Z240006 Handout Memo 2 consolidated

DATE:
May 8, 2025
TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission  
From:
Nick Schlimm, Planner 
SUBJECT:
Z240006 – Goldhawk at the Preserve   
Agenda Item: #5
Staff received correspondence from Larry S. Lazarus of Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C. pertaining to the 
referenced case. Mr. Lazarus is actively negotiating with the applicant over potential revisions to 
the conditions of approval. Attached to this handout memo is the email Mr. Lazarus sent to inform 
Planning staff of his proposed revisions, as well as the proposed revisions themselves and a 
memo explaining the figures used in those revisions.
Staff also received correspondence from Stephen W. Anderson of Gammage & Burnham 
pertaining to the referenced case. Mr. Anderson is representing the Salt River Pima-Maricopa 
Indian Community (SRPMIC) and is also actively negotiating with the applicant over potential 
revisions to the conditions of approval. Attached to this handout memo is the email Mr. Anderson 
sent to inform Planning staff of his proposed revisions, as well as the proposed revisions 
themselves.
Staff notes that the applicant remains in negotiation with Mr. Lazarus and Mr. Anderson regarding 
changes to the conditions of approval. As of the writing of this handout memo, consensus has 
not yet been reached. The proposed condition language from Mr. Lazarus and Mr. Anderson (each 
separate proposals) is attached strictly for informative purposes. Staff and the applicant have not 
yet confirmed any changes to the conditions recommended in the staff report.
Attachments:
Email and Attachments from Larry S. Lazarus (12 pages)
Email and Attachments from Stephen W. Anderson (8 pages)

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Darren Gerard (PND)
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
FW: Goldhawk at the Preserve Z240006 Conditions
Date:
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:13:45 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
2025-05-06 Draft FMYNConditions LS Redline.docx
2025_05_01 Memo to File on Septic Fund Calculations (Goldhawk) (002).docx
 
 
From: Larry Lazarus <llazarus@lslawaz.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 1:34 PM
To: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>
Cc: Nicholas Schlimm (PND) <Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov>; Tom Ellsworth (PND)
<Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov>; dbenally@fmyn.org; Susan Montgomery
<smontgomery@milawaz.com>; Michelle Green <mgreen@lslawaz.com>
Subject: Goldhawk at the Preserve Z240006 Conditions
 
Darren, Attached please find our proposed edits to the rezoning conditions for the above-noted zoning case. I am also attaching a memo prepared by Montgomery & Interpreter which explains the figures we used in the proposed condition that
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Darren,
 
Attached please find our proposed edits to the rezoning conditions for the above-noted zoning case.
I am also attaching a memo prepared by Montgomery & Interpreter which explains the figures we
used in the proposed condition that requires a fund be set up to pay for the ongoing inspection,
maintenance, and repair of the septic systems.  We have spoken with Wendy and let her know that
we are sending a copy of our proposed edits to you and Stephen Anderson.
 
Please review our suggestions and let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
 
Sincerely,
 
Larry
Larry S. Lazarus
 
Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C.
206 E. Virginia Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1110
(602) 340-0900
 
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt  from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any

reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please
immediately contact the sender and destroy the material  in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy
format. Thank you.

5/7/2025 10:09 AM 
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE 
MARICOPA COUNTY CASE NUMBER Z240006 
- 
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITYFORT MCDOWELL 
YAVAPAI NATION 
PROPOSED EDITS TO REZONING CONDITIONS 
 
 
Recommendation: 
 
1. 
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board 
of Supervisors approve Z240006 subject to the following conditions ‘a’ – ‘o’: 
 
a. 
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the 
Zoning Exhibit entitled "Goldhawk at the Preserve," consisting of one full-
size sheet, dated April 8, 2025, and stamped received April 9, 2025, except 
as modified by the following conditions. A revised zoning exhibit that 
includes the Rural-43 RUPD development standards shall be submitted to 
Planning & Development staff within 30 days of Board approval. Minor and 
major amendments will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. 
 
