07.Z250023 PZ Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
64012 characters
Z250023
Page 1 of 9
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
Z250023 – Sonoran Serenity
Hearing Date:
January 8, 2026
Supervisor District:
4
Applicant:
Michael Ripson, Ripson Homes
Owner:
Kashmir Kapital, LLC
Request:
Zone change with overlay from Rural-43 to R1-35 RUPD
Site Location:
Generally located ½ mile east of NEC Patton Rd. and Crozier Rd. in the
Wittmann area
Site Size:
Approximately 97.3 acres
Density:
1 du/ac
County Island:
Yes (City of Surprise)
County Plan:
White Tanks/Grand Ave. Area Plan – Single Family – Rural (0-1 du/ac)
Municipal Plan:
Surprise – Desert Rural
Municipal Comments:
None received to date
Support/Opposition:
Four opposition letters received
Recommendation:
Approve with conditions
Z250023
Page 2 of 9
Project Summary:
1.
The applicant is requesting a zone change with overlay from Rural-43 to R1-35 RUPD for a future
residential subdivision on a 97 acre site located in the Wittmann area. This site is impacted by a
wash with areas of floodway and floodplain making development on the site difficult. The
developer will be channelizing this wash incorporating flood mitigation defenses. According to
the applicant, this type of development will greatly improve the flow of stormwater and mitigate
area flooding, especially with newly added flood retention basins throughout the future
subdivision. The plan on this site is to subdivide up to 97 single-family residential lots for density
of approximately one dwelling unit per acre. The proposed RUPD overlay is to allow for smaller
and narrower lots to maintain this density despite a wash traversing the site.
2.
The Z240023 application was submitted July 31, 2025. A technical advisory committee meeting
was held on September 16, 2025.
3.
After determination on the zone change application the applicant will start the preliminary plat
process. During this process CLOMRs and LOMRs will be processed with FEMA and the County’s
Flood Control District. At this time there is no subdivision layout, and the only amenity proposed
is natural open space, which will be the wash area. Water service is provided by a private utility
provider, but wastewater will be treated by private septic systems on each lot.
4.
The applicant is proposing a zone change to R1-35 RUPD and is requesting to vary several
development standards, see table below. The first request is to reduce the front and rear
setbacks on each lot by 10’ to allow flexibility in home placement due to restraints by the re-
channelization of the wash. Another request is to reduce the lot size by 5,000 sq. ft., which is
necessary because of the reduced lot buildable area caused by the floodway. The final request is
to reduce the minimum lot width from 145’ to 120’ and reduce the minimum lot width to 80’ for
certain lots that are located on cul-de-sacs, street knuckles, or street eyebrows due to the
constraints of the site. In summary, all of these requests are due to the channelizing of the wash
and the unique shape of the property.
REGULATION
BASE ZONING
DISTRICT
REGULATIONS (R1-35)
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT
REGULATIONS (R1-35 RUPD)
Maximum Height
35'
35’
Minimum Front Yard
40'
30’
Minimum Side Yard
20'
20’
Minimum Street-side Yard
20'
20’
Minimum Rear Yard
40'
30’
Minimum Lot Area
35,000 sq. ft.
30,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145'
120’
(80’ for lots located at a cul-de-
sac, knuckle, or eyebrow)
Minimum Lot Area per
Primary Dwelling
Unit
35,000 sq. ft.
35,000 sq. ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
30%
30%
Parking Spaces
2 per dwelling unit
2 per dwelling unit
Z250023
Page 3 of 9
Aerial photo of subject site
Aerial image & surrounding environs
Z250023
Page 4 of 9
Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated 1/14/24).
Portion of the Zoning Exhibit
Z250023
Page 5 of 9
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
5.
On-site:
Rural-43 / vacant land
North:
Rural-43 / School and vacant land
South:
Rural-43 / Patton Rd. then vacant land
East:
Rural-43 / Single-family residences
West:
Rural-43 / Single-family residences
Zoning District Map
Utilities and Services:
6.
Water:
Liberty Utilities
Wastewater:
Private septic systems
School District:
Nadaburg Unified School District
Fire:
Arizona Fire & Medical Authority
Police:
MCSO
Right-of-Way:
7.
The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future
classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Major
Streets and Routes Plan.
Street Name
Half-width Existing R/W
Half-width Proposed R/W
Future Classification
Patton Rd.
40’
65’
Principal Arterial
215th Ave.
0’
25’ (Reserved)
Collector Roadway
Peak View
0’
25’ (Reserved)
Collector Roadway
Z250023
Page 6 of 9
Adopted Plan:
8.
White Tanks – Grand Ave. Area Plan (adopted 6-16-23): This area plan designates the land use
of this site as Single-Family – Rural with a density of 0 -1 du/ac due the areas limited access to
urban services.
Public Participation Summary:
9.
The applicant complied with the requirements of the citizen review process with the required
posting of the site and notification by first class mail to interested parties and adjacent property
owners within 300’ of the subject parcel. Signs were posted on the site, in accordance with
applicable regulations. On August 13, 2025, the applicant held a virtual public meeting, where two
individuals attended with concerns about area flooding and overall density of the future
subdivision. During the meeting the applicant assured the attendees that the existing wash will
be re-engineered to improve the existing flow of the wash to minimize flooding concerns. Also,
during the meeting, the applicant informed the attendees that the density of this subdivision will
be less than one dwelling unit per acre, which will be in line with the land use designation for the
site outlined in the White Tanks-Grand Ave. Area Plan.
10.
There is four letters of opposition from neighboring property owners. The letters express concern
that the requested decrease in lot size will be incompatible to the one to two acre lots of the
immediate area.
11.
During the public participation process, the applicant reached out to the City of Surprise, since the
site is within their municipal planning area. The City expressed no concerns with this request,
since it is consistent with their general plan land use designation of Desert Rural. The City
expressed no interest in annexing the site.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
12.
N/A
Staff Analysis:
13.
Staff is in support of this zone change request. Even though the R1-35 RUPD zoning district could
pragmatically raise the overall residential density of the site, the constraining layout of the site
and existing floodway/floodplain size will limit the density of this site to approximately one
dwelling unit per acre. This density can only be achieved by engineering the natural wash
traversing the site and allowing for smaller and narrower lots. A traditional Rural-43 subdivision
maintaining the natural wash would necessarily be an even lower residential density. The subject
97 acres of proposed R1-35 RUPD zoning will be completely surrounded by Rural-43 zoning and
for a distance of approximately two-miles. The rezoning request while not necessarily
inconsistent with the county’s planning goals and policies, it is arguably not furthering those goals
and policies. The reason for the rezoning would seem to be to ensure a certain lot yield on this
site. Having said that, the R1-35 zoning will maintain the area’s large-lot aesthetics.
