05. Z240006 Goldhawk Presrv PZ Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
412624 characters
Z240006
Page 1 of 13
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
Z240006 – Goldhawk at the Preserve
Hearing Date:
April 24, 2025
Supervisor District:
2
Applicant:
Wendy Riddell (Berry Riddell, LLC)
Owners:
Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings, LLC / Four Peaks Holdings, LLC
Request:
Zone Change with Overlay from Rural-190, Rural-70 RUPD, Rural-43 RUPD
& R1-8 RUPD to Rural-43 RUPD
Site Location:
Generally located north of the NWC and NEC of Burnt Water Rd. & SR 87 in
the Fort McDowell area
Site Size:
Approximately 1,940 acres
Density:
Approximately 0.36 du/ac
County Island:
No
County Plan:
Goldfield Area Plan – The Preserve DMP and
Single Family – Rural (0-1 du/ac)
Municipal Plan:
N/A
Municipal Comments:
None received
Support/Opposition:
72 letters and emails in opposition representing 34 property owners
114 petition signatures in opposition
Recommendation:
Approve with conditions
Z240006
Page 2 of 13
Project Summary:
1.
The applicant, Wendy Riddell of Berry Riddell, LLC, is requesting a zone change with overlay to
Rural-43 RUPD for approximately 1,940 acres in the Goldfield / Fort McDowell area. Within the
project area, approximately 1,728 acres are currently subject to a combination of Rural-70 RUPD,
Rural-43 RUPD, and R1-8 RUPD zoning. These zoning overlays were established when the Board
of Supervisors (BOS) approved a previous zone change in 2008, per Case Z2007150. The
remaining approximately 212 acres are currently subject to Rural-190 zoning with no overlay. The
request, if approved, would replace four zoning districts with a single zoning district covering the
project area.
2.
The 1,728 acres currently subject to RUPD overlays represent most of a previously approved
master-planned community known as the Preserve at Goldfield Ranch, which also includes
approximately 350 acres of land southeast of SR 87 that are not included with this request. The
Preserve, as it was originally known and is still often abbreviated, dates back over 30 years to the
early 1990s, when the first development master plan (DMP) for a portion of Goldfield Ranch was
approved per DMP1992004 on December 13, 1995. It covered approximately 2,203
noncontiguous acres on both sides SR 87. This DMP was approved with the intention of
facilitating a resort community with associated amenities and varying densities. However, no
zoning entitlements were concurrently approved at the time, and the entirety of Goldfield Ranch
remained zoned Rural-190.
3.
In 2007, the DMP was amended per DMP2006018, with approximately 125 acres removed so that
the DMP encompassed approximately 2,078 acres. In 2008, the County also approved zoning for
the Preserve per Z2007150, establishing several new zoning districts: R1-8 RUPD (approx. 458.5
acres), Rural-70 RUPD (approx. 398 acres), and Rural-43 RUPD (approx. 1,221.5 acres).
4.
To date, no final subdivision plats have been submitted to Maricopa County for the Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch. There are the Records of Survey for Phases 1 – 4 of Goldfield Ranch, which were
recorded in the 1970s, long before any DMP was approved. The proposed Goldhawk at the
Preserve would encompass all of Phase 4 and most of Phase 3. To date, no residential
development has occurred within the Preserve north of SR 87.
5.
On March 26, 2024, the applicant held a pre-application meeting with the Planning & Development
Department (PA2024034) to discuss an overhaul of the zoning for the Preserve. The proposal
included replacing the previously approved three zoning districts with a single zoning district and
development standards that would be uniform across the entire project area. It would include all
1,728 acres of the Preserve north of SR 87, but not the 350 acres southeast of the highway, and
add 212 acres currently zoned Rural-190. These additional acres, adding up to total of 1,940 acres,
makes the current project area contiguous.
6.
The applicant submitted for a major comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) on May 21, 2024, per
CPA2024004. The Commission recommended approval of the CPA on November 7, 2024. The
CPA was initially scheduled for the BOS hearing on December 11, 2024, but has since received
multiple continuances to allow the subject rezoning case to catch up and be heard concurrently
by the BOS. The CPA is now scheduled to be heard at the May 21, 2025 BOS hearing. This is the
tentative BOS date for Z240006 assuming a Commission recommendation on April 24, 2025.
7.
The proposed Rural-43 RUPD zoning district would preserve most of the base zoning district’s
development standards including those for minimum setbacks, minimum lot area, average lot
Z240006
Page 3 of 13
area per dwelling unit, and maximum lot coverage. The only intensity-of-use standard that would
be liberalized is the proposed minimum lot width of 120’ (rather than 145’).
8.
The applicant is also requesting to deviate from the County’s hillside regulations regarding
maximum building height and location of hillside disturbance. MCZO, Article 1201.4 limits the
height of all buildings in hillside areas (those areas having a natural slope of 15% or greater) to
not exceed 30’ from natural grade through any point of the building. The applicant proposed that
height be measured from finished grade with an additional limitation on maximum retaining wall
height. Staff has suggested simplifying the RUPD development standards to allow measuring
maximum building height from finished grade but require that in no instance shall building height
be permitted greater than 30’ above the highest point of natural grade on the respective lot.
9.
Likewise, MCZO, Art. 1201.6.1 requires that all hillside disturbance be confined within the lot’s
principal building envelope (except for disturbance related to driveway and utility connections
extending from the envelope to a street or lot line). The hillside disturbance envelope, therefore,
is congruent with the principal building envelope. The applicant is requesting to allow
disturbances outside the envelope related to bleed-off pipes and retention systems as well as
septic systems. Staff has suggested simplifying the RUPD development standards to allow that
hillside disturbance may extend to any lot line but shall be limited to a maximum of 75,000 square
feet.
10.
The applicant justifies the proposed modifications to the Rural-43 zoning district and hillside
development standards by contending that they will provide the flexibility necessary to develop
the Preserve as a “distinctive and environmentally sensitive community… in harmony with the
existing landforms.” Although the Planning & Development Department’s GIS mapping application
only identifies small portions along the periphery of the project boundary as meeting the zoning
criteria for hillside slopes, there is no doubt that the rolling topography throughout the project
area (characterized by hills, valleys, and washes, with little in the way of flat land in between)
creates challenges for development. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to “offset” the modified
lot width and hillside height regulations by proposing an average disturbance envelope of 25,000
square feet per lot regardless of whether a lot is hillside. The applicant argues this requirement
would be more restrictive than the county’s base regulations.
11.
The proposed RUPD and hillside regulations have been summarized in the tables below.
REGULATION
BASE ZONING
DISTRICT
REGULATIONS
(Rural-43)
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT
REGULATIONS (Rural-43 RUPD)
Maximum Height
30’
30’
Minimum Front Yard
40'
40’
Minimum Side Yard
30’
30’
Minimum Street-side Yard
20'
20’
Minimum Rear Yard
40'
40’
Minimum Lot Area
43,560 sq. ft.
43,560 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145'
120’
Lot Area per Dwelling Unit
43,560 sq. ft.
43,560 sq. ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
25%
25%
Z240006
Page 4 of 13
REGULATION
BASE HILLSIDE REGULATIONS
PROPOSED HILLSIDE
REGULATIONS
Article 1201.4
Height Regulations
The height of all buildings and
structures, including retaining
walls, on portions of property
having a natural slope of 15% or
greater shall not exceed 30’ from
original natural grade through any
building cross section, measured
vertically at any point along that
cross section from original natural
grade.
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.
Article 1201.6.1.1
Disturbance Areas
The extent of all disturbance on
that portion of a lot which has a
natural slope of 15% or greater,
shall be limited to a total
disturbance within the gross lot
area not to exceed 75,000 square
feet and shall be located entirely
within the buildable area of the lot,
except that disturbance related to
the driveway and utility
connections may extend outside
the lot’s buildable area to the
street line or other lot line.
