also contacted ADOT to
discuss particular access points from SR74. Lastly, the City of Surprise is also making a coordinated effort with
Applicant to devise a feasible plan of action to potentially annex the Property for future development. The City
of Surprise also wrote a letter of support for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, specifically stating that the
Water Resource Management Department supports the proposed amendment based upon the information
provided to them by the developer.
12
•
Land Use Policy #8: As feasible Maricopa County supports annexation of urban development by
municipalities.
o Applicant and the City of Surprise are in discussions for future feasibility of annexation. It is
Applicants goal to have a development agreement with the City of Surprise in the near future. The
City of Surprise provided a list of comments to County staff in a letter dated August 18, 2021, and it
is Applicant’s intent to work with the City of Surprise to come to an amicable solution for all parties
involved. The property falls within the City of Surprise planning area boundary. The City of Surprise
Water Resource Management Director Lee Lambert wrote a letter on October 6th, 2021 which
confirms their support for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
•
Land Use Policy #26: Maricopa County supports subdivisions rather than “wildcat” lot splits.
o Amending the Comprehensive Plan as proposed allows for properly planned development to take
place. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the companion rezone case (Z2021078) creates
a Property constructed for potentially numerous subdivisions offering a multitude of options. The
platting of the subdivisions will occur in phases and in unison with development of proper
infrastructure.
•
Transportation Goal #3: Coordinate land use decisions with transportation investments to help the
county exercise sound financial management and build the county’s fiscal strength.
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment allows for coordinated development of the
Property as needed including related transportation infrastructure. The transportation needs of the
Property will take form over the coming years and development. The companion rezone case
(Z2021078) will include stipulations including a traffic analysis and the development of a
transportation system throughout the process which will be paid for by future developers as plans
come to fruition in the future.
•
Transportation Policy #4: Maricopa County supports using the preferred funding methods identified
in the Cost of Development element to pay for transportation improvements necessary for new
development.
o Future developers of the Property will pay for the improvements to the roads and transportation
infrastructure within the Property that are necessary to support the future residents. Applicant is in
contact with the City of Surprise regarding the necessary elements for a development agreement.
The intention is to annex the Property into the City of Surprise, as such, construction of the roads
will necessarily be to the standards set by the City of Surprise.
•
Growth Areas Goal #1: Achieve orderly urban growth that is fiscally and environmentally responsible,
protects public health and safety and promotes sensible annexation patterns.
o The goal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to provide for necessary growth in the area over
the next 15-20 years without impacting the environment more than necessary to meet the needs
for growth.
•
Open Space Goal #4: Have quality neighborhood parks and open space with adequate and
appropriate recreation amenities in urban residential development.
o The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the companion rezone case (Z2021078) provide for 150
acres of open space on the Property with the intention of providing recreational amenities
throughout the Property. Proposed stipulations are included with the companion rezone case
(Z2021078) which contemplate a requirement for open space and amenities. The increased density
will allow for a variety of urban and suburban enclaves to properly provide for the varied needs of
the community.
13
•
Energy Goal #3: Have balanced and efficient development patterns.
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to ensure balanced and efficient development
patterns for the northwest County. Residential development is designated for the Property and our
proposal seeks to provide the adequate infrastructure and services to an underserved area. In
addition to the residential uses which are the primary focus of Santa Barbara Ranch, areas capable
of supporting uses such as retail, office, open space, and schools will be integrated throughout the
Property to provide a balance.
•
Cost of Development Goal #2: New development pays its proper and reasonable share of the costs of
new infrastructure, services, and other public improvements.
o Infrastructure and other improvements will be determined and paid for in a reasonable share by
future developers. This will take shape over time as regions of the Property are developed in the
future.
•
Environment Goal #1: Provide regional leadership to promote all aspects of regional environmental
quality.
o The proposed plan is to preserve a minimum of fifteen percent of 1,000+ acres. This goal and the
preservation of the Iona Wash area are the first steps promoting regional environmental quality
wash and wildlife corridors through this area.
•
Economic Growth Goal #1 Contribute to an effective regional economy.
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will certainly contribute to a more effective
regional economy. The increased density and ability to effectively create a variety of residential
options in the area buttressed by a robust transportation system and supporting open space and
amenities is guaranteed to increase the effectiveness of the regional economy. The area will also
provide a mix of uses for the future residents through the companion zoning case (Z2021078).
Specifically, the Property will be capable of furnishing a mixture of uses to support its resident. This
in turn will yield more value for the regional economy.
•
Economic Growth Policy #9: Maricopa County supports implementing Vision 2030 in a clear and
consistent way to help businesses make long term investment decisions.
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment provides for 1,000 acres of land to be developed
for necessary residential growth in the future. The area will certainly require an array of
development products, and the increase from 0-1 dwelling units per acre to 3-5 dwelling units per
acre provides a fundamentally better platform for the consistency required for long term
investment decisions. The CPA and the companion rezone case (Z2021078) also provide avenues
for flexibility to ensure that development of the Property is ultimately meeting the needs of long
term investors in the area.
•
Water Resources Goal #1 Promote and protect health with a clean water supply.
o Applicant is working with the City of Surprise to ensure that city water services will service the future
residential communities planned for the Property. This coordinated effort and master planning in
concert with the County’s review process promotes and protects health with clean water solutions.
The City of Surprise Water Resource Management Department provided a letter of support for the
CPA which confirms their belief that the City will ultimately be capable of supplying water to the
Property.
14
•
Energy Goal #3: Have balanced and efficient development patterns.
o The Applicant has developed many properties within the County and City of Surprise. Each of these
communities provide for balance of residential density and preservation of environmental features.
The proposal for Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.) land use is an appropriate density for a
balanced and efficient development pattern for this area.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment addresses the above goals and policies of the plan as well as
other portions of the plan not mentioned above. The major amendment is required because of its size (greater
than 640 acres), not because of the change in rural density. The overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan are
mostly met because the area will continue develop out as residential uses. If developed at the new density, the
developer will seek an annexation strategy with Surprise.