b. 
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the 
Narrative Report entitled "Goldhawk at the Preserve," consisting of 13 
pages, dated April 9, 2025, and stamped received April 9, 2025, except as 
modified by the following conditions. A revised narrative report that 
includes the updated hillside development standards shall be submitted to 
Planning & Development staff within 30 days of Board approval. Minor and 
major amendments will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. 
 
c. 
The total number of residential dwelling units shall not exceed 696. To help 
ensure compliance, the cumulative number of dwelling units permitted to 
that point shall be identified on each preliminary and final plat. 
 
d. 
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply: 
 
1. 
Without the submittal of a plat, no development approval is inferred 
by this review, including, but not limited to number of proposed

5/7/2025 10:09 AM 
building 
lots/units, 
drainage 
design, 
access 
and 
roadway 
alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans 
progress and are submitted to the County for further entitlement (i.e. 
preliminary & final plats). 
 
2. 
A traffic impact study (“TIS”) must be submitted with future 
entitlement preliminary plat application. The TIS shall comply with 
MCDOT requirements and shall address development phasing and 
the offsite improvements necessary to accommodate the 
anticipated traffic demands. The TIS must be approved before 
subsequent approval of any roadway improvement plans. The TIS 
shall be updated prior to any final plat approvals and with each 
development phase to document significant changes to the 
development 
plan. 
The 
project 
must 
comply 
with 
all 
recommendations in the MCDOT-approved TIS. 
 
3. 
Applicant should notify ADOT of any development proposal (SR 87). 
The Developer shall provide written documentation of ADOT's review 
and response. ADOT documentation shall be received before any 
preliminary plat approval.  
 
4. 
Engineering review of re-zone cases is conceptual in nature. All 
development and engineering design shall be in conformance with 
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage 
Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; 
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies, 
standards, and best practices at the time of application for 
construction. 
 
e. 
The following Rural-43 RUPD standards shall apply: 
 
1. 
Minimum Lot Width: 120' 
 
2. 
Hillside Height Regulations: The height of all buildings and 
structures, including retaining walls, shall not exceed 30' from 
finished pad grade(s) through any building cross section at any point, 
but in no instance shall any building or structure exceed 30' in height 
as measured from the highest point of natural grade on the 
respective lot. Construction permits for each lot shall include an 
engineered plan with a cross-section through the primary structure 
at the highest point of the proposed height elevation, finished pad 
grade(s), and identification of the maximum natural grade of the 
respective lot shown on the plan.

5/7/2025 10:09 AM 
3. 
Any parcel within the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district that is not 
created by a recorded subdivision plat shall adhere to the 
development standards of the Rural-190 zoning district. 
 
f. 
Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this 
Zone Change by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be grounds 
for revocation in accordance with the requirements and procedures as set 
forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. 
 
g. 
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. 
 
h. 
The owner shall develop the property as a “subdivision” as defined in A.R.S. 
§ 32-2101 that requires an Assured Water Supply in accordance with A.R.S. 
§ 45-576 and A.A.C. 12-15-701 et. seq. The owner shall submit 
documentation to the Planning Director demonstrating an Assured Water 
Supply for each final plat. The owner shall submit documentation to the 
Planning Director demonstrating an Assured Water Supply for 1,941 acres, 
which may be developed in phases.   
 
 
i. 
Each septic system will be installed by a certified third-party contractor as 
approved by a Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) that will be established 
and in accordance with the requirements established by the Arizona 
Administrative Code and the Maricopa County Environmental Services 
Department. The HOA will regularly inform homeowners of their obligation 
to have a certified third-party contractor annually inspect, regularly maintain 
(e.g., regularly pump) and, if necessary, repair or replace their septic 
systems pursuant to best practices in the industry.  required maintenance 
and inspection of their septic systems. The HOA will retain an updated list 
of certified inspectors third-party contractors for this purpose. that can be 
Formatted: Font: Italic