Hillside disturbance may extend
to any lot line but shall be limited
to a maximum of 75,000 square
feet. 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.
Z240006
Page 5 of 13
Preliminary Hillside Elevations
Z240006
Page 6 of 13
2025 Aerial Photo
Map of Current Zoning Districts
Z240006
Page 7 of 13
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
12.
On-site:
Rural-190, Rural-70 RUPD, Rural-43 RUPD, and R1-8 RUPD /
Undisturbed natural land
North:
Rural-190 / Tonto National Forest
South:
Rural-190 / SR 87, then Tonto National Forest
East:
Rural-190 / Sparse single-family residential development
West:
Rural-190 / Undisturbed natural land, then Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
(no zoning district)
Utilities and Services:
13.
Water:
Onsite wells
Wastewater:
Onsite septic
School District:
Fountain Hills Unified School District
Fire:
Goldfield Ranch Fire District (unconfirmed)
Police:
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Right-of-Way:
14.
The following table includes existing right-of-way half-width for SR 87 (Beeline Hwy.), which is
maintained by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) does not currently maintain any roadways within or
adjacent to the project area.
Street Name
Half-width Existing R/W
Half-width Proposed R/W
Future Classification
State Route 87
320’
320’
State Highway
Adopted Plan:
15.
Goldfield Area Plan (adopted December 2007): This area plan includes two land use designations
that intersect with the project site: The Preserve DMP and Single Family – Rural (0-1 du/ac).
Within the boundaries of this zone change request, 1,728 acres are subject to the DMP. The
remaining 212 acres are designated as Single Family – Rural. Case CPA2024004, which has been
reviewed concurrent with Z240006, will designate the land use for the remaining 1,728 acres of
the subject area as Single Family – Rural. This is the lowest density residential land use category
in unincorporated Maricopa County and is appropriate for Rural-190, Rural-70, and Rural-43
zoning. This will effectively eliminate the DMP north of SR 87, leaving only 350 acres southeast
of SR 87 remaining within the DMP. The proposed Rural-43 RUPD zoning with a minimum lot area
of 43,560 sf will be consistent with the Single Family – Rural (0-1 du/ac) land use category as
defined in the Goldfield Area Plan.
Public Participation Summary:
Z240006
Page 8 of 13
16.
The applicant complied with the requirements of the citizen review process by posting the site
and sending notification by first class mail to property owners within 300’ of the project area as
well as to registered areas of interest. The applicant was communicative during the public
participation process and met minimum ordinance and statutory requirements. The project area
was posted with 12 notification signs.
17.
The applicant submitted a citizen participation results report on April 7, 2025. The report includes
a map and list of the property owners within or otherwise intersected by a 300’ buffer surrounding
the project area, as well as registered areas of interest and additional stakeholders who had
indicated an interest in the case. The report summarizes the applicant’s notification and response
procedures throughout the review. Initial notification letters were mailed out on July 15, 2024,
followed by subsequent letters on March 10, 2025, inviting stakeholders to a neighborhood open
house at the Fountain Hills Community Center on March 26, 2025. Throughout the citizen review
process, the applicant communicated with stakeholders in-person as well as by phone and email.
Topics discussed during communications included existing entitlements, the density and land
uses proposed with the project, infrastructure, and the timing and next steps for the project.
18.
There are no outstanding concerns regarding the project from Maricopa County’s internal
reviewing agencies. Beyond the County, ADOT has confirmed that it is neutral on zoning matters
and, therefore, has no concerns or comments. ADOT also confirms that it reserves comment until
review of the preliminary site plans and a traffic impact analysis or statement (TIA/TIS) for the
project. Staff notes that these documents will be required with the submittal of the eventual
preliminary plat(s).
19.
No further comments for the zone change have been received from external reviewing agencies.
However, some agencies had commented on the concurrent CPA, including representatives of
the Tonto National Forest and the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. The Forest Service requested
that the Planning & Development Department work with them to identify and retain strategically
important public access and trailhead improvements, especially where legal public easements or
rights-of-way exist or are planned. Staff confirms that these matters will be addressed upon
review of subsequent preliminary and final plats. Fort McDowell, however, expressed opposition
to the project, indicating concerns over potential impacts to water quality, impacts to cultural
resources, impacts associated with expanded power demands, impacts to air quality, and fire
suppression or wildfire threats.
20.
As of April 15, 2025, staff has received 70 letters and emails expressing opposition to the zone
change request, accounting for 33 property owners. Staff also received a petition of opposition
with 114 signatures from residents and property owners of Goldfield Ranch. Many of the petition’s
signees submitted emails and letters of their own. This petition states that “the undersigned
residents of Goldfield Ranch oppose the proposed Goldhawk development for primarily the
following 3 reasons: 1) This project will irreparably altar the character of this community. 2) The
infrastructure and services necessary to support the proposed Goldhawk development do not
exist, and 3) The existing road system in Goldfield Ranch upon which the proposed Goldhawk
development relies cannot support the massively increased usage and construction traffic which
would be generated by Goldhawk.” The concerns expressed by the letters and emails of
opposition generally echoed the summary of opinions provided in the petition, as well as those
expressed by Fort McDowell.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
Z240006
Page 9 of 13
21.
N/A
Staff Analysis:
22.
Staff supports the requested zone change. Most of the project area already features the same
base zoning district (Rural-43) as what is proposed. Furthermore, the proportion of the project
area with existing Rural-70 or Rural-190 zoning is less than the proportion with existing R1-8
zoning. As such, more of the project area would be downzoned. Additionally, the applicant is
proposing a development cap of 696 dwelling units, which would establish a density of
approximately 0.36 dwelling units per acre. This is significantly less than the density of 0.46
dwelling units per acre (accounting for 951 dwelling units across 2,078 acres) previously
approved with case Z2007150. These two changes together will lessen the potential impact of
future development on the surrounding region, as well as on demand for utilities and
infrastructure needed to support the development.
23.
Staff also supports the proposed RUPD development standards. Although the ultimate site layout
is subject to change pending future review of the required preliminary and final plats, staff agrees
with the applicant’s assessment that a reduced lot width below the 145’ baseline may be
necessary in some circumstances where topographical limitations require a reduced street
frontage. In general, staff concerns over lot width are tied to concerns over density. The proposed
density for the Preserve at 0.36 du/ac would be less than what is currently entitled.
24.
Staff is aware that there will be some concerns expressed regarding variation to hillside
regulations. Indeed, this has been a recurring theme with public opposition from Goldfield Ranch.
Again, however, the very low density proposed negates much of the concern due to the sparse
scattering of dwellings throughout the site and in adjacent communities. The nature of hillside
in the Goldfield Ranch area is not defined by peaks and ridgelines so much as rolling “lumps.” A
considerable amount of cut, fill, and retaining walls will be required to create building pads, but
these will not be scarring or visible at distance. Therefore, staff supports liberalizing hillside
disturbance so that it remains no greater than 30’ above the highest point of natural grade on any
given lot; and further, so that it may be located anywhere within the boundary of a lot but that
each lot will have its disturbance envelopes delineated on an engineered plan submitted with
construction permits. As such, the potential impact of the modified hillside height standard would
be effectively limited.
25.