The WTGA Area Plan has similar goals and policies as it relates to development proposals. The request for the
amendment to the plan meet the following goals and policies:
•
Goal L 1: Promote efficient land development that is compatible with adjacent land uses, is well
integrated with the transportation system, and is sensitive to the natural environment.
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the companion rezone case (Z2021078) are
compatible with the adjacent land users. Although the proposed density of 3-5 dwelling units per
acre is higher than the RU-43 primarily adjacent to the Property, a Buffer Zone will be included to
provide an area of transition. Additionally, growth in the area will cause the residential landscape of
the area to require more density. The transportation infrastructure will be improved as needed to
accommodate the growth in the future.
•
Objective L3.3: Promote orderly growth within the Grand Avenue Corridor Subarea that maintains
scenic viewsheds, promotes community identity in Wittmann, Circle City, and Morristown, and is
compatible with automotive proving grounds.
o The benefit of this Property is that it falls just outside the scenic corridors for SR 74 and U.S. 60. Any
of the Property within these designated corridors will respect the County’s regulations.
•
Goal T1: Improve the roadway network to meet future transportation needs, promote safety, and
mitigate congestion.
o The roadway network will be developed and planned as the growth in the area continues. Proposed
stipulations are proposed in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) to ensure compatibility with
the transportation system and to properly develop a cohesive transportation system throughout
the Property in lieu of a patchwork of inconsistent systems.
•
Goal E1: Promote development that considers adverse environmental impacts on the natural and
cultural environment, preserves highly valued open space, and remediates areas contaminated with
hazardous materials.
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and companion rezone case (Z2021078) provide
for 150 acres of open space throughout the 1,000 acres. The future developments will likely be
located with the City of Surprise and therefore within the environmental impact requirements set
forth in their Zoning Ordinance.
•
Objective E1.1: Encourage developments that successfully coexist and are compatible with significant
natural features.
o Development will be fluid with the washes that permeate the Property. The future developments
will likely be located with the City of Surprise and therefore within the environmental impact
requirements set forth in their Zoning Ordinance.
15
•
Goal ED1: Promote a growing, balanced, efficient, and diversified economy, consistent with available
resources, that enhances quality employment opportunities, improves quality of life, and is sensitive
to the natural and cultural environment.
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment creates the framework for a growing and balanced
economy. It allows for growth in the area and will provide an assortment of options for future
residents. The companion rezone case (Z2021078) will propose stipulations for a mix of uses
throughout the Property including the potential for office, retail, residential and schools. However,
150 acres of open space is also guaranteed which is approximately 15% of the Property.
The above goals and objectives are integral to the proposed increase in density to the Property. The proposal
is a logical residential growth pattern within the confines of two major transportation corridors. As the valley
grows and the ASLD parcels are planned, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will provide sufficient
residential density to support future commercial and employment nodes along both the SR 74 and US 60. The
Property is not near any of the noise contours of Luke Air Force Base (Luke AFB. The density is appropriate for
the area and follows the GDC policies to protect the mission of Luke AFB and the auxiliary field.
The Property resides within Morristown Elementary Unified School District. Morristown Elementary School is
located approximately 1-2 miles away from the Property to the northwest.
Conclusion
The proposed major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is required based on the size of the proposal. The
Comprehensive Plan Amendment request from Rural Densities (0-1 du/ac) to Single Family Transitional Lot (3-
5 d.u./ac.) will allow for the potential density of five (5) dwelling units per acre maximum. The companion zoning
case proposes amended development standards within the R1-6 zoning district and supporting zoning districts
to implement the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The increase in number of residential units across
the 1,000+ acres will allow for a coordinated and planned residential community that allows homebuilders to
thoughtfully plan the area for future single family residential neighborhoods. The increase in density is
appropriate as there are two major transportation corridors that will be able to serve the future residents and
their access to goods and services and the north and northwest valley destinations. There are minimal impacts
to adjacent developed properties and creates appropriate residential densities for future planning of the
adjacent ASLD properties. The proposal will seek to develop in nearby Surprise and therefore require future
annexation and agreements on services and infrastructure. We look forward to working with Surprise on those
matters and appreciate the County’s consideration of this proposal.
Appendix A
Parcel Map
Parcel Map
CPA2021009
Parcel #
Owner
Acreage
1 503-15-002C
Surprise Airpark LLC
80.00
2 503-15-001
Surprise Industrial Properties LLC
40.00
3 503-15-002D
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
80.00
4 503-15-002F
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
10.00
5 503-15-002J
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
30.00
6 503-15-002M
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
40.00
7 503-15-003A
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
80.00
8 503-15-003B
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
80.00
9 503-15-004
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
80.00
400.00
10 503-16-001
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
103.17
11 503-16-002
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
16.67
12 503-16-009
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
160.00
13 503-86-004
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
35.13
14 503-18-001C
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
8.46
15 503-13-003
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
160.00
483.43
1003.43
Appendix B
Parcel/Ownership Exhibit
CPA2021009
Appendix C
Land Use Exhibit
Current Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Designation
Proposed Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Designation
BUILT PAVED ROAD
BUILT DIRT ROAD
FUTURE ALIGNMENT
FUTURE
Subdivision Infrastructure &
Planning Program
1001 N. Central Avenue #150
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Phone: (602) 506-1058
Fax: (602) 506-5813
TDD 602 506 6704
Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department
Water and Waste Management Division
DATE:
July 20, 2021
TO :
Ray Banker, Planning & Development Dept.
Planner
FROM:
Souren Naradikian, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
Santa Barbara Ranch. CPA2021009
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has reviewed
revised documents received from the Maricopa County Planning and Development
Department for the above referenced project. This project is a CPA for Santa Barbara
Ranch at APN# 503-13-003; 503-15-001; 503-15-002C; 503-15-002D; 503-15-002F;
503-15-002J; 503-15-002M; 503-15-003A; 503-15-003B; 503-15-004; 503-16-001;
503-16-002; 503-16- 009; 503-86-004; 503-18-001c. Water and Sewer information is
not provided. MCESD has concerns, ATC must be obtained prior to final plat approval.