Recommendation:
14.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors
approve Z250023 subject to the following conditions ‘a’ – ‘j’:
Z250023
Page 7 of 9
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning Exhibit
entitled “Sonoran Serenity“, consisting of one full-size sheet, dated November 9, 2025, and
stamped received November 10, 2025, except as modified by the following conditions.
Staff may determine slight refinements to remain in substantial conformance with the
approved site plan. Minor and major amendments to the site plan will be determined in
accordance with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the Narrative Report
entitled “Sonoran Serenity”, consisting of nine pages, dated November 9, 2025, and
stamped received on November 10, 2025, except as modified by the following conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering comments shall apply:
1.
Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards;
Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual;
and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of
application for construction.
2.
Based on the conceptual design nature of the information submitted, changes to
the site layout and/or a reduction in the number of building lots may be
necessitated by the final engineering design of the subdivision drainage
infrastructure.
3.
Detailed Grading and Drainage (Infrastructure) Plans must be submitted with the
application for Final Plat Approval and Building Permits.
d.
The following Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s Planning comments shall
apply:
1.
Patton Rd. is classified as a principal arterial roadway requiring a fee dedication of
65’ half-width right-of-way from the section line, as per Section 804 of the updated
Zoning Ordinance.
2.
The applicant is required to provide, at their expense, an American Land Title
Association (ALTA) Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance illustrating title vested in
Maricopa County, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona. It is the
developer’s responsibility to determine if the existing right-of-way fee is simple, if
it is not then the developer shall provide the right-of-way in said form.
3.
The developer shall be required to improve Patton Rd. to the ultimate classification
as described in Section 303 of the County’s Subdivision Regulations. Since 215th
Ave. along the site’s eastern boundary and Peak View Rd. along the site’s northern
boundary is not proposed to be a MCDOT roadways, the requirement for street
improvements will be determined by the County’s Planning & Development
Department. However, if the roadways of this future subdivision are to be MCDOT
maintained roadways, then these roadways shall be improved to the standards
outlined in the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual.
Z250023
Page 8 of 9
4.
Any additional dedication and/or offsite improvement requirements shall be
determined by MCDOT Traffic based on the required Traffic Impact Analysis/
Study. If a Traffic Impact Analysis/Study has been previously submitted, then
approval is only valid for one year and if construction is not underway within this
time period, then MCDOT reserves the right to request an updated traffic report to
assess any changes in conditions.
5.
Per the approved Right-of-Way Reservation Action Request, 215th Ave. along the
eastern boundary of the site and Peak View Rd. along the northern boundary of the
site shall have a reserved half-width right-of-way of 25’, instead of 40’.
6.
These comments do not include identification of utilities or underground facilities
within or adjacent to the required right-of-way that may have prior rights and/or
require relocation.
7.
Prior the submittal of any subdivision plat on this site, the applicant shall notify
ADOT via the Red Letter Process, RedLetter@azdot.gov, since this site is
proximate to the future White Tanks Frwy.
e.
All buildings are subject to noise attenuation as per ARS § 28-8482(B).
f.
The master developer shall notify future homeowners that they are located within the
state-defined “territory in the vicinity of a military airport” with the following language:
“You are buying a home or property in the ‘vicinity of a military airport’ as described by
State of Arizona statute ARS §28-8481. Your house should include sound attenuation
measures as directed by State law. You will be subject to direct overflights and noise by
Luke Air Force Base jet aircraft in the vicinity.
Luke Air Force Base executes over 200,000 flight operations per year, at an average of
approximately 170 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 training
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.
Luke Air Force Base Auxiliary Field 1 located approximately 15 miles to the northwest of
Luke Air Force Base is a site of intense instrument procedure landing approaches, with
approximately 12,000 flight operations per year. Aircraft will descend down to 200 feet
above the ground over the Auxiliary Airfield and will create severe noise in that area.
Such notification shall be recorded on all Final Plats, be permanently posted on not less
than a 3 foot by 5 foot sign in front of all home sales offices, be permanently posted on
the front door of all home sales offices on not less than an 8½ inch by 11 inch sign, and
Z250023
Page 9 of 9
be included in all covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) as well as the Public
Report and conveyance documents.
For further information, please check the Luke Air Force Base website or contact the
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department.”
g.
Prior to initial Final Plat approval or initial precise plan of development approval, the
applicant shall submit to the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
confirmation of service by Liberty Utilities and an approved Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity (CC&N) issued by the State of Arizona.
h.
The following R1-35 RUPD development standards shall apply:
1.
Minimum 30,000 sq. ft. lot area.
2.
Minimum 120’ lot width (except 80’ minimum for lots at a cul-de-sac, street
knuckle or street eyebrow).
3.
Minimum 30’ front setback.
4.
Minimum 30’ rear setback.
i.
The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution in value if the
County takes action to rescind approval due to noncompliance with conditions.
j.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant,
with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to
enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application,
subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property
may be considered for revocation to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It
is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with
any conditions, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use,
divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the
property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation of the
Zone Change. The Zone Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of
the date the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same
value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted.
Presented by:
Martin Martell, Planner
Reviewed by:
Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Zoning Exhibit (reduced 8.5”x11”, 1 page)
Narrative Report (9 pages)
MCDOT comments (2 pages)
MCESD comments (2 pages)
DPR comments (3 pages)
LAFB Comments (2 pages)
Correspondence between applicant & Surprise (1 page)
12-16-25 Opposition Letter (1 page)
12-19-25 Opposition Letter (1 page)
12-22-25 Opposition Letter (1 page)
12-29-25 Opposition Letter (1 page)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 97 approx.
Generated December 11, 2025 11:42 AM
Z250023
Application Name:
Legal Description
Sonoran Serenity
Applicant
Case Address
Michael Ripson
21505 W PATTON RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:503-35-015J
(480) 600-6090
mikeripson@ripsonhomes.com
WITTMANN, AZ 85361
Map scale 1:6,460
Supervisor District No.
Request to change Zone District from RU-43 to R1-35 RUPD for a residential subdivision
Major Cross Streets: Patton Road & 215th Avenue
Address: 21505 West Patton Road, Wittmann, AZ 85361
APN: 503-35-015J
Existing Zoning & Land Use: RU-43; Single Family Residential
Proposed Zoning & Land Use: R1-35 with Overlay (RUPD); Single Family Residential
SQUARE FEET
ACRES
Gross Area of Parcel
4,237,193
97.27
Net Area of Parcel
4,237,193
97.27
Owner: Kashmir Kapital, LLC (Ripson Homes)
Michael Ripson; mikeripson@ripsonhomes.com; 480-998-1495
Engineer: NPS Maricopa Inc.