Although, from a base zoning perspective, only about 13.4% of the project area (approx. 260 out
of 1,940 acres) would be upzoned with this request, one of the dominant themes across the public
opposition received is that any zoning more intense than Rural-190 would be incompatible with
the remote character and the limited infrastructure available to Goldfield Ranch. In this regard,
one of the major concerns frequently expressed by Goldfield residents is the possibility that the
Rural-43 zoning will facilitate unregulated lot-splitting into one-acre lots. The theory goes that the
existing large parcels (currently sized to meet Rural-190 regulations) could be split into as many
as five child parcels, followed by each of those child parcels being split five ways further, with the
process repeating until hundreds of new one-acre parcels are created and developed without
benefit of an approved final subdivision plat. Essentially, there persists a fear of “wildcat
subdivisions” enabling large scale development without any guarantee of sufficient services and
infrastructure, including an assured 100-year water supply, adequate wastewater service,
adequate fire protection, adequate utilities, and adequate circulation (including paved roads
within dedicated rights-of-way, as well as a guarantee of adequate emergency ingress and
egress).
Z240006
Page 10 of 13
26.
Staff believes these fears are reasonable, especially in the context of recent uncertainty over the
availability of water, as well as the increasing length and intensity of wildfire seasons that leave
hillside communities with limited fire protection services especially vulnerable. County review of
preliminary and final subdivision plats would require that all these concerns be sufficiently
addressed prior to approval. The Planning & Development Department, however, does not review
or regulate minor land divisions. To address the concerns of Goldfield residents, staff and the
applicant have agreed to language for a condition of approval requiring that any new parcels
created by means of a minor land division within the RUPD overlay zoning district are mandated
to adhere to the development standards of the Rural-190 zoning district. This would mean that,
until such time as final plats are recorded, all development in the Preserve must adhere to the
same Rural-190 requirements as the rest of Goldfield Ranch north of SR 87. It is staff’s intention
that this condition of approval will discourage the emergence of wildcat subdivisions and ensure
that adequate services, utilities, and infrastructure be established prior to development of the
land.
Recommendation:
27.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors
approve Z240006 subject to the following conditions ‘a’ – ‘g’:
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.
d.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
Drainage Plan Review
a.
A Grading and Drainage Plan is required. The Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance (MCZO) requires that all subdivision submittals be prepared by
a Civil Engineer registered in the State of Arizona. Phased developments
must be able to standalone independent of future phases with respect to
drainage infrastructure. (MCZO 1205.7.2)
b.
Provide the required retention volume for the 100-year, 2-hour storm event
with one (1) foot of freeboard for the site. Provide documentation that the
retention basin(s) will drain within 36 hours. (MCZO 1205.7.6-2.a & 3)
Z240006
Page 11 of 13
c.
On-Lot retention is permitted on lots 1 acre or more in area. Retention only
need be provided for the disturbed area of each lot. On-lot retention basins
must be kept at a depth of one foot (1’) or less to eliminate the need to
address drain down, freeboard requirements, or as approved by the
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department. The Subdivision
infrastructure must be designed such that runoff from local streets drains
to on lot basins unless other provisions (i.e. common basin) are made part
of the site design. (MCZO 1205.7.3)
d.
Maintain a minimum 25-foot separation between septic facilities and the
retention basin(s). (MCZO 1205.7.6-2.d)
e.
Plans/Drainage Report must address offsite flows that may impact the
subject premises and how they will be routed through or around the
development site. Existing drainage corridors must be contained in tracts
owned by the HOA. (MCZO 1205.7.6)
f.
Wet road crossings are permitted but it must be demonstrated that the
depth of flow across said crossing does not exceed eight inches (8”) and
velocities are low enough so as not to endanger residents. For collector
roadways, the maximum depth is six inches (6”). (Refer to Standard 6.2.2
and Standard 6.7 of the Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards
and Section 4.7.2 of the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual).
g.
See https://apps.pnd.maricopa.gov/plansubmittalchecklist for the most
up to date interactive Engineering Plan Review checklist. (Please be sure
to check subdivision and all related grading related matters so the
checklist expands properly).
2.
Flood Control District
a.
The site is not located in a regulated Special Flood Hazard Area. The
floodplain designation is FEMA Zone D which is defines as areas in which
flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
3.
PND Transportation
a.
A Traffic Study must be submitted with the Preliminary Plat application.
See following link to MCDOT Traffic Impact Manual. (RDM 7.1.4)
http://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/303.
b.
Any publicly dedicated roads must be developed to County (MCDOT)
standards.
c.
Private roads must be contained in tract(s). An HOA must be established
to maintain the roads. Pavement for private roads must be constructed to
MCDOT standards, leeway can be given for pavement width, edge
treatments and sidewalk requirements, as determined by the Maricopa
County Planning and Development Department.
Z240006
Page 12 of 13
d.
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)
e.
Applicant should notify ADOT of any development proposal (SR 87).
4.
Storm Water Quality (SWPPP) – Pre-Construction
a.
The subject premises is not located within the County’s Urbanized Area. A
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) will not be required prior
to issuance of any building permits required for site development. This
does NOT preclude the requirement to obtain a Construction General
Permit (CGP) Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOI) from the State (ADEQ), as
may be required.
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.
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.
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 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
Z240006
Page 13 of 13
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:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
Reviewed by:
Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Zoning Exhibit (1 page)
Narrative Report (13 pages)
Legal Description (12 pages)
MCESD comments (4 pages)
DPR comments (5 pages)
MCDOT comments (1 page)
ADOT comments (2 pages)
USFS comments re: CPA2024004 (3 pages)
Fort McDowell email and letter of opposition (5 pages)
Citizen emails and letters of opposition (173 pages)
Petition of opposition (11 pages)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 1,939 approx.
Generated April 16, 2025 8:37 AM
Z240006
Application Name:
Legal Description
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
Applicant
Case Address
3N 7E 16, 3N 7E 10, 3N 7E 15, 3N 7E 23, 3N 7E 22, 3N 7E 11
WENDY RIDDELL
10660 N BEELINE HWY
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:219-16-061
4806823916
zoning@berryriddell.com
FORT MCDOWELL, AZ 85264
Map scale 1:39,241
Supervisor District No.
87
AZ
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
FORT
McDOWELL
YAVAPAI
NATION
GOLDFIELD RANCH
MARICOPA COUNTY
LAND USE : SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
ZONING: RURAL-190
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
BURNT
WATER TR
GOLDFIELD RANCH
MARICOPA COUNTY
LAND USE : SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
ZONING: RURAL-190
U:\1000\1008\1008.08 Four Peaks Holdings, LLC Co Grayhawk Development Inc\PLANNING\ENTITLEMENT\REZONE\3RD SUBMITTAL\EXHIBITS\1008-REZ-FIGURE-06A-PROP ZONING MAP.dwg
4/8/2025 12:53:20 PM
NOT TO
SCALE
Engineering
& Design
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535
F: 602.368.2436
Formerly
© 2025. COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN, INC. All Rights Reserved. This drawing and all the information contained herein is authorized for use only by the party for whom the services were contracted or to whom it is certified. This drawing may not be copied, reused, disclosed, distributed or relied upon for any other purpose without the express written consent of Colliers Engineering & Design.
PROJECT MANAGER:
R.GUBSER,AICP
PROJECT NUMBER: 1008
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE 6A
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
3RD SUBMITTAL DATE:
APRIL 8, 2025
CASE NUMBER:
Z240006
1ST SUBMITTAL: JULY 12, 2024
2ND SUBMITTAL: FEBRUARY 28, 2025
Zone Change with Overlay
Goldhawk At The Preserve
North of State Route 87 (“SR-87”), East of Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, South of Tonto National Forest, and West of
Goldfield Ranch
Case Number: Z240006
1st Submittal: July 12, 2024
2nd Submittal: March 4, 2025
3rd Submittal: April 9, 2025
Prepared for:
Grayhawk Development
Taylor Tryhus
7377 East Doubletree Ranch Road, Suite 100
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
A. Purpose of Request
The purpose of this request is to seek a Zone Change with Residential Unit Plan of
Development (RUPD) Overlay from the existing Rural-70, Rural-43, and R1-8 (each with
Residential Unit Plan of Development (“RUPD”) and Planned Area Development (“PAD”)
Overlays), and Rural-190 (“RU-70 RUPD PAD / RU-43 RUPD PAD / R1-8 RUPD PAD / RU-
190”) to Rural-43 RUPD. This request will consist of approximately 1,941 acres known as
Goldhawk at The Preserve (the “Site”) and is located north of State Route 87 (“SR-87”),
east of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, south of Tonto National Forest, and west of
Goldfield Ranch (“Goldfield”).