Based on the above, MCESD raised no objections to the Planning & Development
Department in Accela on July 20, 2021 and will allow the project to proceed at this
time subject to the following stipulations
Stipulations:
None.
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project.
Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County Planning and
Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff report. Other Maricopa
County agencies may have additional requirements. Final review and approval will be
made through Planning and Development Department procedures. Applicant may
need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department. Review
of any such application will be based on regulations in force at the time of application.
From:
Ken Vonderscher (PRK)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
RE: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 9:18:19 AM
Attachments:
image003.png
image004.png
Thanks Ray
No comments or concerns from MCPRD.
Ken
Ken Vonderscher
Park Planning and Development Manager
Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
41835 N Castle Hot Springs Rd
Morristown AZ 85342
Email: ken.vonderscher@maricopa.gov
602 506-9503
From: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 5:04 PM
Subject: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
Good afternoon,
You are receiving this email as the above mentioned case is in an area which you are considered an
“Area of Interest”. Attached are documents relating to the subject case and upcoming TAC Meeting.
Please let me know if you if have any questions.
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
March 25, 2022
Honorable Clint Hickman
Maricopa County Supervisor
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
RE:
Letter of Support for Santa Barbara Ranch (CPA2021009, Z2021078), Walden Ranch
(CPA2022001, Z2022040) and Rancho Maria (CPA2022002, Z2022041)
Dear Supervisor Hickman,
This letter confirms my support for three projects currently located in unincorporated Maricopa
County (the “County”) known as Santa Barbara Ranch (CPA2021009, Z2021078), Walden Ranch
(CPA2022001, Z2022040), and Rancho Maria (CPA2022002, Z2022041) (collectively the
“Properties”) located in the northern planning area of the City of Surprise (the “City”). The City
has been working closely with the owners and developers of the Properties to evaluate options for
providing services to the Properties including sewer, water, police, and fire protection.
As you know, Lee Lambert, Director of Water Resource Management Department for the City of
Surprise, drafted a letter to the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department dated
October 6, 2021, confirming that the proposed plans for water and sewer provide a “logical
regional solution for water and sewer in this area.” Additionally, the City and the Properties’
owners are expected to enter into a Pre-Annexation, Development, and Services Agreement which
will confirm that the City will provide water, sewer, police, and fire services for the Properties
whether the properties are annexed or not.
The Properties will be a welcome addition to the City in the future. As such, I support the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA2021009, CPA2022001, and CPA2022002) and Zone
Change (Z2021078, Z2022040, and Z2022041), and urge your support as well.
Sincerely,
Skip Hall
Mayor
City of Surprise
cc:
Bob Wingenroth, Surprise City Manager
bob.wingenroth@surpriseaz.gov
William E. Lally, Attorney
wel@tblaw.com
PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA
1st Review Comments
Page 1 of 6
Community Development Department
16000 N Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
Ph 623-222-3000
Fax 623-222-3002
TTY 623-222-1002
August 18, 2021
Ray Banker, Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
301 West Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re:
Santa Barbara Ranch CPA, Maricopa County Case # CPA2021009
(Surprise Case # PS21-527)
Dear Mr. Banker:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Santa Barbara Ranch CPA. The City of
Surprise offers the following comments regarding this case:
Planning:
1. The subject request is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment such to change the land use
designation of the County’s White Tank / Grand Avenue Area Plan from Single-Family Large Lot
0-2 DU/Ac. to Single-Family Small Lot up to 5 DU/Ac. Staff does not object to the proposed
changes provided the applicant understands and abides by the following:
2. The subject property lies within the City of Surprise Planning Area as generally depicted below.
PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA
1st Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
3. The majority of the site lies within the Neighborhood Character Area, which will support a
variety of residential densities provided appropriate Compatibility and Transition Measures are
implemented. These include but are not limited to the following:
“Compatibility and Transition Measures
To help limit the impact on adjacent existing or potential uses and promote overall land use
compatibility, new development should utilize the following transition measures at the
neighborhood edge:
Respect the context of adjacent building form and architectural style;
Adjust densities to provide a gradual transition to surrounding uses;
Step buildings (via building massing, footprint size, and height) to reduce the visual
impact to surrounding uses;
Provide similar streetscape and landscape design to surrounding uses;
Utilize appropriate setbacks to blend and transition between surrounding uses; and/or
Place enhanced landscape/open space buffers between uses; additional measures
should be taken to emphasize transition through integration and encourage connectivity
between new development and surrounding uses.”
4. The northeastern corner of the site, as well as the southernmost portion of the site, also lie
within the Commerce and Office Character Area, which supports Residential / Commercial
Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Commercial Office, provided certain Compatibility and
Transitions measures are implemented. These include but are not limited to the following:
“Compatibility and Transition Measures
To help limit the impact on adjacent existing or potential uses and promote overall land use
compatibility, new development should utilize the following transition measures at the
character area edge:
Respect the context of adjacent building form and architectural style;
Adjust densities to provide a gradual transition to surrounding uses;
Step buildings (via building massing, footprint size, and height) to reduce the visual
impact to surrounding uses;
Provide similar streetscape and landscape design to surrounding uses;
Utilize similar setbacks to surrounding uses;
Place enhanced landscape/open space buffers between uses; additional measures
should be taken to emphasize transition through integration and encourage connectivity
between new development and surrounding uses.”
5. A portion of the westernmost parcel crosses a portion of the Open Space Character Area as
depicted by the green ribbon. The Surprise General Plan offers the following guidance. We
would ask that the developer respect the integrity of this Character Area.
PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA
1st Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
“Open Space
The Open Space designation includes public and privately held lands that are intended to be
preserved for natural areas, conservation areas and/or trail and other regional recreational
facilities. Open space designations in Surprise are primarily designated in mountainous areas,
along designated floodways, riverine areas, and along significant desert wash and other
drainage corridors. Open space areas should be maintained in their natural state due to
topographic, drainage, vegetative and landform constraints.”
6. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a hatched area, which denotes the Scenic Lands
Development Sub Area Overlay. The Scenic Lands Development Overlay seeks in part “…to
recognize the visual beauty and other natural area open space qualities and how the design,
intensity and orientation of incoming development and public realm areas can strengthen and
enhance the natural environment found in the underlying character areas.” We would ask that
the developer respect the intent of this Overlay.
7. The land adjacent to U.S. 60 is designated as having a Transit Oriented Development District
Overlay, which in part “…denotes roadways and adjacent development areas where existing or
planned high capacity vehicular multi-modal, and transit corridors provide regionally significant
connections to and from Surprise…The intent of the TOD is to recognize the unique connection
between the character of the adjoining land uses together with the motorized, non-motorized
and potential transit operations of each corridor by developing individual corridor plans.
Developments proposed within these corridors will have expanded design and policy guidance on
incorporating safe and convenient walking and biking connections to current and future planned
transit operations. Transit operations could be commuter rail planned along Grand Avenue or
perhaps expanded bus route opportunities on all corridors. In either case, the Transit Oriented
Development areas promote a higher intensification of residential and non-residential uses near
existing and planned transit stops to ensure that motorized and non-motorized mobility in
proximity to transit stops is efficient and effective in design.” We would ask that the developer
respect the intent of this overlay.
Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering
1. Santa Barbara Ranch traffic impacts.
a. An initial high-level planning traffic impact analysis is required for the entire Santa Barbara
Ranch development and is to be submitted with the Rezone case. This TIA will ensure there
will be adequate roadway capacity on the adjacent state facilities, arterials and collector
roads.
i.
Summarize any existing traffic analyses that will impact the perimeter arterial roadway
network of Santa Barbara Ranch, plus SR74 and US60.
ii.
Develop an appropriate trip generation model for the entire site. The model should
include rough estimates on land use acreage and dwelling units.
iii.
Estimate traffic volumes and perform a preliminary roadway segment level of service
analyses for all perimeter roadways, plus SR74, US60, Desert Hills Drive, 251st Ave,
Rockaway Hills Road.
PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA
1st Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
iv.
Analyze traffic impacts on US 60 and contact ADOT Regional Traffic for any additional
requirements.
b. A more detailed TIA will be required before or at the preliminary plat stage. Guidelines to
produce this TIA can be found in Chapter 4 of the Surprise Engineering Development
Standards.
i.
Include a summary of any existing traffic analysis that will impact the arterial and
collector network of Santa Barbara Ranch.
ii.
Develop an appropriate trip generation model for the entire site. Be specific about land
uses, acreages, and the number of dwelling units.
iii.
Determine traffic volumes and perform roadway level of service analyses for all arterial
and collector roadway segments.
iv.
Determine traffic volumes and perform intersection level of service analyses for all
perimeter and off-site intersections. Include all the connections to and from US60 into
the analysis.
v.
Include deceleration lane, stop and/or signal warrant analyses for
1. All site internal intersections created by collector roads
2. Intersection of Desert Hills and 243rd Avenue
3. Intersection of Rockaway Hills Road and 243rd Ave
4. Intersection of Rockaway Hills Road and 251st Ave
5. Intersection of SR74 and US60
6. Intersection of SR74 and 243rd
7. Intersection of 243rd and US60
8. Intersections of any other collector roads tying into proposed 243rd Avenue
9. All other site specific intersections that are not mentioned above
vi.
Analyze traffic impacts on US60 and in coordination with ADOT Regional Traffic.
vii.
Discuss queuing and turning lane storages on all intersections (site external and
internal).
viii.
Calculate Santa Barbara Ranch’s proportionate share of the cost of future traffic signals
at the intersections on arterial roads: 243rd, SR74 and US60.
c. Roadway network must conform to ADOT access control found in US60/Grand Avenue, SR303
to SR74 study, the Surprise Long Range Major Street Plan and the transportation section of
the Surprise General Plan 2035.
2. The developer shall submit a master street plan for the Santa Barbara Ranch development
showing turn lanes, medians, and street widths. All roadway cross sections shall conform to
Details 3-01 - 3-07 in the Surprise Engineering Development Standards.
a. Roadway classification should conform to the Surprise Long Range Major Street Plan. This
development will be responsible for half street development of external roadways. 100’ for
parkways, 68’ improvements for major arterials, 55’ for minor arterials and 40’ for collectors
including signing and striping, pavement, curb and gutter, and a proportional share to install
a landscaped median.
PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA
1st Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
3. Adhere to the City of Surprise Minimum Intersection & Driveway Spacing requirements:
a. Major and Minor Arterial Streets:
i.
Full movements with traffic signal at ½ or 1 mile spacing.
ii.
Full movements without traffic signal at ¼ mile spacing.
iii.
¾ movements, no left out, at 1/8 mile spacing.
iv.
Right-in, right-out at 300 ft spacing.
b. Residential and Commercial Collector Streets:
i.
Full movements, no traffic signal at 1/8 mile spacing.
ii.
T-intersections, no traffic signal at 250 ft spacing.
iii.
Right-in, right-out at 200 ft spacing.
4. Refer to Surprise Detail 4-02 for local street sight visibility triangles on local roads.
5. Refer to Surprise Detail 4-01 for sight distance requirements for arterial and internal collector
roads.
6. The developer shall submit a full master site plan showing the onsite traffic and pedestrian
circulation, and emergency vehicle access.
7. The TIA will need to be reviewed and approved by ADOT and the City of Surprise.
8. BNSF will need to review and approve any future crossing of their facilities. No at grade facilities
will be approved by BNSF; therefore the construction of a grade separated interchange will be
required at the 243rd and US60 intersection to go over the railroad tracks.