Tom Haws; tom.haws@gmail.com; 480-201-5476
Surveyor: 82 Bravo -- Ken Shipley
AREA CHART
OWNER & CONSULTANT INFORMATION
SITE INFORMATION & SUMMARY
ZONING EXHIBIT
Request to change Zone District from RU-43 to R1-35 RUPD
CASE NUMBER Z250023
SONORAN SERENITY
VIDA DEL SOL ESTATES UNIT 1, A
SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN
BOOK 515 OF MAPS, PAGE 2 AND AS
CORRECTED IN BOOK 519 OF MAPS,
PAGE 24, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.
(Not a part)
11
11/9/25: Address County comments/redlines.
BASE ZONING DISTRICT
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT
REGULATION
REGULATIONS (R1-35)
REGULATIONS (R1-35 RUPD)
Minimum Lot Area
35,000 SF
30,000 SF
Lot Area per Dwelling Unit *
35,000 SF
35,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width **
145'
120' or 80' ***
Minimum Front Yard
40'
30'
Minimum Rear Yard
40'
30'
Minimum Side Yard
20'
20'
Minimum Street-side Yard
20'
20'
Maximum Height
30'
30'
Maximum Lot Coverage
30%
30%
ZONING OVERLAY COMPARISON CHART
* Lot Area per Dwelling Unit = total area of lots and open spaces, excluding all public and
private streets, divided by the total number of lots.
** Lot width is measured at front yard setback.
*** The general rule is a minimum width of 120'. Up to 6 lots are permitted to have a width less
than 120', provided each such lot has a width at least 80'.
SCHOOL DISTRICT: Nadaburg Unified School District
H. Refuse: Republic Services; Waste Connections; Parks & Sons
D. Police: Maricopa County Sheriff
E. Electric: Arizona Public Service
F. Natural Gas: None
G. Telephone: Century Link; miscellaneous wireless providers
UTILITY TABLE
A. Water: Liberty Utilities
B. Wastewater Disposal: On-lot septic systems
C. Fire: Arizona Fire & Medical Authority
SCHOOL DISTRICT & UTILITY TABLE
RECEIVED 10. NOV 25
Z250023 -- 2. SUB
4,210,267
96.65
NARRATIVE REPORT
Zone Change with Overlay (R1-35 RUPD)
FOR
SONORAN SERENITY
APN: 503-35-015J NWC Patton Road & 215
th Avenue
Case/Tracking #: Z250023
Revised: November 9, 2025
RECEIVED 10. NOV 25
Z250023 -- 2. SUB
I. PURPOSE OF APPLICATION
Applicant requests a Zone Change with Overlay from RU-43 to R1-35 RUPD (Case # Z250023, the
“Application”) for APN 503-35-015J, a 97.27-acre vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Patton Road and 215th
Avenue, Maricopa County, Arizona (the “Property”).
The purpose of the Application is to establish a zoning framework that, by addressing the Property’s unique
physical constraints, restores the ability to develop the 97 dwelling units legally permitted by the White Tank /
Grand Avenue Area Plan which allows one dwelling unit per acre (“du/ac”).
II. JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION
A. Need for Rezoning to R1-35 RUPD to Achieve Allowable Density
1.
The Property’s Physical Constraints Limit Development Capacity
a) A Floodway Has Reduced the Buildable Area: The Property is governed by the White Tank / Grand
Avenue Area Plan permitting a maximum density of 1.00 du/ac,
legally entitling 97 lots on the Property. The current zoning of RU-43
requires lots to be a minimum of one acre, theoretically allowing
development of 97 lots on 97 buildable acres. Historically, each acre
of the Property was buildable.
However, after Applicant acquired its rights to purchase the
Property, Flood Control initiated and FEMA designated a large
floodway wash which now diagonally bisects the site. Because
building homes in the floodway is prohibited, the remaining buildable
land is less than the 97 acres necessary to develop all entitled lots if all
lots must be one-acre as required by the current RU-43 zoning.
b) The Site’s Complex Geometry Precludes Strict Adherence to Development Standards: The
Property has two significant physical constraints — the aforementioned diagonal floodway and an
irregular parcel shape. As the floodway diagonally bisects the irregularly-shaped parcel from
northwest to southeast, the geometry of the available buildable land is continuously reshaped through
the parcel. These physical constraints, combined with the need to incorporate internal streets while
creating the building envelopes, form significant geometric “problem zones” with reduced and
constantly changing characteristics regarding the buildable geometry.
Given these constraints, strict adherence to development regulations — particularly minimum lot
area, minimum lot width, and depth setbacks (front & rear) — further prevents the Property from
yielding its lot entitlement under the White Tank / Grand Avenue Area Plan.
2.
Proposed Solution: Integrated Approach Using R1-35 and RUPD Overlay
a) Rezoning to R1-35: Rezoning to the R1-35 district, which reduces the minimum lot size from one
acre to 35,000 square feet (80.3% of an acre), is necessary to accommodate the reduced buildable area
caused by floodway. This modest lot size reduction is an essential step towards restoration of the
Property’s permitted density while maintaining the rural and equestrian character of the area, ensuring
compatibility with adjoining RU-43 properties.
While a vital step, rezoning alone is not sufficient to restore the lot yield because certain R1-35
development standards are too rigid to accommodate the Property’s unique physical constraints as
strict adherence to the standards would still preclude the entitled density.
b) RUPD Overlay for Development Flexibility: The RUPD Overlay provides essential flexibility to
address the Property’s physical constraints by modifying three key standards: minimum lot area
(allows smaller lots while maintaining the base minimum by averaging with open space), minimum
lot width, and minimum front & rear setbacks. These synergistic, flexible tools permit site-responsive
adjustments in the Property’s “problem zones” where strict adherence to regulations would prevent
development feasibility.
As detailed in the Justification for Varied Development Standards section below, RUPD Overlay
flexibility is a vital step in restoring the full 97-lot entitlement given the site’s physical constraints.
While necessary, an RUPD Overlay alone cannot restore the full entitled lot yield without the
complementary rezoning to R1-35, as RU-43’s required one-acre minimum lot size cannot be met
given the reduced buildable acreage.