The Site comprises 1,941 acres, including 1,728 acres of the original 2,078-acre Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch, plus an additional 212 acres not previously included within the
Preserve. The Preserve originally included 350 acres south of Beeline Highway, as shown
below. The additional acres are not a part of this request.
The existing entitlements on the 1,941 acre Site permit the development of 963 lots
through the existing R1-8, Rural-70, and Rural-190 base zoning districts. The development
plan and intent is to rezone the Site to Rural-43 RUPD to permit a maximum of 696 single-
family rural residential lots with an overall density of 0.36 du/ac. This plan results in a
decrease of at least 267 lots from what is permitted to develop on the Site today, and a
lower density in Goldfield Ranch.
B. Development Standards
Due to the uniquely challenging rolling terrain of the Site, a RUPD is requested to
modify the Rural-43 and Hillside development standards shown below. Any lots
resulting from land divisions not regulated by Maricopa County shall adhere to Rural-
190 development standards.
Rural-43 Development Standards
Regulation
Base Zoning District
Regulations (Rural-43)
Proposed Zoning District
Regulations (Rural-43
RUPD)
Maximum Height
30'
30'
Minimum Front Yard
40'
40’
Minimum Side Yard
30'
30’
Minimum Rear Yard
40'
40’
Minimum Lot Area
43,560 sq. ft.
43,560 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145'
120’
Lot Area per Dwelling Unit
43,560 sq. ft.
43,560 sq. ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
25%
25%
Note: Modifications to the Maricopa County Rural-43 Standards are shown in bolded
text.
Hillside Regulations
SECTION 1201 HILLSIDE REGULATION
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
HEIGHT REGULATION:
1201.4 The height of all buildings and
structures, including retaining walls, on
portions of property having a natural slope
of 15% or greater shall not exceed 30 feet
from original natural grade through any
building cross section, measured vertically
at any point along that cross section from
original natural grade.
The height of all buildings and
structures on portions of property
having a natural slope of 15% or greater
shall not exceed 30 feet from finished
grade through any building cross
section, measured vertically at any point
along that cross section from finished
grade. Retaining walls shall not exceed a
height of six (6) feet as measured from
the low side finished grade to the top of
the earth being retained.
Note: Modifications to the Maricopa County Hillside Standards are shown in bolded
text.
On-Lot Disturbance Envelopes:
Disturbance envelopes will be defined for every lot and will be an average of 25,000
square feet per lot throughout the Site. In no instance will any Hillside applicable lot as
defined by MCZO, Development Regulations, Chapter 12, Article 1201.6.1.1 exceed 75,000
square feet in disturbance. The area of the lot outside of the Disturbance Envelope is
considered on-lot open space. Each disturbance envelope shall be conceptually identified
on the preliminary plat(s) and then further engineered and defined with the individual
plot plan, or in the case of Hillside applicable lots, the Site Plan as required per MCZO,
Development Regulations, Chapter 12, Article 1201.8.1.
Private, on-lot basin(s) will be provided for the run-off associated with the design storm
event for the area within the Disturbance Envelope and associated run-off from the
abutting street. All Private retention basin(s) must be located within the Disturbance
Envelope and will be constructed and maintained by the lot owner. Any single-family
development by a builder/private owner for the purposes specific to their lot construction,
including future additions or modifications to existing on-lot development, must occur
within the Disturbance Envelope with exception of the following temporary disturbances:
1. Required to construct sub-surface bleed-off pipes for on-lot retention basin
percolation. In the event soil conditions are not adequate to allow natural
infiltration for percolation of the retention basins within 36-hours, allowances will
be made for temporary disturbance outside the Disturbance Envelope for
construction of bleed-off pipes. Temporary disturbances for bleed-off pipes will
be limited to a width of 15-feet, subject to review and approval by Maricopa County
as needed and will be restored to pre-development conditions.
2. Required to construct subsurface septic tanks/leach fields. Temporary
disturbances for these purposes are subject to review and approval by Maricopa
County and will be restored and re-vegetated to pre-development conditions if
located outside of the Disturbance Envelope.
3. Site conditions may render it more practical to locate on-lot retention basins
outside of the Disturbance Envelope in some cases. In these cases, the graded
areas will be re-vegetated with native vegetation to the extent this can occur
without interfering with the capacity or performance of the basin.
Improvements within open space tracts and on-lot open space shall be performed by the
Developer/private owner for the following uses. Improvements will be documented on
construction drawings to be reviewed and approved by Maricopa County at the time of
Plan submittal:
1. Temporary disturbance for utility easements shall be limited to the width of the
easement as recorded on the Final Plat.
2. Grading and structural revetment associated with construction of all roads and
shared driveway ingress/egress access easements will be limited to the greatest
extent practical while providing adequate alignment and clear zone for safe traffic
maneuvers. All shared driveways, local and collector roadways will be constructed
and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA).
3. Construction of wash crossing structures and revetment. Maintenance of all
roadway infrastructure and associated drainage and wash improvements will be
the responsibility of the HOA(s).
RUPD Justification:
Modifications to the development and hillside standards are requested to provide the
flexibility necessary to produce a distinctive and environmentally sensitive community that
is developed in harmony with the existing landforms. While not a true hillside
development, the rolling topography will be accommodated using a modified hillside
criteria for building structure height and retaining wall placement while following the
remaining hillside standards. The request to allow reduce the lot width and refinements
to the height requirements in hillside conditions are offset by self-imposing development
on each residential lot to an average on-lot disturbance envelope of 25,000 square feet
that will be identified through the preliminary platting process and further defined during
the individual plot or site plan (per Hillside regulations) process. This limitation is more
restrictive than a typical Rural-43 development or wildcat subdivision that would be
permitted 100% disturbance in non-hillside lots and up to 75,000 square feet for hillside
lots. The lot disturbance envelopes exclude necessary graded areas located on the lot for
driveways, utilities, and retention basins required for the development of adjacent rights-
of-way. The area outside of the disturbance envelope will be preserved as on-lot native
desert open space. Additionally, with the Site limited to 696 lots and coupled with the use
of self-imposed disturbance envelopes and on-lot open space areas, the average lot area
per dwelling unit for the community will exceed the minimum requirements of the Rural-
43 zoning district at approximately 55,000 square feet.
C. Description of Proposal
This rezoning of Goldhawk at The Preserve to Rural-43 RUPD, as shown below, will serve
to implement modern and uniform development standards, ultimately reducing the
density from what is approved under the current entitlements. The Site, with rolling
terrain, numerous wash corridors, and scenic vistas and ridges, is well suited for low-
density development. The planning for the Site is sensitive to the natural desert
environment and will look to minimize impacts to the existing terrain by preserving as
much topography as possible. Typically, concentrating grading in areas with minimal
natural slope allows the necessary infrastructure and building envelopes while still
respecting the natural terrain.
Goldhawk at the Preserve is proposed conceptually as a 696-lot rural master planned
community on 1,941 contiguous acres out of the larger 2,078 total acres comprising The
Preserve at Goldfield Ranch, at a conceptual density of approximately 0.36 du/ac. The
conceptual 696 unit count is a reduction from the +/-1,000 dwelling units that were
previously approved for the entire 2,078 acres and a reduction from the 963 units
approved for the 1,941-acre Site. The lot sizes will range from 1 to 5+ acres in size.