Water Resource Management
1. The project parcels lie within the City of Surprise’s future water and sewer service area, however
the City currently has no infrastructure nearby. If the applicant proposes being served by the City
of Surprise for water and wastewater service, then the water and wastewater infrastructure
solutions to serve the development will need to be formally documented in the form of a
development agreement between the City and the Owner(s).
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. We would appreciate being included in the routing of
any further submittals regarding this project as well as the date and time of any public outreach or
hearings on the matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 623-222-3137 or via email at
robert.kuhfuss@surpriseaz.gov with any questions.
Respectfully,
Robert H. Kuhfuss, AICP, MPA
City of Surprise
Community Development Department
SIGN
PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA
1st Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
cc:
Lloyd Abrams, City of Surprise
Dana Owsiany, City of Surprise
Martin Lucero, City of Surprise
Amy Peterson, City of Surprise
From:
Peggy Fehlman
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Re: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Tuesday, July 13, 2021 1:21:43 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
CPA2021009 APPL-FORM-1.pdf
CPA2021009 NARR-RPTS-1.pdf
CPA2019009 TAC Routing Document.pdf
Thank you for the notification of the Santa Barbara Ranch proposed development.
ADOT is neutral on zoning matters. As such, ADOT has no comment. Please notify ADOT once the project is through zoning and moving
forward.
ADOT traffic engineering may offer additional comments, it is recommended that the developer ascertain if a traffic study or permit will be
necessary.
Traffic Engineer - Jerome Choy jchoy@azdot.gov - (602) 712-6627
Permit Encroachment Process Link - https://azdot.gov/business/permits/encroachment-permits
Permit Sign Process Link - https://azdot.gov/business/permits/outdoor-advertising-sign-permits
We appreciate receiving the notice, and the opportunity to review and comment. I am happy to assist with any other questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
Peggy Fehlman
Right of Way Coordinator
ADOT Central District
2140 W. Hilton Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85009
(602)712-6622 Office
www.azdot.gov
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM
Subject: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
To:
Good afternoon,
You are receiving this email as the above mentioned case is in an area which you are considered an “Area of Interest”. Attached are documents
relating to the subject case and upcoming TAC Meeting. Please let me know if you if have any questions.
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
From:
Sean J. Doyle
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Kurt A. Jones; William E. Lally
Subject:
FW: Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:20:15 AM
Good morning Ray,
I hope you had a nice few days off last week. Please see below from Karen Dada at the Arizona State
Land Department.
Also, I will follow up in a separate email with an updated land use plan with road alignments to
supplement the current exhibit.
Thanks,
Sean
TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
Sean J. Doyle | Associate
Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II | 2525 E Camelback Road | Phoenix, AZ 85016
D 602.452.2742 | P 602.255.6000 | F 602.255.0103
sjd@tblaw.com | Website | Practice Areas
Offices: Alabama | Arizona | California | Florida | Michigan | Nevada | New Mexico
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege.
If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have
received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you
From: Karen Dada <kdada@azland.gov>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 8:59 AM
To: Sean J. Doyle <sjd@tblaw.com>
Cc: Kurt A. Jones <kajones@tblaw.com>; William E. Lally <wel@tblaw.com>
Subject: Re: Santa Barbara Ranch
Good morning Sean,
ASLD has no objection to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezoning of the subject property. Should the development require connection to the
SR 74, our response is conditioned upon acceptable alignment, based on
coordination with both ASLD and ADOT.
Karen Dada, AICP | Manager, Planning and Engineering Section
Arizona State Land Department
1616 W. Adams Street | Phoenix, AZ 85007
O: 602-542-3118 | kdada@azland.gov
Funding Arizona Public Schools and Institutions since 1915
From:
JAMES, MARK C GS-12 USAF AETC 56 FW/CVE
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
56 FW/CIT Community Initiative
Subject:
RE: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Thursday, July 8, 2021 2:49:53 PM
Attachments:
image003.png
image004.png
Ray,
Thank you for allowing Luke AFB to make comments on the Santa Barbara Ranch Application. This
application proposes to develop a single family residential community on 1,003 acres. The site is
located south and east of the intersection of State Route 74 (“SR 74”) and U.S. Highway 60 (“US 60”),
in Unincorporated Maricopa County, AZ. It is approximately 5.4 miles outside the Aux-1 2004 JLUS
65 Ldn, “high noise or accident potential zone” as defined by A.R.S. § 28-8461 and is inside the
“territory in the vicinity of a military airport” also defined by A.R.S. § 28-8461.
As described in the application, this request will not have a negative impact on Luke AFB Flight
Operations. Since the site will be located inside the “territory in the vicinity of a military airport,” it
will be subjected to approximately 165 over flights per day, as low as 1,500 feet above the ground.
We recommend you review the sound attenuation requirements found in A.R.S. § 28-8482. In
addition, a strong notification program on the part of the applicant is essential to inform the tenant
about Luke AFB operations.
Respectfully,
Mark James
Planning Manager, Community Initiatives Team
Luke AFB AZ 85309
Office: 623-856-9981
DSN: 896-9981
From: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 5:04 PM
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
Good afternoon,
You are receiving this email as the above mentioned case is in an area which you are considered an
“Area of Interest”. Attached are documents relating to the subject case and upcoming TAC Meeting.
Please let me know if you if have any questions.
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
From:
David Jacobs
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
CPA2021009 Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Monday, July 12, 2021 5:40:54 PM
Ray-
Our office recently received notification of an application for the Santa Barbara Ranch
consisting of 1003 acres located between US 74 and US 60 [Grand Avenue] in Maricopa
County, Arizona. Our records indicate the area has not been inventoried for cultural
resources, and we recommend a qualified cultural resources specialist systematically survey
the acreage in order to locate and evaluate any cultural resources that may be present. The
applicant should be reminded of the Arizona State Law A.R.S. § 41-865 that requires if human
remains or burial goods are encountered during any ground-disturbing activities on private
lands, work in the immediate vicinity must cease and the Director of the Arizona State
Museum promptly notified.