B. No Increase in Density Above the Existing 1.00 Dwelling Unit per Acre Limit
This application does not propose or result in an increase to the Property’s maximum allowable density. The
Property remains subject to the density cap of one dwelling unit per acre established by the White Tank /
Grand Avenue Area Plan. Any attempt to increase density beyond this threshold would require a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
This rezoning application is fully compliant with the current density limitations.
C. Additional Justifications for this Application: Flood Relief to Neighbors; Open Space; Compatibility
with Adjacent Zoning; No Negative Impacts
A primary justification for this application is the significant benefit the Property’s future development will
provide to neighboring residents and the broader community through the proposed R1-35 RUPD zoning.
As detailed in the Relationship to Surrounding Properties section below, this rezoning facilitates important
flood relief to neighbors immediately west of the Property who have experienced flooding from the existing
floodway wash. Channelization of the floodway wash, a critical flood mitigation measure to develop this site
recommended by Bob Fedorka, Engineering Manager, Maricopa County Planning & Development.
Channelization will specifically mitigate flooding from the wash that is currently experienced by the
neighbors to the west, as well as provide broader flood mitigation to the community.
Compatibility with adjacent properties is preserved by the extensive HOA-maintained open space created
through channelization and its accompanying flood-mitigating retention basins. This open space not only
offers valuable community amenities but also supports the preservation of the area’s rural character. The
R1-35 rezoning modestly reduces minimum lot sizes while continuing to allow residents to keep horses —
an attribute valued by residents of the area that is not permitted in more dense zoning districts.
Overall, this R1-35 RUPD application delivers clear and tangible benefits to neighboring properties and the
broader community. It achieves these benefits without generating negative impacts or placing additional
demands on local infrastructure and services beyond those already authorized under the existing zoning.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Applicant proposes to rezone the Property from RU-43 to R1-35 RUPD to provide a zoning framework that
accommodates development of up to 97 lots consistent with the White Tank / Grand Avenue Area Plan’s density
allowance of 1.00 dwelling unit per acre. Staff has encouraged the Applicant to seek approval of a preliminary
plat only after the rezoning of the Property has been accomplished. As such, a preliminary plat is not submitted
concurrently; however, Applicant contemplates a future residential subdivision on this site with 97 lots resulting
in a density of .997 du/ac.
IV. RELATIONSHIP TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
A. Description of Surrounding Properties.
The existing zoning in the immediate vicinity of the Property is RU-43 single-family residential, with a
maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre. The existing uses adjacent to the Property are single-
family homes, large parcels of vacant land and, on a contiguous parcel to the north, the Nadaburg Unified
School District has constructed its high school facilities on the northern half while maintaining vacant land
on the southern portion, abutting the Property.
B. This R1-35 RUPD Application provides Substantial Benefits to Neighbors and the Community.
1.
Flood Relief through Channelization of the Floodway Wash
Residents immediately west of the Property have reported substantial flooding issues caused by the
existing floodway wash. County engineering staff has recommended channelizing the floodway wash to
concentrate and control floodwaters, a crucial flood mitigation measure benefiting neighboring properties.
However, channelization requires a subdivision of sufficient scale to economically justify these costly
infrastructure improvements. Rezoning the Property to R1-35 RUPD provides the zoning framework for
the Property to restore its legal allowance of 97 lots, thereby facilitating the economic foundation needed
to support floodway channelization. The resulting flood control channel and retention basins will be
maintained by the HOA, effectively reducing flood risks for neighbors and improving overall community
safety.
2.
Open Space: Rezoning leads to a viable development that enables channelization and results in
significant open space for the community.
Development under this rezoning would enable the creation of a dedicated HOA-owned flood-control
channel and sizable retention basins which would serve multiple functions: mitigating flooding, providing
open space, and offering community recreational areas. These open space amenities will benefit residents
and help preserve the rural character of the neighborhood.
C. R1-35 RUPD is in Harmony with Neighboring Zoning & Preserves the Rural Character of the Area.
1.
Harmony with Surrounding RU-43 Zoned Parcels: The proposed R1-35 RUPD zoning is compatible
with the nearby RU-43 parcels. Numerous similarities ensure that the visual and community character
remain harmonious:
a) R1-35 Average Lot Size: The required average lot size of this R1-35 RUPD zoning is 80.3% of an
acre, which is only modestly smaller than the neighboring one-acre parcels with RU-43 zoning.
b) Maximum Density Is Not Increased via this Application: As noted above, this R1-35 RUPD
request does not alter the density of the Property. Instead, the RUPD’s flexibility allows adjustments
to lot configurations to address the Property’s unique floodway and shape constraints, enabling viable
development, the channelization of the floodway wash, and the consequent open space.
c)
Feedback from City of Surprise: R1-35 RUPD is Compatible with Neighboring Parcels.
i.
Direct feedback from the City of Surprise (July 29, 2025 email from Trever Fleetham, Planning
Manager, City of Surprise) provides independent confirmation that this R1-35 RUPD Application
is compatible with the low-density residential character prevalent in the area.
Mr. Fleetham has advised that “… the site is located within the city’s Desert Rural Overlay,
which is aimed at preserving existing large lot rural development” and that the R1-35 RUPD
proposal “would most closely match the City’s R-1 Residential low density zoning district.”
ii.
The above statements from the City of Surprise confirm the appropriateness of this R1-35 RUPD
request, verifying that the Application is in zoning harmony with and is supportive of regional
planning goals.
d) R1-35 RUPD Preserves Equestrian Opportunities and Rural Lifestyle: R1-35 allows
homeowners to keep horses on their properties — a valued attribute of the R1-35 zoning district that
is prohibited in more dense zoning districts — which further demonstrates that R1-35 RUPD zoning
is in harmony with the area’s rural lifestyle and character.
D. No Adverse Impacts on Neighbors’ Lifestyles; No Incremental Stress on Community Infrastructure.
1.
No Negative Impact on the Lifestyle of Neighbors: Given that the density is not increased by this
Application, there will be no increase in the number of dwellings, population, or activity levels beyond
what is already legally allowed under the current RU-43 zoning. Consequently, neighbors will not have
to endure any extra noise, traffic, or other disturbances than already allowed under the status quo
entitlements. Instead, this Application offers neighbors the aforementioned benefits of flood mitigation
and open space.
2.
Infrastructure and Services Will Not be Stressed Beyond Current Entitlements: This Application
results in no additional burden on local streets, utilities, water use, or other infrastructure compared to
what is currently permissible under the RU-43 zoning. The development density remains capped at 1.00
du/acre, ensuring that traffic, noise, construction impacts, and demand on community services will not
increase beyond the status quo entitlements.
V. LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY
The Property is situated at the northwest corner of Patton Road and 215th Avenue, approximately three miles west
of the US Route 60 / Grand Avenue corridor. Access to the future subdivision is anticipated primarily from Patton
Road along the southern boundary, with additional access points to be evaluated during the platting process to
ensure safe and efficient circulation.
VI. CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The subdivision is anticipated to be ungated with private roadways under homeowners association ownership and
maintenance. Detailed design of internal circulation, including emergency access and connectivity, will be
developed during the platting process to ensure functionality and safety.
VII. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE (PHASING)
It is anticipated that a preliminary plat will be submitted subsequent to approval of the rezoning. The timing and
phasing of development will be determined during the platting process.
VIII. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The high school for the Nadaburg Unified School District is on a parcel adjacent to the Property’s northern
boundary. No other community facilities exist in the immediate vicinity. Approval of this rezoning facilitates
development that includes HOA-maintained flood control infrastructure and substantial open space, providing the
community with valuable amenities aligned with the rural character of the area.
IX. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
A. Water: Liberty Utilities
B. Wastewater Disposal: On-lot septic systems consistent with the Property’s rural environment
C. Fire: Arizona Fire & Medical Authority
D. Police: Maricopa County Sheriff
E. Electric: Arizona Public Service
F.
Natural Gas: None
G. Telephone: Century Link; miscellaneous wireless providers
H. Refuse: Republic Services; Waste Connections; Parks & Sons
X. R1-35 RUPD / Zoning Overlay Comparison Chart
XI. JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THROUGH AN RUPD OVERLAY
A. Base Zoning vs RUPD Overlay
Under base zoning districts such as RU-43 or R1-35, strict adherence to development regulations is required,
with each individual lot meeting all standards, including minimum lot area. The presence of open space or
other common areas does not reduce the minimum lot size or dimensional requirements for individual lots.
An RUPD Overlay (MCZO Section 1002 and Directive DD-2015-10) expressly authorizes flexibility in
development regulations when unique site conditions warrant deviations. The explicit purpose of an RUPD is
to enable site-responsive design solutions without increasing the underlying base district density or
undermining the zoning intent. An RUPD reasonably allows site-responsive deviations from the minimum lot
size (by averaging lots with non-street open space), and permits deviations in other standards to efficiently
utilize a parcel’s constrained buildable areas.
B. A Multi-pronged and Coordinated Approach to Flexibility
The Property exemplifies a parcel with challenging physical constraints that necessitate RUPD flexibility. The
diagonal FEMA-designated floodway bisects the Property from northwest to southeast, significantly reducing
BASE ZONING DISTRICT
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT
REGULATION
REGULATIONS (R1-35)
REGULATIONS (R1-35 RUPD)
Minimum Lot Area
35,000 SF
30,000 SF
Lot Area per Dwelling Unit *
35,000 SF
35,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width **
145'
120' ***
Minimum Front Yard
40'
30'
Minimum Rear Yard
40'
30'
Minimum Side Yard
20'
20'
Minimum Street-side Yard
20'
20'
Maximum Height
30'
30'
Maximum Lot Coverage
30%
30%
ZONING OVERLAY COMPARISON CHART
* Lot Area per Dwelling Unit = total area of lots and open spaces, excluding all public and
private streets, divided by the total number of lots.
** Lot width is measured at front yard setback.
*** Lot width 80' for lots on cul-de-sac, street knuckles, and street eyebrows
and reshaping buildable land. Combined with the Property’s irregular parcel boundaries and necessity to
provide internal streets, these conditions create spatially shifting “problem zones” where strict adherence to
standard development regulations is impractical and prohibits the realization of the legally entitled density.
To effectively respond to the Property’s continuously shifting buildable geometry, a suite of flexible tools is
required, consisting of deviations in three development standards, all of which are indispensable and
interrelated:
1.
Minimum Lot Area: R1-35 Standard = 35,000 sf
RUPD = 30,000 sf
Rationale for Lot Size Deviation:
A reduction in the minimum allowed lot area is essential for this Property because the ability to place
slightly smaller lots in the constrained problem zones enables maximum efficient utilization of the
parcel’s diminished buildable acreage. Without this flexibility, usable land would have to be allocated to
adjacent lots, producing unnecessarily-oversized lots and reducing the total number of lots below the legal
entitlement.
Although smaller lots are allowed, the Property must nonetheless meet the base district’s overall lot size
regulation. This is accomplished by averaging all lots with the substantial open space provided by the
channelized floodway wash and the retention basins, maintained by the HOA. Such a comprehensive and
sensible planning approach balances efficient site design and density goals, encourages preservation of
open area, and adapts to unique site constraints.
Why a Deviation to Minimum Lot Area Alone is Not Insufficient: Lot size flexibility, while an
indispensable tool, is insufficient on its own because it cannot compensate for the irregular narrowing of
width or for the compression of depth caused by the diagonal floodway relative to the street alignments
and the parcel boundaries. Narrow zones require flexibility in lot width, whereas depth-constrained zones
are resolved through variability in the front & rear setbacks.
2.
Minimum Lot Width: R1-35 Standard = 145’
RUPD = 120’ with up to 6 lots allowed at 80’
Rationale re. General Lot Width Minimum of 120’: A general reduction in minimum lot width to 120’
addresses the narrowing caused by the diagonal floodway’s shifting position relative to the street
alignments and parcel boundaries, allowing efficient placement of lots within the development.
Rationale re. Additional Deviation for up to 6 Lots at Minimum 80’ Lot Width: Up to 6 lots are
permitted to have a width less than 120', provided each such lot has a width at least 80'. This tactical
flexibility is essential to address targeted areas where the interplay of the diagonal floodway, internal
street alignments, and irregular parcel boundaries is particularly problematic, rendering compliance with
the 120’ minimum impracticable for 6 lots. Through the limited use of this tactical tool, the Property can
efficiently utilize challenging areas to safeguard the entitled lot yield, while preserving the intended low-
density character and ensuring compatibility with adjacent properties.
Why Lot Width Deviations Alone are Not Insufficient: Width reductions alone do not resolve either
the constrained buildable area or the depth constraints in problem zones; each requires a separate solution.
3.
Depth Setbacks (Front and Rear): R1-35 Standard = 40’ each
RUPD = 30’ each
Rationale re. Deviation in Front & Rear Setbacks: A reduction in front & rear setbacks provides
critical relief from depth limitations imposed by the floodway, parcel boundaries and/or street alignments,
permitting varied building envelopes in depth-constrained problem zones. Larger, rigid setbacks would
mandate larger lot footprints or unusable parcels, limiting achievable lot count.