Individual residential lots are a minimum of 1 acre, and each will have a predetermined
average 25,000 square feet on-lot disturbance envelope, thus preserving a sizable portion
of the lot in its natural terrain and open space. The on-lot disturbance envelopes exclude
necessary graded areas located on the lot for driveways, utilities, and retention basins
required for the development of adjacent rights-of-way. The proposed development will
remain sensitive to the numerous washes existing on the Site by limiting road crossings
and incorporating the washes as a part of the on-lot open space areas where applicable.
The proposed development is anticipated to have up to three tracts established for
community use, open space amenity, and/or activity space and a system of soft native
trails. Exact amenities will be determined at the time of platting. However, these areas will
be limited to no more than two acres of turf for recreational purposes. The use of
streetlights will be minimized and shielded to promote a “dark sky” community, except
where required for safety purposes.
D. Relationship to Surrounding Properties
The Site is comprised of approximately 1,941 acres and is part of the larger Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch, a 2,078-acre master planned community located north of State Route 87
(“SR-87”), east of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, south of Tonto National Forest, and west
of Goldfield Ranch. The surrounding context is rural in nature and the proposed master
planned community was thoughtfully designed to preserve the character of the area by
developing a low-density use with ample open space and an abundance of preserved,
undisturbed desert. The proposal has been carefully planned to have a low impact on
public infrastructure and shared natural resources and ensure a smooth transition
between the Site and the surrounding communities.
As mentioned previously, rezoning the Site to Rural-43 RUPD will result in a reduction of
267 residential lots from what is presently permitted to be developed under The Preserve
DMP, thereby reducing the overall density in Goldfield Ranch. A Major Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (“Major CPA”) was also submitted, and running concurrent with this
request, for the approximate 1,728 acres of the Site located north of the SR-87. The
purpose of the Major CPA is to revert the land use designation for the Site from The
Preserve DMP to Rural Densities, 0-1 du/ac. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
designation will be consistent with the remainder of the existing Goldfield Ranch to the
east of the Site, which is also designated as Rural Densities, 0-1 du/ac. The Major CPA will
unify the Site and the existing Goldfield Ranch by designing Goldhawk at The Preserve to
generally adhere to the same land use goals and policies purported in the Goldfield Area
Plan as Goldfield Ranch.
The proposed development will benefit the surrounding community by providing 267
fewer lots than entitled and permitted to develop on the Site today. Furthermore, the Site
could also currently be developed as a wildcat subdivision with little to no regulation on
density, lot size, or open space. In contrast, the proposed rezoning will allow the Site to
develop uniformly under carefully planned development standards that aim to maintain
the existing washes and natural desert through open space and pre-determined building
envelopes. To increase fire protection in the greater Goldfield Ranch, fire hydrants will be
installed near connection points between the Site and Goldfield Ranch.
The development team is dedicated to engaging with key stakeholders in the surrounding
area, including Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation, and existing residents of Goldfield Ranch. The development team has begun
dialogue with these stakeholders and will remain available through the rezoning process.
E. Location and Accessibility
The Site abuts SR-87, which will provide vehicular access, via Burntwater Road, to the Site
and the adjacent planned Goldfield Ranch community. The intersection of Burntwater
Road and SR-87 is located approximately 6 miles northeast of the Town of Fountain Hills
and approximately 17 miles northeast of the City of Mesa.
F. Circulation System
Goldhawk at The Preserve will utilize the existing 80-foot roadway easement established
with 1977 Record of Survey (MCR 195-23 and MCR 195-24) as the main collector roadway
network. This easement traverses through the Site from south to north and provides
access to the adjacent Goldfield Ranch at several locations. These points of connection
will remain in their existing locations, ensuring circulation and connectivity throughout.
If warranted, a Rural Minor Collector cross-section may be used to provide further access
for the Community. Connecting to the collector street network, rural local street cross-
sections will be used to provide access to individual home sites. The use of either a Private
Rural Local or, in limited areas where rolling terrain may warrant it, a Private Shared
Driveway ingress/egress access easement may be used to reduce development impacts
to the environment while gaining access to each individual lot. A minimum of two access
points to each development phase and/or subdivision will be provided, except as
otherwise approved by Planning & Development and/or Maricopa County Department of
Transportation. Precise circulation plans will be determined during the preliminary and
final plat phases of the project.
The applicant will work collaboratively with MCDOT and ADOT to determine the most
appropriate circulation plan for the proposed development, which may include
realignment of the existing easement to alleviate conflict with existing wash corridors.
G. Development Schedule/Phasing
The intent is for the Site to be entitled in a single phase. After approval of the Zone Change
with RUPD Overlay and the concurrent Major CPA, approval of the preliminary plat(s),
followed by a final plat(s), will be sought to develop the Site as the proposed Goldhawk
at The Preserve. The timing and phasing of development is to be determined.
H. Community Facilities and Services
Future residents of the proposed development will be served by the Fountain Hills Unified
School District and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Current property owners are
contributing members of the Goldfield Ranch Fire District. The applicant is working
diligently to further fire protection for the Site.
Further, the Site is bounded on the north, east, and south by the Tonto National Forest,
providing future residents with immediate access to outdoor recreational activities. Future
residents of the Community will also have access to several large open space tracts
strategically planned throughout the Site. Exact amenities will be determined at the time
of platting.
I. Public Utilities and Services
Water
The Site will be served by a new water distribution system comprised of existing deep-
water wells and a centralized site for treatment (as needed), domestic and fire storage,
and pumping. The water system will be owned and operated by a private water company
or other water provider. An existing approved Analysis of Assured Water Supply for 731+
acre feet per year for the Site was issued based on the existing entitlements in the Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch, which was approved for a 1,088 unit count at a higher density than
what is currently proposed.
Wastewater
Each lot will have its own private septic system installed and maintained by the lot owner.
Per the Rural-43 development standards there will be no lot will be under 1 acre in size.
A Homeowners’ Association will oversee the installation and maintenance of septic tanks
on the Site. Each septic tank will be installed in accordance with the requirements
established by the Arizona Administrative Code and the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department.
Electric
The Site is within the SRP service area who has an existing 12kv line and easement to the
Site. The developer has been regularly engaging in discussions with SRP. Lot owners will
also have the option for solar.
Fire Protection
The Site is a contributing member of the Goldfield Ranch Fire District. The developer and
the Goldfield Ranch Fire District entered into a Well Sharing Agreement, which benefits
the Fire District by allowing them to use water from the existing wells on the Site.
The developer will commit to install sprinklers for each home on the Site. Fire hydrants
will be provided throughout the development and will be strategically placed near
entrances to the existing Goldfield Ranch to provide access to water to all of Goldfield
Ranch.
Drainage and Grading
Major wash corridors will remain generally undisturbed with the exception of roadway
and utility crossings, and the potential realignment of the existing 80-roadway easement
when in conflict with wash corridors. Homeowners will be responsible for the maintenance
of on-lot and adjacent stormwater retention, where applicable. Additional stormwater
retention will be provided within adjacent tracts and maintained by the Homeowners
Associations (HOA).
J. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Goldfield
Area Plan
The stated purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a high quality of life for
Maricopa County residents by protecting public health and safety, promoting stable
economic growth, maintaining a healthy environment, providing adequate community
services, and ensuring that tax money is spent efficiently. The Comprehensive Plan utilizes
three core principles to guide future development to achieve its stated purpose:
1. “Decisions should support implementation of Maricopa County’s mission
statement and strategic priorities;
2. Maintain a disciplined approach where comprehensive plan policies and growth
related decisions are understandable, measurable, consistent, practical and
promote efficiency. Land use decisions are also based on these factors;
3. Avoid future problems by carefully considering past decisions.”
Maricopa County Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Site is also located within the
Comprehensive Plan’s Goldfield Area Plan (the “Area Plan”), which advances additional
goals and policies designed to preserve the rural and equestrian nature of the area.