5/7/2025 10:09 AM 
used by homeowners to regularly annually inspect and maintain their septic 
systems in accordance with a homeowner’s use.  Homeowners will be 
required to annually provide written confirmation to notify the HOA of their 
compliance with each of their obligations outlined in this Condition (i.e., to 
annually inspect, maintain, repair or replace their septic systems pursuant 
to best practices in the industry)regular maintenance. If a homeowner fails 
to annually notify confirm in writing to the HOA that they have of met each 
of thesetheir septic system compliance of regular maintenanceobligations, 
or if the HOA for any reason becomes aware of the need to inspect, 
maintain, repair, or replace a homeowner’s septic system (including due to 
a failure of said system, i.e., the system can no longer effectively treat and 
dispose of wastewater), the HOA will use a certified third-party contractor 
company to inspect, maintain, repair, or replace the homeowner’s  and 
maintain the septic system within three (3) months, at the homeowner’s 
expense.  In addition, any A failure of any septic system shall be reported 
by the homeowner to the HOA within ninety thirty (390) days of learning of 
such failure.  The records associated with the HOA’s and homeowner’s 
compliance obligations under this Condition I(i) shall promptly be made 
publicly available upon written request.  The obligations set forth in this 
Condition 1(i) shall be included in the HOA covenants, conditions, and 
restrictions (CC&Rs). If the homeowner fails to comply and maintain, repair 
or replace a failed septic system, the HOA shall maintain, repair, or replace 
the failed septic system within six (6) months of issuance of notice of 
failure, at homeowner’s expense. 
 
j. 
Before the sale of any lot, the Developer shall place an easement on each 
lot to be recorded in the Maricopa County Recorders office authorizing the 
Homeowners Association to enter the lot toand inspect maintain, repair, or  
replace any septic system  in conformance with the requirements of 
Condition 1(i)if the owner of the lot does not repair the septic system within 
the six (6) months specified above. 
 
i.k. 
To ensure the HOA has sufficient resources available to meet its obligations 
under Condition 1(i), tThe developer applicant shall, prior to final plat, 
establish a fund the following funds for the benefit of the Homeowners 
AssociationHOA: (i) a Septic Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Fund in 
the amount of $3.94 million to support as any obligation on the part of the 
HOA to annually inspect, maintain, or repair needed maintenance and the 
annual inspectionhomeowner septic systems; and (ii) a Septic System 
Replacement Fund in the amount of $1.85 million to support any obligation 
on the part of the HOA shall b e established for the purpose of ensuring that 
the Homeowners Association has sufficient resources available to replace 
a homeowner’s failing septic systems or systems that have reached the end 
of their useful life as required by this condition. Both funds shall be invested 
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Indent: Left:  1",  No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left:  1",  No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold

5/7/2025 10:09 AM 
in interest bearing accounts in an Arizona financial institution and shall be 
made available to the Homeowners Association soleyHOA solely for the 
septic system inspection, maintenance, repair or replacement purposes set 
forth in this Condition 1(i) and condition and for no other purpose. 
 
j.l. 
A maximum total of 2 acres of turf in the aggregate shall be permitted 
across all common areas. All non-turf landscaping on common areas must 
utilize only plants from the Arizona Department of Water Resources Low 
Water Use & Drought Tolerant Plants List for the Phoenix Active 
Management Area. The HOA shall prohibit the use of natural turf for front 
lawns on all lots within the Association.  
 
k.m. 
Pre-determined Building Envelopes will be established on each lot to restrict 
single family development to a maximum 60% disturbance per lot, 
excluding driveways and utilities. Permit a maximum 10% revegetation.  
 
l.n. 
Construction. To preserve on lot and adjacent open space, construction 
activities will be restricted to occur only within the pre-determined Building 
Envelope and designated driveway and utility area. Native plants that are 
suitable for salvage shall be maintained during construction and replanted 
upon completion for on-site revegetation. Areas outside of pre-determined 
Building Envelopes or revegetated areas will be preserved and maintained 
in their native condition.  
 