Why a Deviation to Minimum Lot Area Alone is Not Insufficient: Flexibility in the front & rear
setbacks is a necessary tool to address depth-constrained zones, but it cannot re-create usable land taken
by the floodway, nor can it address the narrow lot widths in problem zones; these obstacles require
complementary flexibility in lot area and lot width.
C. Synergistic Effect of Combined Deviations
No individual deviation fully resolves the Property’s development challenges. The floodway’s diagonal
trajectory and the parcel’s irregular shape cause the buildable areas to vary across the site, necessitating a
multi-faceted, flexible approach. When combined, these three deviations to the R1-35 zoning facilitate a site-
responsive subdivision design that restores the 97-lot entitlement and enables channelization of the wash—
creating open space as a beneficial byproduct—while preserving the low-density, rural character of the area.
D. Compensatory Safeguards and Benefits
•
Channelizing the floodway, as recommended by County engineers, is economically justifiable only with
the full lot yield enabled by changing the zoning to R1-35 along with flexibility via this RUPD Overlay.
•
Channelizing provides much-desired flood relief for neighbors to the immediate west and also
downstream, and enhances overall community safety.
•
The resulting flood control channel and retention basins will be maintained by the HOA as open space,
providing valuable community amenities including enhanced aesthetics, recreational opportunities, and
ecological buffers — features that collectively uphold and reinforce the low-density, rural character of the
neighborhood.
•
This application will not result in any increase in density, as the Property remains subject to the one
dwelling unit per acre cap established by the White Tank / Grand Avenue Area Plan. Consequently, the
Property’s density remains identical to that of all surrounding parcels, ensuring continued harmony with
the neighborhood despite technical deviations in lot configuration.
•
Average lot size will meet and, due to the substantial open space created, likely will exceed the R1-35
minimum of 35,000 square feet. At 80.3% of an acre, this is only modestly smaller than the neighboring
one-acre lots zoned RU-43.
Given all of the foregoing, deployment of the proposed RUPD Overlay on this Property is a textbook application
of Maricopa County’s RUPD ordinance.
XII. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF SURPRISE GENERAL PLAN
Trever Fleetham, Planning Manager with the City of Surprise, advised via email on July 29, 2025 that the
Property is covered by the city’s Desert Rural Overlay, and that this Application is consistent with said overlay as
it is intended to preserve rural large-lot rural development. Specifically, Mr.
Fleetham stated that the proposed R1-35 zoning “would most closely match” the
City’s low-density residential zoning district.
Meanwhile, Mr. Fleetham also advised that the southern portion of the site would
allow significantly enhanced uses because it is within the Employment Character
Area (purple area at left) of the Surprise General Plan 2040 which discourages
residential uses, focusing instead on commercial and employment-generating
activities. Of course, while the City of Surprise might encourage commercial
and employment-generating uses for this portion of the Property, this pending
Application does not propose any such uses at this time.
Regarding future utilities being provided by the city, Mr. Fleetham advised that the site is not located within the
city’s future water service area, but is located within its future sewer service area. However, the city cannot
provide services to the site unless it is annexed, which cannot occur without inclusion of additional surrounding
land because the site does not directly abut the city’s current boundary.
XIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The requested zone change to R1-35 RUPD is necessary to enable development of the Property at its currently
allowed density of one dwelling unit per acre, as permitted under the White Tank / Grand Avenue Area Plan.
Changing the zoning district to R1-35 is essential to address the parcel’s decreased buildable area due to the
floodway, as R1-35 permits slightly smaller lot sizes and thereby supports the 97-lot entitlement on the site.
Meanwhile, the RUPD Overlay is also necessary as it provides crucial flexibility in lot size, lot width, and depth
setback standards that address the Property’s unique challenges—specifically, an irregular parcel shape and a
diagonally bisecting floodway that reduces usable land. These overlay tools, working in concert, enable efficient
utilization and layout of the remaining buildable area, without increasing overall density and while preserving the
low-density, rural, equestrian character of the area.
Because the White Tank / Grand Avenue Area Plan continues to govern the Property, density is not increased and
harmony with the adjacent RU-43 parcels is preserved. Moreover, at 80.3% of an acre and with the provision for
horses, the R1-35 zoning district offers similar size and lifestyle attributes to its RU-43 neighbors.
In conclusion, rezoning to R1-35 RUPD is essential for a viable and efficient subdivision design on this
constrained site. The proposed development will uphold the region’s low-density rural character, provide critical
flood mitigation improvements to the neighbors, and offer open space amenities, all without increasing density or
placing additional demands on infrastructure. This comprehensive approach aligns with county planning goals
established by MCZO Section 1002 and DD-2015-10, providing a balanced, community-oriented solution to a
unique challenge.
Item #5 – PA250106 – APN 503-35-015J – Zone Change Residential Subdivision
• Patton Road is classified as a principal arterial requiring fee dedication of a 65-foot
half street from the section line.
o Applicant is required to provide, at applicant’s expense, an American Land
Title Association(“ALTA”) Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance showing title
vested in Maricopa County, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona.
• Any additional dedication and offsite improvement requirements will be determined
by MCDOT Traffic based on a submitted TIA/TIS to Permit Center at
https://maricopacountyaz-energovweb.tylerhost.net/apps/selfservice#/home.
o If a TIA/TIS has been previously submitted, approval is valid for one year. If
review for construction is not underway within this time period, MCDOT may
request an updated traffic report to assess any changes in condition.
• The subdivision to the west (Vida Del Sol Estates Unit 1) provided the connection to
Buck Lane. The next submittals will need to either incorporate this connection or
provide a turnaround for Buck Lane.
• For the subdivision to be gate the access points of Patton Road and Quails Nest the
internal roadways need to be private and maintained by the HOA as indicated in the
Site Plan.
• Peak View Road is a mid-section alignment requiring the setback line to start from a
future half street Right-of-Way of 40-feet per the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance
Section 1105.
• 215th Avenue is a mid-section alignment requiring the setback line to start from a
future half street Right-of-Way of 40-feet per the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance
Section 1105.
• The above comments do not include identification of utilities or underground
facilities within or adjacent to the required right-of-way that may have prior rights
and/or require relocation.
• Applicant to notify ADOT of proposed project through the Red Letter Process,
RedLetter@azdot.gov, due to the proximity to the Future White Tanks freeway.