Preservation of the rural nature is achieved through the development of low-density uses
that preserve the natural environment and provide complementary and compatible land
uses to the adjacent public open space.
The proposed Goldhawk at The Preserve furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
and the Area Plan by proposing uniform development standards for the Site. As
mentioned previously, the Site is bounded to the north, south by the Tonto National
Forest, to the west by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, and to the east by Goldfield
Ranch. The proposed development standards are designed to preserve this rural and
natural character by offering strictly residential uses, low density, and vast areas of
undisturbed natural open space.
To mitigate disturbance to the natural topography, this proposal develops lots outside of
major wash corridors, by minimizing the number of roadway and utility crossings as
regulated by the MCZO and other Maricopa County standards, regulations, restrictions,
and codes. The lots within the project will utilize well water via the existing wells and
individual septic systems. To mitigate infrastructure impacts, the proposed community
will utilize the existing ROS roadways as the main collector roadway network, where not
in conflict with existing wash corridors, and will connect to local roads for individual lot
access. The Project will be accessed via the SR-87 and roadways within the proposed
development will remain private and connect to the existing Goldfield Ranch community
to the east.
K. Conclusion
The purpose of this request is to seek a Zone Change with RUPD Overlay for
approximately 1,940 acres within the larger 2,078-acre Preserve at Goldfield Ranch. This
request will reduce the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site from 963
units to 696 units and will result in a reduction in density to the overall Goldfield Ranch.
Approval of the Zone Change with RUPD Overlay will allow for the development of large-
lot single-family homes with vast amounts of preserved open space and three small
community gathering areas.
Page 1 of 6
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\LEGALS\24-0912 Goldhawk @ Preserve legal\25-0228_1008-
LEGAL-GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE.docx
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land situate in portions of the East half of Section 9, Section
10, the West half of Section 14, Section 15, Section 22 and the West half of
Section 23 all in Township 3 North, Range 7 East of the Gila and Salt River
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona also lying within the boundaries depicted
on the Record of Survey for “GOLDFIELD RANCH PHASE III” recorded at Book
195 of Maps, page 23 and on the Record of Survey for “GOLDFIELD RANCH
PHASE IV” recorded at Book 195 of Maps, page 24 in the office of the County
Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Northeast Corner of said Section 10, from which the North
Quarter Corner of said Section 10 bears South 89°45’02” West 2645.77 feet;
Thence along the following 10 courses along the easterly boundary line of said
“GOLDFIELD RANCH PHASE IV”:
Thence South 00°04'35" East along the easterly line of the Northeast Quarter
of said Section 10, a distance of 2174.65 feet;
Thence departing said easterly line, South 09°58'25" West, 2328.80 feet;
Thence South 84°31'17" East, 242.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve
to the left, concave northerly, having a radius of 800.00 feet;
Thence Southeasterly, along said curve through a central angle of 11°51'11",
an arc length of 165.50 feet to a point of non-tangency also being on the
easterly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 10;
Thence South 00°04'54" East along said easterly line, 781.58 feet to the Section
Corner common to said Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15;
Thence South 00°06'40" East along the easterly line of the Northeast Quarter
of said Section 15, a distance of 649.83 feet;
Thence South 72°19'34" East, 1375.27 feet;
Thence South 02°36'48" West, 2640.48 feet;
Page 2 of 6
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\LEGALS\24-0912 Goldhawk @ Preserve legal\25-0228_1008-
LEGAL-GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE.docx
Thence South 69°45'47" West, 1260.92 feet to a point on the easterly line of
the Southeast Quarter of said Section 15;
Thence South 00°06'54" East along said easterly line the Southeast Quarter of
said Section 15, a distance of 1139.39 feet to the Section Corner common to
Sections 14, 15, 22 and 23;
Thence South 00°05'12" East along the easterly line of the Northeast Quarter
of said Section 22, a distance of 659.54 feet;
Thence South 84°52'12" West, 172.91 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve,
concave southeasterly, having a radius of 275.00 feet;
Thence along said curve to the left, through a central angle of 68°56'09", an
arc length of 330.87 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence South 15°56'03" West, 506.56 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve
concave Northwesterly, having a radius of 650.00 feet;
Thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 34°28'02", an
arc length of 391.02 feet to a point of non-tangency;
Thence South 39°35'55" East, 40.00 feet;
Thence South 71°54'11" East, 777.32 feet to a point on the easterly line of said
Section 22;
Thence continuing South 71°54'11" East, 334.45 feet;
Thence South 34°12'58" East, 40.00 feet;
Thence North 55°47'02" East, 308.81 feet;
Thence South 34°17'03" East, 39.74 feet;
Thence South 89°47'03" East, 1245.27 feet;
Thence South 13°45'26" West, 926.59 feet;
Page 3 of 6
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\LEGALS\24-0912 Goldhawk @ Preserve legal\25-0228_1008-
LEGAL-GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE.docx
Thence South 05°21'10" West, 1271.30 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent
curve, concave northwesterly, whose radius point bears North 24°02’13” West,
14223.95 feet;
Thence along said curve, to the right, through a central angle of 01°53'36", an
arc length of 470.03 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave
northwesterly, whose radius point bears North 22°07’55” West, 14223.95 feet;
Thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 6°48’10”, and
arc length of 1,688.83 feet to a point of non-tangency, said point also being the
southeasterly corner of Lot 2, as shown on said “GOLDFIELD RANCH PHASE III”;
Thence along the following 16 courses around the perimeter of said Lot 2 as
shown on “GOLDFIELD RANCH PHASE III”;
Thence North 01°17'02" West, 106.81 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve
concave southeasterly, having a radius of 300.00 feet;
Thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 42°50'30", an
arc length of 224.32 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence North 41°33'28" East, 177.89 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve
concave northwesterly, having a radius of 350.00 feet;
Thence along said curve to the left, through a central angle of 37°12'35", an
arc length of 227.30 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence North 04°20'53" East, 542.18 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve,
concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1500.00 feet;
Thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 08°54'35", an
arc length of 233.26 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence North 13°15'28" East, 150.00 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent
curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 150.00 feet;
Thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 34°14'36", an
arc length of 89.65 feet to a point of tangency;
Page 4 of 6
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\LEGALS\24-0912 Goldhawk @ Preserve legal\25-0228_1008-
LEGAL-GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE.docx
Thence North 84°30’04” West, 95.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve,
concave southeasterly, having a radius of 250.00 feet;
Thence along said curve to the left, through a central angle of 30°05'00", an
arc length of 131.26 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence South 54°25'04" West, 147.94 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve
concave northerly, having a radius of 140.00 feet;
Thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 105°04'21", an
arc length of 256.74 feet to a point of non-tangency;
Thence South 69°29'25" West, 40.00 feet;
Thence South 14°45'28" West, 1969.83 feet to a point on the northerly right of
way line of State Highway 89 as shown on said Results of Survey for
“GOLDFIELD RANCH PHASE III”, said point also being the beginning of a non-
non-tangent curve, concave northwesterly, having a radius of 14223.95 feet;
Thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 03°01'18", an
arc length of 750.12 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, whose radius
point bears North 07°59’36” West, 14223.95 feet;
Thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 03°01’18”, an
arc distance of 750.12 feet to a point of non-tangency said point also lying on
the southerly line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 22, also being the
northerly line of the Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Community;
Thence South 89°50'23" West along said northerly boundary line, a distance
1068.55 feet to a point on the easterly line of the Fort McDowell Mohave-
Apache Community;
Thence North 00°09'28" West along said easterly line, 2638.19;
Thence North 00°04'19" West, along said easterly line, 2638.48 feet to the
southerly line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15;
Page 5 of 6
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\LEGALS\24-0912 Goldhawk @ Preserve legal\25-0228_1008-
LEGAL-GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE.docx
Thence South 89°47'48" West along the northerly line of the Fort McDowell
Mohave-Apache Community, 1322.28 feet to the Section Corner common to
said Sections 15, 16, 21 and 22;
Thence North 00°06'48" West along the easterly line of the Fort McDowell
Mohave-Apache Community, 2639.40 feet to the West Quarter Corner of said
Section 15;
Thence North 00°06'20" West along said easterly line, 2634.30 feet to the
Section Corner common to Sections 9, 10, 15 and 16;
Thence South 89°40'36" West along the northerly line of the Fort McDowell
Mohave-Apache Community, 992.76 feet to a point on the easterly line of the
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation;
Thence North 06°32'16" East along said easterly line, 2494.43 feet;
Thence North 06°54'24" East continuing along said easterly line, 2702.25 feet;
Thence North 05°45'45" East continuing along said easterly line, 117.49 feet to
a point on the northerly line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 9;
Thence along said northerly line, North 89°42'49" East, 361.05 feet to the
Northeast corner of said Section 9, also being the Northwest corner of said
Section 10;
Thence North 89°45'24" East, 2644.33 feet to the North Quarter Corner of
said Section 10;
Thence North 89°45'02" East along the northerly line of the Northeast
Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 2645.77 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 84,551,483 square
feet (1941.0349 acres) more or less and being subject to any easements,
restrictions, rights-of-way of record or otherwise.