Our office looks forward to receiving a survey report for review, and appreciate your
cooperation with this office in considering impacts to cultural resources located in Arizona. If
you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at djacobs@azstateparks.gov or 602-
542-7140.
David Jacobs, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
From:
Aspasia Angelou
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Tricia Farrington; Kerre Laabs; Nellie Odogui; Michele Pino
Subject:
Proposal for land development near Morristown
Date:
Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:47:23 AM
Attachments:
CPA2019009 TAC Routing Document.pdf
Mr. Banker,
Good morning! I received the information below and attached from Morristown Principal, Dr.
Jennifer Petty. I would like to introduce myself: I am the dual superintendent for Morristown
ELD 75 and Nadaburg USD 81 (8 miles south of Morristown). The MELD Governing Board
has several questions about the impact of this project and would like to invite you or your
representative to present this application and possible impacts on the district’s enrollment at
the August board meeting.
I have included my administrative assistant, Tricia Farrington, on this email to coordinate.
Also included are the Director of Maintenance and Operations, Nellie Odogui; and Director of
Business Services, Kerre Laabs.
Thank you,
Dr. Aspasia Angelou
Superintendent
Nadaburg Unified School District No. 81 & Morristown Elementary District No. 75
aangelou@nadaburgsd.org
aangelou@morristowneld75.org
office 623.388.2129
cell 469.688.9638
Quality education: Every student! Every day!
From: Aspasia Angelou <aangelou@nadaburgsd.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:44:00 AM
To: Aspasia Angelou <aangelou@nadaburgsd.org>
Subject:
Thank you,
Dr. Aspasia Angelou
Superintendent
Nadaburg Unified School District No. 81 & Morristown Elementary District No. 75
aangelou@nadaburgsd.org
aangelou@morristowneld75.org
office 623.388.2129
cell 469.688.9638
Quality education: Every student! Every day!
From:
Kurt A. Jones
To:
Jessica J. Zangara
Cc:
Sean J. Doyle
Subject:
FW: Amendment application cpa2021009
Date:
Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:27:31 PM
file
Kurt Jones, Senior Planner
D: 602.452.2729 | M: 480.225.8937
TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
From: Fred Scott <fred@kevenslandscape.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Kurt A. Jones <kajones@tblaw.com>
Cc: Sean J. Doyle <sjd@tblaw.com>
Subject: RE: Amendment application cpa2021009
Hi Kurt, There was another developer that was going to buy the 175 acre ranch just east of your
projected property. They were bringing water and power from Morristown. I gave them an
easement to cross my corner to get to their project. They canceled when we had the stock market-
mortgage fall out. There’s a-lot of chatter to develop this area, don’t wait to long!!
Thanks,
Fred Scott
Lead Designer
10341 N El Mirage
Mirage, AZ 85335
(Office) 623-535-7654
(Cell) 602-418-9874
Fred@kevenslandscape.com
Kevens Landscape Website
From: Kurt A. Jones [mailto:kajones@tblaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:30 PM
To: Fred Scott
Cc: Sean J. Doyle
Subject: RE: Amendment application cpa2021009
Fred, thanks for reaching out. To answer your specific questions, the main access will be from 74.
Access from the US 60 is tricky because of the railroad tracks and getting permits from the railroad is
a long and arduous process. Development of this property is probably many years away. We will be
working with the City of Surprise concurrently with the County on planning this property. We will
most likely need City of Surprise services (water, sewer, public safety, etc.) to develop the residential
community.
As we move through the land use entitlement process, we will keep you on our notice list on any
open houses we hold and other key points in the process. Feel free to reach out any time if any
other questions come to mind. Thanks, Kurt
Kurt Jones, Senior Planner
D: 602.452.2729 | M: 480.225.8937
TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
From: Fred Scott <fred@kevenslandscape.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 2:05 PM
To: Kurt A. Jones <kajones@tblaw.com>
Subject: Re: Amendment application cpa2021009
Hi Kurt, Excited to see this area being developed. It’s a great location, the cross roads of 74 and 60 .
It was just a matter of time for this to happen. I own land on the south-east corner of the proposed
subdivision. Will your subdivision have access to 60 or will you access from 74. When do you guys
plan on starting the subdivision
Thanks,
Fred Scott
Lead Designer
10341 N El Mirage
Mirage, AZ 85335
(Office) 623-535-7654
(Cell) 602-418-9874
Fred@kevenslandscape.com
Kevens Landscape Website
From:
Linda de Berge
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Re: Thanks for the notification
Date:
Sunday, July 18, 2021 2:50:24 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
I am forwarding many of the concerns that have been expressed to me regarding the planned rezoning
and development
CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch. I am copying everyone on my local list.
1- First and foremost - where is the water coming from? It's ALL about the water. This area is in some
sort of vortex, seriously, there can be 360 degree storms of rain all around us, but we are getting none of
the rain that is hitting Phoenix, Surprise, Wickenburg, and Whispering Ranch. As the heat dome
changes, so changes the weather. The storms just can't get through to our area. They used to get in after
they bounced around Phoenix, they'd met up over Morristown.
2 - Rumors have it that Surprise is annexing everything in sight. Will they supply the water? Where
will they get the water? We hear that they bought water company from Circle City. These are very very
deep wells. People are concerned about cones of depression and their own wells getting depleted. This
is not like taking over agricultural land which actually saves water. This would use so much more water
than the land currently supplies.
3 - Currently the land is R-43 (one unit per acre). Is this proposal for 2 dwellings per acre? Reading it
implies that it is for higher density, i.e. 4-5 units per acre. Which is it?
4 - Will this development be in Morristown or Wittman?
5 - If Surprise annexes the communities of Wittman and/or Circle City and/or Morristown, will folks
here have a say in this?