Thank you,
Drew Sigado
Planning Project Manager
Department of Transportation
Engineering Division
2901 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009
O: 602-506-7223
E: Drew.Sigado@Maricopa.gov
[ Maricopa.Gov ]
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
Page | 1
Subdivision
Infrastructure
& Planning Program
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
S u b d i vi s io n @ m a ri co p a .go v
e s d .m a r i c o pa .g o v
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has completed review
for the Sonoran Serenity planning case(s). Please note the following MCESD requirements
for site development:
Subdivision Infrastructure and Planning –
An Approval to Construct application is required and must be submitted to MCESD’s
Subdivision & Infrastructure Program for water, reclaimed water and/or wastewater system
infrastructure.
A Water Service Agreement signed by the Utility is required and must be submitted to
MCESD’s Subdivision & Infrastructure Program if the site/development will be provided with
water and/or reclaimed water by a Utility. A Capacity Assurance Form issued by the Utility
is required to MCESD’s Subdivision & Infrastructure Program if the site/development
wastewater service is being provided by a Utility.
Prior to Final Plat approval, a Septic Soils and Hydrology Report must be submitted to and
approved by MCESD’s Subdivision & Infrastructure Program for subdivided lots that will be
served by individual septic systems. The number of soil tests must be at least 30% of the
number of platted lots and the locations evenly spaced throughout the development.
An Approval of Sanitary Facilities (Subdivision) application is required to the MCESD’s
Subdivision & Infrastructure Program for Subdivisions with Single Family Residences and
for Condominiums/Town Homes.
For subdivision related questions, please contact the Subdivision and Infrastructure
Program at (602) 506-1058 or email subdivision@maricopa.gov.
Project Name: Sonoran Serenity
Primary Contact Name: Michael Ripson
Planning Application Type: Zone Change
with Overlay
APN(s): 503-35-015J
Reviewer: Elliott Wheaton, P.E.
Email: Elliott.Wheaton@maricopa.gov
Phone: 602-376-6035
Planner Name: Martin Martell
Planning Case #: Z250023
Date: September 8, 2025
Water and Waste Management Division
Page | 2
Additional Notes –
*It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project. Comments are provided
for the benefit of the applicant for MCESD permit requirements and as an advisory to Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department. 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 current regulations at the time of application.
Zachary Kobza, P.E.
Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: (602) 723-5248
Fax: (602) 506-8762
www.maricopa.gov/planning
Email address:
Zachary.Kobza@maricopa.gov
Planning & Development
Engineering Plan Review
Date:
September 8, 2025
Memo To: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager, Department of Planning &
Development
Attn:
Martin Martell, Planner, Planning & Development Services
cc:
Bob Fedorka, PE, Engineering Manager, Planning & Development
From:
Zachary Kobza, PE, Senior Plans Examiner Engineer, Planning &
Development
Subject:
Z250023 – Zone change from RU-43 to R1-35
APN(s):
503-35-015J
Engineering Review has reviewed the first plan and report routed for review on
08/01/2025, for the subject application and has no further objections:
The following stipulations will apply:
1. Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design
only. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and
Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway
Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and best practices
at the time of application for construction.
2. Based on the conceptual design nature of the information submitted, changes
to the site layout and/or a reduction in the number of building lots may be
necessitated by the final engineering design of the subdivision drainage
infrastructure.
3. Detailed Grading and Drainage (Infrastructure) Plans must be submitted with
the application for Final Plat Approval and Building Permits
Please contact me with any questions.
Page 2 of 3
DRAINAGE PLAN REVIEW REFERENCES:
The Drainage Regulations are listed in Section 1205 of the MCZO:
https://www.maricopa.gov/documentcenter/view/272
Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards Manual:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2369
For Additional Information See:
https://www.maricopa.gov/1635/Drainage-Review
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY REFERENCES:
Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/630
For Additional Information See:
https://www.maricopa.gov/3847/Flood-Control-District
PND TRANSPORTATION REFERENCES:
Residential Driveway Guidelines
https://www.maricopa.gov/documentcenter/view/362
Roadway Design Manual
http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24883
Maricopa County Resolution for ROW Permits
https://www.maricopa.gov/documentcenter/view/364
For Additional Information See:
https://www.maricopa.gov/156/MCDOT
PND STORMWATER QUALITY (SWPPP) REFERENCES:
Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Regulation
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6577
Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 310
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5354
For Additional Information See:
https://www.maricopa.gov/3980/Water-Sewage-Stormwater-Waste
Page 3 of 3
Abbreviations Key:
Drainage:
DD =
Department Directive (See: http://www.maricopa.gov/1911/Department-
Directives)
MCZO =
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance
DPSM = Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards
SSA =
State Standard Attachment
DDMV1= Maricopa County Drainage Design Manual – Hydrology
DDMV2 = Maricopa County Drainage Design Manual – Hydraulics
Flood Control:
FRMC =
Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County
PND Transportation:
RDM =
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual
RDG =
MCDOT Residential Design Guidelines
MSRP = MCDOT Major Streets and Routes Plan
PND Storm Water:
SWMDCR=
Maricopa County Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge
Control Regulation
DDMV3= Maricopa County Drainage Design Manual – Erosion Control
APCR=
Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations – Rule 310
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
29 September 2025
Mr. Mark C. James
Director, Community Initiatives Team
56th Fighter Wing
14185 W. Falcon Street
Luke AFB AZ 85309-1629
Mr. Martin Martell
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
501 North 44th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85008
RE: Z250023; Sonoran Serenity (APN: 503-35-015J)
Dear Mr. Martell
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application to rezone the proposed
Sonoran Serenity residential community. The request is to re-zone from RU-43 to R1-35 for the
development of 35,000SF residential lots. The site sits on approximately 97.74 acres of vacant
land and is located south of the northwest corner of 215th Avenue and Patton Road in
unincorporated Maricopa County. The site is located .72 miles outside the Luke AFB Aux-1
2004 JLUS, 65 DNL, “high noise or accident potential zone,” as identified by A.R.S. § 28-8461,
and all of the property is within the “territory in the vicinity of a military airport,” also defined
by A.R.S. § 28-8461.
In an effort to promote a more compatible co-existence, Luke AFB follows the guidelines
in the Graduated Density Concept (GDC). The GDC proposes, in the absence of a more
restrictive state, county or municipal general or comprehensive plan, graduating densities away
from the 65 Ldn as follows: a maximum of 2 du/ac from the 65 Ldn to 1/2 mile, a maximum of
4 du/ac from 1/2 to 1 mile, and a maximum of 6 du/ac from 1 to 3 miles. While this request does
not propose the number of lots, it seeks to reduce the total number of allowable lots due to a
floodplain covering a significant portion of the property. We find this request will have no
negative impact the flying operations at Luke AFB.