m.o. Until annexation of the entire Goldhawk at the Preserve, the master 
developer shall notify all future residents that they are not located within an 
incorporated city or town, and therefore will not be represented by, or be 
able to petition a citizen-elected municipal government. Notification shall 
also state that residents will not have access to most municipally-managed 
services. Such notice shall be included on all plats, and be included in all 
Homeowner Association covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs).  
 
n.p. 
Prior to final plat, fFire protection shall be established for the propertyfor 
the Goldfield Ranch Fire District through evidence of a binding services 
agreement covering 696 lots signed byexecuted by the Goldfield Ranch Fire 
District and a both the developer and a local Fire Department (the Fort 
McDowell Yavapai Nation Fire Department or another similarly located Fire 
department) prior to final plat. The Developer shall, prior to fFinal pPlat, 
submit evidence of the service agreement required by this Condition 1(q) 
and that mutual and automatic aid agencies are aware of this services 
agreement.  
 
q. 
Developer ensure sufficient fire flow is available for the Development, will 
commit toshall sprinkler each home, and to construct fire hydrants at key

5/7/2025 10:09 AM 
locations throughout the development, and near entrances and accessible 
to all of Goldfield Ranch in accordance with applicable provisions of the 
Arizona State Fire Code and NFPA 1142 Standards on Water Supplies for 
Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting..   
 
r. 
Given the sedimentation problems experienced by Fort McDowell Yavapai 
Nation (“Nation”) in the Verde River and on their Reservation, Developer 
shall provide a copy of the final Grading and Drainage Plan (“Plan”) prepared 
by their Civil Engineer to the Chairperson of the Fort McDowell Yavapai 
Nation, with a copy to the Nation’s Environmental Department Manager, 
prior to submission of the Plan to the County, and shall meet and confer 
with the Nation upon request to discuss and if possible, address, any 
concerns raised by the Nation about the Plan and any potential 
downgradient impacts to the Verde River or the Nation’s Reservation from 
the Development. 
 
 
s. The entire property, and all individual sites identified by SWCA in 2006 and 
their relationships within the parcel shall be evaluated as a Traditional 
Cultural Landscape (TCL) as defined in Bulletin 38 (National Register 
Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 
Properties; 1990 Revised 1992; 1998) and prior to approval of any 
preliminary plat for Goldhawk at The Preserve, the developer shall submit 
documentation 
from 
SHPO 
regarding 
the 
TCL 
evaluation. 
The 
documentation shall indicate whether the entire site will either be included 
in the National Register of Historic Places or how a data recovery program 
will be implemented during construction. 
 
t. The developer shall avoid AZ U:6:288 (ASM) referenced in the January 2006 
report [An Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Approximately 2,420 
Acres for The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Development, Maricopa County, 
Arizona] as prepared by SWCA Environments Consultants. If avoidance is 
not possible, the developer shall first notify the Fort McDowell Yavapai 
Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of this fact and 
meet and confer with the Tribes upon request, prior to performing additional 
archaeological work (such as data recovery) to mitigate adverse effects of 
development on the site. Prior to approval of any preliminary plat for 
Goldhawk at The Preserve, the developer shall submit documentation from 
SHPO regarding disposition of archaeological site AZ U:6:288 (ASM). The 
documentation shall indicate whether the site will either be included in the 
National Register of Historic Places or how a data recovery program will be 
implemented during construction.  
o. 
The Developer shall notify the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt 
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community a minimum of 60 days prior to 
Formatted: Indent: Left:  1",  No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Roboto
Formatted: Left, Indent: Left:  0.5",  No bullets or
numbering, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text,
Adjust space between Asian text and numbers
Formatted: Font: Roboto
Formatted: Normal,  No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Roboto
Formatted: Indent: Left:  1",  No bullets or numbering

5/7/2025 10:09 AM 
performing any additional archeological work such as data recovery on the 
property.