6 - How will the Morristown School District be funded to handle what could be hundreds of more
students. Or will everything be consumed by the Nadaburg School District?
7 - Will this be one of those Golf Course, and water course developments? People feel this would be
totally NOT in keeping with existing land uses in the area here.
8 - It seems the tendency is to build units very close together and with little variation in architecture.
Many people here feel that would be ruthless and degrading.
Thanks for your time and consideration Ray. I do hope these developers are prepared. There will be
many strong opinions and questions that need to be answered.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 5:26 PM Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Hi Linda,
I appreciate you reaching out, if you would like to further detail your questions and concerns to me, I can share
them with the applicant. We are still in the process of review, and staff will present our comments and questions to
the applicant soon. There is another related zoning case for this property that was recently submitted, I will be
sending notices soon.
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
From: Linda de Berge <ldeberge@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 1:37 PM
To: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Thanks for the notification
Well, there is plenty of interest in this project out here. How does the water issue differ from the one
for the last proposed development? We are all concerned about water! 4-5 houses per acre times a
thousand acres? Wow. It seems worse than the last proposal.
Has the Morristown Water Company been notified of this?
Please let us know of any meetings coming up regarding this rezoning. Thanks so much!
From:
Linda de Berge
To:
sjd@tblaw.com; Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
One more concern of the community:
Date:
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:19:57 AM
New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
One person on my local area list (there are 26 persons on this list) had an additional
question, and I quote:
"Appreciate compilation. These echoed our concerns. Additionally, as there would
be a huge increase in traffic on 74 would their proposal include widening 74 or
would the afterthought fall to all in the area to increase taxes to accommodate the
road work. Not just talking a turning lane. A two-lane road would need more
passing lane areas to accommodate the added volume."
In addition to this, as expressed in the plan, I don't know how the developer
can consider Grand (Hwy 60) as an access to this development at all, since they are
blocked by the railroad (many have tried to gain access over the tracks, but the
railroad, as a National Security issue, denies them.)
Question: Would you prefer that I keep sending you these public concerns or
should each person contact you individually. I am perfectly willing to communicate
for the group, but one person has asked if she should contact you individually.
From:
Tina Graham
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
CPA2021009 Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Monday, July 19, 2021 9:59:46 AM
Mr. Banker,
Please see the below comments about the above referenced filing:
I am a resident of Morristown and live at Thunder Ridge Airpark.
I do not agree to the zoning change requested. This is a small rural community. The large development proposed
would overwhelm the area as there is no infrastructure to support so many homes and people. Residents live here
with the desire to be in a rural community. The 1 home per acre limitation is necessary to maintain the rural nature
of the area. The area south of 60 is not currently congested or crowded with multiple homes per acre as is currently
proposed. If the area is not annexed by Surprise there is no water availability for such a large development.
Please consider my comments.
Thank you.
Tina Graham, Esq.
From:
Tina Graham
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Fwd: CPA2021009
Date:
Friday, October 1, 2021 7:32:03 AM
Good morning Ray,
I attended the community meeting last night. I am not sure if there are any standards. However, the
location was a large home that has been abandoned for some time. There was no lighting, no air
conditioning and no seating. The room was not large enough for the crowd- which extended outside. This
resulted in part of the crowd not hearing the presentation. I would say at least half of the attendees were
elderly. No air conditioning or seating made for a very difficult time for them. I had to move outdoors to
get out of the hot and stuffy room. I didn’t get a chance to sign in.
The attorney advised us that he does not anticipate any development for at least 10 years and the developer
will not incur expenses for seeking any infrastructure from Surprise until they receive approval from the
county. He indicated that they did not want to provide any more specifics as to the property development
as they are uncertain what they may be building in 10 years.
Concerns expressed included:
Interference with the current and expanding equine/roping activities in the surrounding properties
Changing the established rural nature of the community
No reliable and enforceable plan for the development or its infrastructure
No plan for water and sewer
No plan for traffic
Uncertainty as to the impact on the rest of the community because the attorney indicated the developers
will only seek annexation with Surprise for their particular property ( the property is in the middle of
Morristown)
Uncertainty of what will happen with the property if Surprise does not annex
At least 10 years of uncertainty for other property owners
These are my notes from the meeting as a local resident and property owner.
Thank you.
Tina Graham, Esq.
Morristown resident
37415 N 237th Ave
Morristown, AZ 85342
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tina Graham <TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>
Date: September 29, 2021 at 2:34:00 PM MST
To: "Ray Banker (PND)" <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Re: CPA2021009
Thank you. I will let my neighbors know.
On Sep 29, 2021, at 2:26 PM, Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
wrote:
Good Afternoon Tina,
Thank you for reaching out and letting me know about the confusion with the
meeting location. I spoke to the applicant and they confirmed that the meeting
would be at the ranch house, please follow the directions within their notice
(attached).
Apparently there might be issues with the provided address (24415 W Rockaway
Hills Road, Morristown, AZ 85342) and certain mapping programs giving an
incorrect location. However, I checked with the Assessor (official address) and
Google maps and the address is correct for the ranch house location on parcel -
APN # 503-15-002C.
Lastly, the applicant mentioned that they will have a representative at the school
location should community members show up there.
Please let me know if there are any additional questions.
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Graham <tinagraham@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 7:21 PM
To: Tina Graham <TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>
Cc: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re: CPA2021009
Hello Ray,
I received the notice from my fellow neighbors. There is a lot of confusion about
the location of the meeting. The address seems to look like the local school but
the directions are to a ranch in the middle of the desert.
Thanks.
Tina
On Sep 13, 2021, at 7:27 PM, Tina Graham
<TINAGRAHAM@cox.net> wrote:
Thank you Mr. Banker. That would be great.
On Sep 13, 2021, at 4:26 PM, Ray Banker
(PND) <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Ms. Graham,
I reached out to the applicant and they have scheduled
the community meeting for Thursday, September 30th
from 6:00-7:00 p.m. at 24415 W Rockaway Hills Road,
Morristown, AZ 85342.