Since the site is located within the “territory in the vicinity of a military airport,” it will
be subjected to noise from approximately 165 flights per day, we recommend you review the
sound attenuation requirements found in A.R.S. §28-8482. We also encourage a notification
program on the part of the applicant to inform potential residents about Luke AFB operations.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (623) 856-6169.
Sincerely
MARK C. JAMES
cc:
Colonel John D. Ryan, Deputy Commander, 56th Fighter Wing
Ms. Demetria Themistocles, General Law Attorney, 56th Fighter Wing
SIGN
Email String with City of Surprise
From: Dr Anastasia Ripson <anastasia@ripsonhomes.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 10:19 AM
To: Christina Sexton <Christina.Sexton@surpriseaz.gov>
Cc: mikeripson@ripsonhomes.com
Subject: Re: City of Surprise re APN 503-35-015J
Hi Christina-
Happy Thursday! Thank you again for all your assistance in helping with this project. We appreciate your time!
I was just checking in to see if you have any updates for us.
Thank you so much!
Cheers,
Anastasia Ripson, PhD
Vice President of Sales and Innovation
Chief Sustainability Officer
Ripson Homes
480.980.9124
On Jul 21, 2025, at 2:05 PM, Christina Sexton <Christina.Sexton@surpriseaz.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon,
Staff is in receipt of your email. You will be hearing from me shortly your next steps to obtain the required information from the City of Surprise.
Best regards,
Chris Sexton, Senior Planner
City of Surprise|Community Development
16000 N. Civic Center Plaza|Surprise, AZ 85374
Office: 623.222.3134| Fax: 623-222-3001
<image002.png>
From: mikeripson@ripsonhomes.com <mikeripson@ripsonhomes.com>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 12:36 PM
To: Christina Sexton <Christina.Sexton@surpriseaz.gov>
Cc: anastasia@ripsonhomes.com; mikeripson@ripsonhomes.com
Subject: City of Surprise re APN 503-35-015J
Hi Christina – Thank you for chatting with us. As additional background, we will very soon (hopefully later today) be submitting a request to
Maricopa County for a Zone Change with Overlay (R1-35 RUPD) regarding APN 503-35-015J, a 97.27 acre parcel of vacant land currently zoned
RU-43 and located at the northwest corner of Patton Road and 215th Avenue in Maricopa County. This request will, among other things, allow the
average lot area within the parcel to be 35,000sf (versus the current minimum lot size of 43,560sf).
In their official Checklist for our rezoning request, the County has “strongly encouraged” us to contact the City of Surprise to obtain written
confirmation of certain things … and here’s the snippet I mentioned from the county’s Zone Change with Overlay Checklist: “You are strongly
encouraged to provide written confirmation from, and/or provide a summary of discussion with the City of Surprise that indicates how this
proposal meets their general plan and furthers the City’s Planning goals and policies. This documentation should also confirm whether City will
provide water and sewer services for this project and whether the City intends to annex the site.”
So we would like you to provide the following information in response to the County’s “strong encouragement” for our outreach to you:
1.
How does this rezoning request meet the City of Surprise’s general plan?
2.
How does this rezoning request further the City’s Planning goals and policies?
3.
Will the City provide water service for this project?
4.
Will the City provide sewer service for this project?
5.
Does the City intend to annex the site?
Thank you so much for your help, and we look forward to your quick responses to these questions. Please feel free to call either Anastasia (480-
980-9124) or me (480-600-6090) if you need additional background or if anything is unclear.
Thanks,
Michael
<image003.jpg>
Michael D. Ripson
Chief Executive Officer
Office: (480) 998-1495
Cell: (480) 600-6090
Email: mikeripson@RipsonHomes.com
LETTER OF OPPOSITION CASE # 250023
Dear Board of Supervisors, our names are Max and Terry Black
Crow residences 0f 28810 n Bush st Community of Sonoran Homes
developed by Mr Ripson. Mr Ripson’s proposal of changing Rural-43
zoning 97.27 acres to re- zoning to R1 -35 RUPD we feel would be
detrimental to our community. We feel adding approximately 846
5,000 sq ft parcels for new homes would only affect our water
concerns also traffic and the country living that was promoted by Mr.
Ripsons sales promotion at the time when we purchased our home
from then developer Mr Ripson. It’s common knowledge in our
community and surrounding communities that the state hasn’t really
Evaluated the horrendous traffic situation at 163 and 303 over
development is out of hand. The noise dust nails from contractors on
the road coming in and out of a development we will have to tolerate
knowing this true from the past construction. Patton a two way street
already crowded would really be in impacted by over a 1000 more
family cars. This re zoning would impact wittmann in a negative way.
We bought this home with promises of horse riding rv vehicle use now
he’s trying to take in away out of we feel. We believe changing the
zoning would take away our country living changing wittmann into an
urban environment opening the door for more developers in their
greed to destroy another Arizona rural community for the sake of
wealth. Thank you for taking the time to read our view and hope you
can see our dilemma. Max and Terry Black Crow Dec 19th 2025
December 27, 2025
Name: Melvin C. Ferguson, Alberta L. Ferguson
Address: 28410 N. Bush St., Wittmann, AZ 85361
Phone: 623-399-3213; 602-301-3329
Email: wikwire.brand@gmail.com; 2.shyanne78@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Martin Martell, Planner
c/o Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
602-506-6533
Martin.martell@maricopa.gov
RE: Case #Z250023-Sonoran Serenity
We live at 28410 N. Bush St. Lot# 5 Parcel Number: 503-35-036
This property is within 300 feet from the proposed 97.27 acre site located 1/2 mile E of NEC of Patton and
Crozier Roads in the Wittmann area.
We, Melvin C. Ferguson & Alberta L. Ferguson, residents of Vida Del Sol Estates Unit 1, are writing this letter
with concerns on the proposed request for zone change with overlay from RU-43 (1 acre) to R1-35 RUPD (0.8
acre). We are in OPPOSITION of the request to decrease the lot size from original size of one acre to 0.8 acre.
We feel the adjoining neighborhood should remain with the same integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods
in this area of no less than one acre. We wish to keep the value our homes, lowering the lot size would
decrease the integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________________
Melvin C. Ferguson
____________________________________
Alberta L. Ferguson
Copies Sent to:
PZAppeal@mail.maricopa.gov
Martin.martell@maricopa.gov