3301 E. Thunderbird Rd., Phoenix, Arizona  85032  
PHONE: (480) 513-6825   •   FAX: (480) 513-6948   •   www.milawaz.com 
 
MEMORANDUM 
 
TO: 
 
FILE  
 
FROM: 
Montgomery & Interpreter, PLC 
 
 
 
DATE: 
May 7, 2025 
 
RE: 
Preliminary Proposal for Septic System Replacement and Maintenance 
Funds for Goldhawk at the Preserve Stipulations  
 
 
Overview 
 
This Firm has been retained to assist the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (“Nation”) in 
reviewing the Goldhawk at the Preserve development proposal which was introduced to 
the Maricopa County Development Services in 2024 for comprehensive plan amendment 
and zoning case change. The current Goldhawk at the Preserve development plans for 
individual septic systems to be constructed for each residential housing unit instead of a 
centralized sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant.  
 
This memo was prepared as part of this preliminary review, and contains information 
documenting our basis for calculating the Septic System Inspection, Maintenance, and 
Report Fund and the Septic System Replacement Fund included in the Nation’s  
proposed stipulation.  Ideally, the septic stipulation should provide for mechanisms and 
funding which would substantially limit the possibility of the individual septic systems from 
leaking, contaminating local groundwater supplies, and migrating towards the Verde 
River.  
 
Discussion and Research 
 
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) documents that “onsite 
wastewater treatment facilities” (a.k.a. septic systems) generally have a useful lifespan of 
40 years, if properly designed, installed, and maintained.1 However septic systems can 
also be a significant source of contamination to local groundwater and surface water 
supplies. The EPA “identifies leaking septic tanks, compromised leachfields and 
 
1 ADEQ Onsite Wastewater Treatment Facilities Proposed Regulatory Framework, 
Version 1, page 6 (January 2024).

MONTGOMERY & INTERPRETER, PLC cont. 
May 7, 2025 
Page 2 of 3 
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
2
cesspools as the third leading cause of groundwater contamination.”2 Review of a small 
sample size of septic systems by ADEQ revealed that up to 80% of systems currently 
operating fail inspection. ADEQ further reports that out of all the system owners surveyed 
in 2023, “one-third indicated having issues with their septic system, such as sewage 
backing up into the home or surfacing in the yard.”3 It appears that approximately 1 out 
of every 3 septic systems in Arizona is in failure, regardless of age.   
 
Similarly, large-scale failures in septic-dependent communities have been seen across 
Arizona, and in the Verde River Watershed upstream of the Nation.  For example, the 
Verde Village community of the Verde Valley is experiencing significant issues with 
leaking septic tanks threatening to contaminate groundwater and the Verde River. The 
community, in partnership with Yavapai County, is currently assessing options for 
replacing 4,500 units of septic systems with a unified sewer system.4 The community of 
Chino Meadows also experienced issues with leaking septic tanks threatening to 
contaminate the Little Chino aquifer in the Verde River Watershed.5 
 
Preliminary Calculations  
 
Typical costs to install, maintain, repair, and replace an individual anaerobic septic system 
are shown below: 
 
Typical cost of new conventional (anaerobic) septic system   
 
Aerobic septic systems use oxygen to break down waste. 
They are more efficient, but more expensive and require more 
maintenance. Anaerobic systems do not use oxygen, less 
efficient, less expensive.  
 
Approximately $8,000  
 
($21,480 by 2070 
assuming 2.5% 
inflation)  
Typical cost of septic system pumping (every 3-5 years)  
 
Approximately $500  
Annual inspection & maintenance costs  
 
Approximately $100  
 
1. Septic System Replacement Fund 
We are contemplating the creation of a Septic System Replacement Fund to be 
funded by the developer. Applying ADEQ’s estimate that 1 out of every 3 septic 
systems in Arizona is in failure here, this fund would need to be sufficient to pay 
for the costs of replacing 232 septic systems at the end of their 40-year lifespan. 
 
2 Id. 
3 Id. at page 7.  
4 Verde Villages discusses sewer study, Journalaz.com (October 19, 2023).  
5 Chino Meadows sewer project gets off ground, DC Courier (April 13, 2007).

MONTGOMERY & INTERPRETER, PLC cont. 
May 7, 2025 
Page 3 of 3 
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
3
This fund would need to be invested at a minimum interest rate of 2.5% (the 
average typical historical inflation rate) to cover these costs in future dollars.  
 