Did you want the applicant to send you an official
notification via email when they send these out?
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Graham <tinagraham@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 7:56 PM
To: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re: CPA2021009
Thank you for the response. It looks like the applicant is
supposed to schedule a meeting with the locals in late
September. Do we know when and where that is?
On Sep 10, 2021, at 4:29 PM,
Ray Banker (PND)
<Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
wrote:
Ms. Graham,
This hearing would be virtual and online
only due to COVID restrictions, the link to
attend to listen and/or register to speak will
be provided on the hearing agenda and
access per the website link in my last email.
Please let me know if there are any other
further questions.
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Graham <tinagraham@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 3:21 PM
To: Tina Graham
<TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>; Ray Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Cc: Ray Banker (PND)
<Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re: CPA2021009
Hello Mr. Banker,
Could you please advise when and where
the community meeting is?
Thank you.
Tina Graham
On Aug 23, 2021,
at 2:33 PM, Tina
Graham
<TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>
wrote:
Great! Thank so much for your
help.
On
Aug
23,
2021,
at 1:34
PM,
Ray
Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
wrote:
Good afternoon
Ms. Graham,
You can look up
info for each case
through our online
citizen access
portal:
https://accela.maricopa.gov/CitizenAccessMCOSS/Default.aspx.
However, it's
probably easier to
just check back
with me since I am
the planner
assigned to these
cases and I update
the portal when
changes/updates
have happened.
Hearing
information for the
Planning and
Zoning
Commission can be
found on the Friday
prior to hearing
through the
following link:
https://www.maricopa.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-
Zoning-
Commission-9
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County
Planning &
Development
Department
301 W. Jefferson
Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tina Graham
<tinagraham@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday,
August 19, 2021
7:56 PM
To: Ray Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re:
CPA2021009
Thank you for your
response. Is there
somewhere online I
can look up
updates/activity?
Thanks again.
Tina
On
Aug
19,
2021,
at
4:46
PM,
Ray
Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
wrote:
Good
afternoon
Ms.
Graham,
I've
attached
the
first
submittal
documents
(Application
forms,
narrative
reports,
and
zoning
exhibit/site
plan)
for
CPA2021009
and
related
zone
change
(Z2021078)
request
for
Santa
Barbara
Ranch.
Staff
has
provided
1st
review
comments
and are
awaiting
resubmittal
by the
applicant.
The
CPA2021009
case,
since
this is
a
Major
CPA is
scheduled
for the
following
public
hearing
dates:
11/4/21
for
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
and
12/8/21
for
Board
of
Supervisors.
You
can
provide
comments
(you
can
also
indicate
if
opposing
or
supporting)
directly
to me.
These
comments
would
be
forwarded
to the
applicant
and
included
as
public
record
with
any
future
staff
reports.
Thank
you,
Ray
Banker
Senior
Planner
Maricopa
County
Planning
&
Development
Department
301 W.
Jefferson
Street,
Suite
170
Phoenix,
AZ
85003
602-
506-
2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
-----
Original
Message-
----
From:
Tina
Graham
<TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>
Sent:
Thursday,
August
19,
2021
9:25
AM
To:
Ray
Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject:
CPA2021009
Good
morning
Mr.
Banker,
I live
less
than a
quarter
mile
from
the
property
involved.
Could
you
please
provide
a
status?
How
may I
provide
input?
Thank
you.
Tina
Graham
<CPA2021009
APPL-
FORM-
1.pdf>
<CPA2021009
NARR-
RPTS-
1.pdf>
<Z2021078
APPL-
FORM-
1.pdf>
<Z2021078
NARR-
RPTS-
1.pdf>
<Z2021078
SITE-
PLAN-
1.pdf>
<CPA2021009_Z2021078 Neighborhood Mtg Notification Letter.pdf>
From:
Ray Banker (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
CPA2021009
Date:
Monday, October 18, 2021 10:49:41 AM
From: Tina Graham <tinagraham@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 7:32 AM
To: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Fwd: CPA2021009
Good morning Ray,
I attended the community meeting last night. I am not sure if there are any standards. However, the
location was a large home that has been abandoned for some time. There was no lighting, no air
conditioning and no seating. The room was not large enough for the crowd- which extended outside.
This resulted in part of the crowd not hearing the presentation. I would say at least half of the
attendees were elderly. No air conditioning or seating made for a very difficult time for them. I had
to move outdoors to get out of the hot and stuffy room. I didn’t get a chance to sign in.
The attorney advised us that he does not anticipate any development for at least 10 years and the
developer will not incur expenses for seeking any infrastructure from Surprise until they receive
approval from the county. He indicated that they did not want to provide any more specifics as to
the property development as they are uncertain what they may be building in 10 years.
Concerns expressed included:
Interference with the current and expanding equine/roping activities in the surrounding properties
Changing the established rural nature of the community
No reliable and enforceable plan for the development or its infrastructure
No plan for water and sewer
No plan for traffic
Uncertainty as to the impact on the rest of the community because the attorney indicated the
developers will only seek annexation with Surprise for their particular property ( the property is in
the middle of Morristown)
Uncertainty of what will happen with the property if Surprise does not annex
At least 10 years of uncertainty for other property owners
These are my notes from the meeting as a local resident and property owner.
Thank you.
Tina Graham, Esq.
Morristown resident
37415 N 237th Ave
Morristown, AZ 85342
From:
Julie Wear
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Morristown development/annexation
Date:
Saturday, October 2, 2021 7:52:16 PM
No. No. No. No annexation of Morristown to Surprise. No proposed single family homes crammed 5/acre. No
natural resources for this type of growth in this area. WE DON’T WANT A CITY HERE. That’s why we moved
here in the first place! TO GET AWAY FROM THE CITY.
This is a horrible idea, one, I pray, will Never come to fruition.
Concerned Morristown resident,
Julie A. Wear
Sent from my iPhone