Page 6 of 6
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\LEGALS\24-0912 Goldhawk @ Preserve legal\25-0228_1008-
LEGAL-GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE.docx
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision
regulation of the state, county and/or municipality or any land division
restrictions.
Prepared by: Colliers Engineering and Design
2141 E. Highland Avenue, Suite 250
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Project No. 1008
Date February 28, 2025
2/28/2025
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
Engineering
& Design
Engineering
& Design
Formerly
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MAP EXHIBIT
2/28/2025
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
Engineering
& Design
Engineering
& Design
Formerly
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MAP EXHIBIT
2/28/2025
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
Engineering
& Design
Engineering
& Design
Formerly
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MAP EXHIBIT
2/28/2025
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
Engineering
& Design
Engineering
& Design
Formerly
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MAP EXHIBIT
2/28/2025
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
Engineering
& Design
Engineering
& Design
Formerly
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MAP EXHIBIT
2/28/2025
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
Engineering
& Design
Engineering
& Design
Formerly
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MAP EXHIBIT
2/28/2025
Page | 1
Subdivision
Infrastructure
& Planning Program
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Subdi vi sio n@mari co pa.go v
esd.mar i co pa.go v
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has completed review
for the GOLDHAWK AT THE RESERVE planning case(s). Please note the following MCESD
requirements for site development:
Drinking Water –
Per the Safe Drinking Water Act, a Community Water System (CWS) is defined as a Public
Water System that serves the same 25 or more year-round residents. A Non-Transient Non-
Community Water System (NTNCWS) is defined as a Public Water System that serves the
same 25 or more persons for at least six months per year.
If a new CWS or NTNCWS is being created, then the following major requirements must be
complete prior to the issuance of a CWS or NTNCWS permit:
1. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requires new CWS and
NTNCWS to submit an Elementary Business Plan.
•
Please contact ADEQ at capdev@azdeq.gov for more information on this
requirement.
2. New Source Approval is required for both groundwater and surface water sources.
3. Engineering Approval may be required by MCESD Subdivision and/or Treatment
Programs.
4. Certified Operator - All public water systems must obtain the services of a certified
water operator.
A Public Water System application and a New Source Approval application are required and
must be submitted to the MCESD Drinking Water Program.
An Approval to Construct application is required to be submitted to the MCESD’s Treatment
Program for all water treatment facilities.
•
For questions, please contact the Water/Wastewater Treatment Program at (602)
372-2861 or email treatmentplantprogram@maricopa.gov
Project Name: GOLDHAWK AT THE
RESERVE
Primary Contact Name: Taylor Tryhus
Planning Application Type: Zone Change
with Overlay
APN(s): 219-16-061
Reviewer: Ryan Hall, P.E.
Email: Ryan.Hall@maricopa.gov
Phone: 602-918-1241
Planner Name: Nicholas Schlimm
Planning Case #: Z240006
Date: August 22, 2024
Water and Waste Management Division
Page | 2
An Approval to Construct application is required to be submitted to the MCESD’s
Subdivision & Infrastructure Program for all water system infrastructure.
•
For questions, please contact the Subdivision and Infrastructure Program at (602)
506-1058 or email subdivision@maricopa.gov
For additional Drinking Water related questions, please contact the Drinking Water program
at (602) 506-6935 or by email at sdwquestions@maricopa.gov.
Onsite Wastewater –
Please see the attached document for Septic Subdivision Approval Requirements.
A Notice of Intent to Discharge application for an onsite wastewater treatment (septic)
system is required for any construction. Application must be submitted to the MCESD
Onsite Wastewater Program.
•
Wastewater is not permitted to discharge to an adjacent parcel’s septic system.
•
Setback requirements must be maintained per Arizona Administrative Code, Title
18, Chapter 9, Article 312, C (Features Requiring Setbacks).
For Onsite Wastewater related questions, please contact the Onsite Program at (602) 506-
6666 or by email at septicquestions@maricopa.gov.
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.
SEPTIC SUBDIVISION APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has prepared this memorandum
concerning approvals of subdivisions using onsite wastewater disposal systems to manage sanitary
sewage. This memorandums goal is to provide you, the potential applicant, with guidance on what
information MCESD requires to review and approve these projects.
The Maricopa County Department of Planning and Development subdivision regulations (Chap.
3, Section 303.4.a) REQUIRES that percolation tests and boring logs shall be taken at the
proposed subdivision prior to the approval of the preliminary plat. Therefore, MCESD requires,
prior to recommending approval of the preliminary plat of a project to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the following submittal for review and approval:
•
Prior to any soils testing for conventional septic systems, a Soil Test Plan (Plan) shall be
submitted to MCESD for review and approval. The Plan must be submitted under
application and fee ($525 for each 50 lots or portion thereof). Please allow at least three
weeks from the time of submittal to initial review by MCESD. The Plan will include the
locations on the plat where soils testing (percolation tests and soil borings) will be
performed, the method of testing, person/firm conducting the tests, depth to seasonal
high groundwater level, site specific geology and topography, and the information that
will be provided in the final soils testing report (e.g. field notes, soil boring logs, etc.).
The percolation test methodology must be specified and must comply with the
requirements specified in the Arizona Administrative Code R18-9-A310.E or F, depending
on the proposed method of effluent disposal. No mere reference to the standard is
acceptable; the field procedures must be specifically described. The number of soil tests
must be at least 30% of the total number of platted lots and the locations evenly spaced
so that the MCESD can determine that septic systems can “reasonably be expected to
function properly on every lot” (refer to A.A.C. R18-5-408). All soil borings must be to a
minimum 50 foot depth (or auger refusal), regardless of the type of onsite
wastewater system that will be used. If disposal pits deeper than 40 feet are proposed,
then the soil borings must extend at least 10-feet beyond the projected depth of the
pits. The approved plan will state that at least five (5) working days notice shall be
provided to the Subdivision Infrastructure and Planning Program project engineer prior
to the start of field activities, unless other satisfactory arrangements are made. This will
allow for coordination and allow for a site visit during the field activities.