$8,000 replacement cost in 2025 
x 232 units 
 
= $1.85 million initial investment at 
2.5% annual compounding interest  
 
$21,481 est. replacement cost in 2070 
x 232 units  
 
Needs to yield $4.9 million by 2070 for 
replacements 
 
$1.85 million initial investment by the developer 
into the Septic System Replacement Fund 
 
2. Septic System Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Fund  
We are also contemplating the creation of a second fund, a Septic System 
Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Fund, to be funded by the developer. This 
may not have the same interest rate, since funds will be removed each year by the 
HOA to cover the costs of annual inspections.  
 
The homeowners will be required to perform regular maintenance and upkeep, 
under terms to be specified in the community Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions 
(“CC&Rs”). However, the System Maintenance Fund will also contain funds 
sufficient to cover 33% of system maintenance costs, assuming approximately 1/3 
delinquency and applying ADEQ’s estimated 1/3 failure rate.  
 
(($500 cost of system pumping x 10 (times of pumping if done every 4 years over 
40-year system lifespan)) 
x 232 units (assuming 1 in 3 system failure)  
$1.16 million 
 
+ $100 cost of annual inspections x 40 if done every year))  
x 696 units (To be fully funded for use by HOA to ensure annual inspections) 
$2.78 million 
 
$3.94 million initial investment into Septic System Inspection, 
Maintenance, and Repair Fund

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Stephen W. Anderson
To:
Darren Gerard (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Wendy Riddell (wr@berryriddell.com)
Subject:
Goldhawk / Case Z24006
Date:
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:45:26 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Litera Compare Redline - County Staff Recommendations for May 8 Hearing-5202177-v1 and 2025-05-05
Grayhawk Response - Modified Conditions Partially Agreed to by.pdf
All:
            As you know, we represent the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community with respect to the above-referenced case. 
            We have been discussing possible additional Conditions
with the Applicant and their counsel.  We appreciate the
Applicant’s willingness to engage in these discussions.  At  this
time, we have not been able to reach complete agreement,
although we have been able to reach tentative consensus on
multiple items we have been discussing.  To be clear, I do not
have authority to suggest that the Applicant has agreed to any of
these modifications as of this writing. 
            The document attached here is a redline of our latest
proposal to the Applicant, compared against the Staff’s
recommendation for the May 8 Planning Commission hearing. 
(Note that these are the May 8 Staff recommendations, not the
April 24 Staff recommendations.)  In other words, this document
includes some proposals the Applicant has not seen before.  The
primary reason I am sharing these with you now is so that you
are aware that there are several additional possible Conditions
that may ultimately be agreed to in whole or part by parties
interested in this matter.  Note that several of these new
Conditions are based on Conditions from prior County approvals,
so the language is intended to track historic County practice.  We
did not wish to present these to Staff as a fait accompli on
Thursday morning, should we and the Applicant reach a partial or
complete agreement.    
            Please feel free to share this communication with
Chairman Lindblom and the Commissioners.

I have copied Ms. Riddell here in the event she wishes to
add anything. 
            -Stephen Anderson
 
 
Stephen W. Anderson
602.256.4422 Direct | SAnderson@gblaw.com
www.gblaw.com | Profile
40 North Central Ave., 20th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85004
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from the law firm of Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C. that may
be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information, and
no privilege has been waived by your inadvertent receipt. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender
by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MARICOPA COUNTY CASE NUMBER Z240006
-
COUNTY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAY 8 HEARING
MODIFIED CONDITIONS PARTIALLY NEGOTIATED BY APPLICANT AND 
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
SRP-MIC COMMUNITY’S COUNTER-PROPOSAL, MAY 6
PROPOSED REZONING CONDITIONS
Recommendation:
28.
28.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that
the Board of Supervisors approve Z240006 subject to the following conditions
‘a’ – ‘go’:
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Zoning Exhibit entitled “"Goldhawk at the Preserve,”" consisting of one
full-size sheet, dated April 8, 2025, and stamped received April 9, 2025,
except as modified by the following conditions. A revised zoning exhibit
that includes the Rural-43 RUPD development standards shall be
submitted to Planning & Development staff within 30 days of Board
approval. Minor and major amendments will be determined in accordance
with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Narrative Report entitled “"Goldhawk at the Preserve,”" consisting of 13
pages, dated April 9, 2025, and stamped received April 9, 2025, except as
modified by the following conditions. A revised narrative report that
includes the updated hillside development standards shall be submitted to
Planning & Development staff within 30 days of Board approval. Minor
and major amendments will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3
of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
c.
The total number of residential dwelling units shall not exceed 696. To
help ensure compliance, the cumulative number of dwelling units
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].

[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
permitted to that point shall be identified on each preliminary and final
plat.
d.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
Without the submittal of a plat, no development approval is inferred
by this review, including, but not limited to number of proposed
building lots/units, drainage design, access and roadway
alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans
progress and are submitted to the County for further entitlement
(i.e. preliminary & final plats).
2.
A traffic impact study (“TIS”) must be submitted with future
entitlement preliminary plat application. The TIS shall comply with
MCDOT requirements and shall address development phasing and 
the offsite improvements necessary to accommodate the
anticipated traffic demands. The TIS must be approved before
subsequent approval of any roadway improvement plans. The TIS
shall be updated prior to any final plat approvals and with each
development phase to document significant changes to the
development 
plan. 
The 
project 
must 
comply 
with 
all
recommendations in the MCDOT-approved TIS.  
3.
A minimum of two (2) points of access shall be provided to serve
the subdivision. The main access must be paved. A second
access, which must consist of (at a minimum) an all-weather
access must be provided for each section that exceeds the
subdivision regulations for cul-de-sac length/number of units
served. (MCDOT P36)
4.
Applicant should notify ADOT of any development proposal (SR
87). The Developer shall provide written documentation of ADOT's
review and response. ADOT documentation shall be received
before any preliminary plat approval.
5.
3. Engineering review of re-zone cases is conceptual in nature. All
development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage
Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa
County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering
policies, standards, and best practices at the time of application for
construction.
e.
The following Rural-43 RUPD standards shall apply:
1.
Minimum Lot Width: 120’'
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
6639.10.5202177.16639.10.5202574.2
2

[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
2.
Hillside Height Regulations: The height of all buildings and
structures, including retaining walls, shall not exceed 30’' from
finished pad grade(s) through any building cross section at any
point, but in no instance shall any building or structure exceed 30’'
in height as measured from the highest point of natural grade on
the respective lot. Construction permits for each lot shall include an
engineered plan with a cross-section through the primary structure
at the highest point of the proposed height elevation, finished pad
grade(s), and identification of the maximum natural grade of the
respective lot shown on the plan.
3. Hillside Disturbance Location:  Hillside disturbance may extend to any 
lot line but shall be limited to a maximum of 75,000 square feet per lot. 
Disturbance envelopes for each lot shall be identified on an engineered 
plan submitted at the time of initial construction permitting and shall 
demonstrate an average disturbance envelope per lot of 25,000 square 
feet.
3.
4. Any parcel within the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district that is not
created by a recorded subdivision plat shall adhere to the
development standards of the Rural190Rural-190 zoning district.
f.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this
Zone Change by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be
grounds for revocation in accordance with the requirements and
procedures as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
g.
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.
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
6639.10.5202177.16639.10.5202574.2
3

[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
h.
The owner shall develop the property as a “subdivision” as defined in
A.R.S. § 32-2101 that requires an Assured Water Supply as defined in
A.R.S. § 45-576. Prior to or in conjunction with the first final plat, the
owner shall submit documentation to the Planning Director demonstrating
an Assured Water Supply, compliance with Maricopa County Subdivision
Regulations 303.2 and 303.3 for water and wastewater facilities for all
1,941 acres, and a guarantee that the entire 1,941 acres can and will
receive an adequate supply of potable water from a water system
operated by a Private Water Company as defined in A.R.S. § 45-402..  
i.
Each septic system will be installed by the aforementioned Private Water
Company or a contractor it has approved in accordance with the
requirements established by the Arizona Administrative Code and the
Maricopa 
County 
Environmental 
Services 
Department.
 
The
aforementioned Private Water Company or a contractor it has approved
will regularly oversee the as-needed maintenance and annual inspection
of septic systems on the Site, and notify the Homeowners Association of a 
failure of any septic system within ninety (90) days of learning of such
failure. The Homeowners Association will be responsible for replacing
any failed septic system within six (6) months of issuance of notice of
failure.. 
j.
A maximum total of 2 acres of turf in the aggregate shall be permitted
across all common areas. All non-turf landscaping on common areas
must utilize only plants from the Arizona Department of Water Resources
Low Water Use & Drought Tolerant Plants List for the Phoenix Active
Management Area. The HOA shall prohibit the use of natural turf for front
lawns on all lots within the Association. 
k.
Pre-determined Building Envelopes will be established on each lot to
restrict single family development to a maximum 60% disturbance per lot,
excluding driveways and utilities. Permit a maximum 10% revegetation. 
l.
Construction. To preserve on lot and adjacent open space, construction
activities will be restricted to occur only within the pre-determined Building 
Envelope and designated driveway and utility area. Native plants that are
suitable for salvage shall be maintained during construction and replanted 
upon completion for on-site revegetation. Areas outside of pre-determined 
Building Envelopes or revegetated areas will be preserved and
maintained in their native condition. 
m.
Until annexation of the entire Goldhawk at the Preserve, the master
developer shall notify all future residents that they are not located within
an incorporated city or town, and therefore will not be represented by, or
be able to petition a citizen-elected municipal government. Notification
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
6639.10.5202177.16639.10.5202574.2
4

[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
shall also state that residents will not have access to most
municipally-managed services. Such notice shall be included on all plats,
and be included in all Homeowner Association covenants, conditions, and 
restrictions (CC&Rs). 
n.
Fire protection shall be established (services agreement covering 696 lots 
signed by both the developer and Fire District) to the site prior to final plat
approval, and including specific confirmation from Fire District that mutual
and automatic aid agencies are aware of this services agreement.  
o.
Developer will commit to sprinkler each home, and to construct fire
hydrants at key locations throughout the development, and near
entrances and accessible to all of Goldfield Ranch.  
p.
The developer shall avoid AZ U:6:288 (ASM) referenced in the January
2006 report [An Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Approximately
2,420 Acres for The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Development, Maricopa
County, Arizona] as prepared by SWCA Environments Consultants. If
avoidance is not possible, the developer shall perform additional
archaeological work (such as data recovery) to mitigate adverse effects of 
development on the site, and prior to approval of any preliminary plat for
Goldhawk at The Preserve, the developer shall submit documentation
from SHPO regarding disposition of archaeological site AZ U:6:288
(ASM). The documentation shall indicate whether the site will either be
included in the National Register of Historic Places or how a data recovery 
program will be implemented during construction. [THE PARTIES ARE
CONFIRMING THE SCOPE OF SWCA WORK, AND EXPECT TO BE
ABLE TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER PRIOR TO THE MAY 21 BOS
HEARING DATE.]
q.
The Applicant will provide notice of any submittal of a preliminary or final
plat to Maricopa County to the General Counsel of the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.  
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
6639.10.5202177.16639.10.5202574.2
5

0
Table Insert
Changes:
0
Table Delete
0
Add 
Intelligent Table Comparison: Active
Table moves to
42
0
Summary report:
Litera Compare for Word 11.10.0.38 Document comparison done on
5/6/2025 3:25:19 PM
Table moves from
0
Delete 
Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.)
16
0
Original DMS: iw://gblaw.cloudimanage.com/ACTIVE/5202177/1
Embedded Excel
0
Move From
Format changes
0
0
Total Changes:
Modified DMS: iw://gblaw.cloudimanage.com/ACTIVE/5202574/2
58
Move To
Style name: Default Style