•
All submissions to MCESD shall include a transmittal cover sheet explaining the content
of the submittal, denote the action requested, and reference appropriate planning
project numbers.
•
After approval of the Soils Test Plan, the work may be scheduled (remember the prior
notice to MCESD) and a Geological Report prepared based on the approved Plan (see
above) for review and approval by MCESD. If the test data does not demonstrate that
conventional septic systems will function properly on every platted lot, then a method of
septic effluent disposal for every lot shall be demonstrated which may include soil
testing of each lot (A.A.C. R18-5-408). The Geological Report will be signed and sealed
by a Registered Professional Engineer or Geologist licensed in the State of Arizona.
MCESD will review the submitted Geological Report and, if warranted, issue a Certificate of
Geological Report for the project. MCESD will recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat based
on this Certificate and the viability of the proposed solution for providing potable water.
Before MCESD recommends approval of the Final Plat of this project to the Board of
Supervisors, the following information must be provided:
•
Approvals to Construct for the proposed water system infrastructure must be obtained
from the MCESD (if appropriate).
•
(Any other required specific items)
Kevin Amoroso, P.E.
Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-372-4114
Fax: (602) 506-8762
www.maricopa.gov/planning
Email address:
Kevin.Amoroso@maricopa.gov
Planning & Development
Engineering Plan Review
Date:
04/15/2025
Memo To: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager, Department of Planning &
Development
Attn:
Nicholas Schlimm, Planner, Planning & Development Services
cc:
Bob Fedorka, PE, Engineering Manager, Planning & Development
Doug Jones, PE, CFM, Engineering Supervisor, Planning &
Development
From:
Kevin Amoroso, PE, Plans Examiner Engineer, Planning &
Development
Subject:
Z240006 – Zone Change
APN(s):
Multiple
Engineering Review has reviewed the first plan and report routed for review on
07/12/2024, for the subject application and has the following objections:
DRAINAGE PLAN REVIEW
Drainage Plan Review Comments
1. A Grading and Drainage Plan is required. The Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance (MCZO) requires that all subdivision submittals be prepared by
a Civil Engineer registered in the State of Arizona. Phased developments
must be able to standalone independent of future phases with respect to
drainage infrastructure.(MCZO 1205.7.2)
2. Provide the required retention volume for the 100 year, 2 hour storm
event with one (1) foot of freeboard for the site. Provide documentation that
the retention basin(s) will drain within 36 hours. (MCZO 1205.7.6-2.a & 3)
3. On-Lot retention is permitted on lots 1 acre or more in area. Retention
only need be provided for the disturbed area of each lot. On-lot retention
basins must be kept at a depth of one foot (1’) or less to eliminate the need
to address drain down and freeboard requirements. The Subdivision
infrastructure must be designed such that runoff from local streets drains
to on lot basins unless other provisions (i.e. common basin) are made part
of the site design. (MCZO 1205.7.3)
4. Maintain a minimum 25 foot separation between septic facilities and the
retention basin(s). (MCZO 1205.7.6-2.d)
5. Plans/Drainage Report must address offsite flows that may impact the
subject premises and how they will be routed through or around the
Page 2 of 3
development site. Existing drainage corridors must be contained in tracts
owned by the HOA. (MCZO 1205.7.6)
6. Wet road crossings are permitted but it must be demonstrated that the
depth of flow across said crossing does not exceed eight inches (8”) and
velocities are low enough so as not to endanger residents. For collector
roadways, the maximum depth is six inches (6”).
7. See https://apps.pnd.maricopa.gov/plansubmittalchecklist for the most
up to date interactive Engineering Plan Review checklist. (Please be sure
to check subdivision and all related grading related matters so the checklist
expands properly).
Flood Control District Comments
1. The site is not located in a regulated Special Flood Hazard Area. The floodplain
designation is FEMA Zone D which is defines as areas in which flood hazards are
undetermined, but possible.
PND Transportation Comments
1. A Traffic Study must be submitted with the Preliminary Plat application. See
following link to MCDOT Traffic Impact Manual. (RDM 7.1.4)
http://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/303.
2. Roads to be developed as public roads must be developed to County (MCDOT)
standards.
3. Private roads must be contained in tract(s). An HOA must be established to maintain
the roads. Pavement for private roads must be constructed to MCDOT standards,
leeway can be given for pavement width, edge treatments and sidewalk requirements.
4. 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-saclength/number of units served. (MCDOT P36)
5. Applicant should notify ADOT of any development proposal (SR 87).
Storm Water Quality (SWPPP) – Pre-Construction
1. The subject premises is not located within the County’s Urbanized Area. A Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) will not be required prior to issuance of
any building permits required for site development. This does NOT preclude the
requirement to obtain a Construction General Permit (CGP) Notice of Intent to
Discharge (NOI) from the State (ADEQ), as may be required.
All plans and reports should be developed and formatted to document that the project
is designed to meet all County regulations, ordinances and design standards.
Page 3 of 4
It is incumbent upon the engineer to demonstrate compliance with all regulatory
requirements
and County design standards.
Additional meetings or consultations may be assessed additional fees.
PND TRANSPORTATION PLAN REVIEW R/W INFORMATION
Z240006 – Multiple Parcels – Goldhawk at the Preserve
•
All perimeter section line and mid-section line alignments of the proposed development
require the setback lines to start from a future half street Right-of-Way of 55- and 40-feet
(respectively) per the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 11-05.
•
Applicant to notify ADOT of proposed project through the Red Letter Process,
RedLetter@azdot.gov, due to the proximity to the SR-87.
Please contact me with any questions.
Page 4 of 5
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 5 of 5
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
Good morning,
Please see MCDOT comments below.
Item #7 – Z240006 – Multiple Parcels – Goldhawk at the Preserve
•
All perimeter section line and mid-section line alignments of the proposed development
require the setback lines to start from a future half street Right-of-Way of 55- and 40-feet
(respectively) per the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 11-05.
•
Applicant to notify ADOT of proposed project through the Red Letter Process,
RedLetter@azdot.gov, due to the proximity to the SR-87.
Thank you,
Drew Sigado
Planner
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
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Bernadette Martinez <bmartinez@azdot.gov>
Sent:
Monday, March 24, 2025 9:29 AM
To:
Aimee Bergstrom; Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Peggy Fehlman
Subject:
Z240006 GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE 219-16-061 N OF SR87 EAST OF FORT
MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
RE: Notice Number: Z240006
Subject Name: GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
APN: 219-16-061
Subject Address: N OF SR87 EAST OF FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION
Thank you for the notification of the above-referenced proposed development.
ADOT is neutral on zoning matters. As such, ADOT has no concerns or comments. Due to this project being
within 1/2 mile of an ADOT facility, ADOT would like to receive a site plan and perhaps a TIA/TIS upon
availability. ADOT reserves comment until review of the preliminary site plans and traffic impact
analysis/statement(TIA/TIS) for this project.
Regional Traffic Engineer Contact - CentralRTE_Review@azdot.gov
ADOT reserves the right to review any future plans, additions and/or changes to this development in regards to
any impact they may have on the State Highway System.
We appreciate receiving the notice, and the opportunity to review and comment. I am happy to assist with
any other questions or concerns.
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Bernadette Martinez
Transportation Construction Technician IV
Central District
2140 W. Hilton Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.712.2086 | redletter@azdot.gov
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: 'Aimee Bergstrom' via Redletter - ADOT <Redletter@azdot.gov>
Date: Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 1:43 PM
2
Subject: Case No. Z240006
To:
Dear Property Owner, Neighborhood Representative, or Interested Party,
Please see the attached notification regarding the property located north of State Route 87, east of Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation, south of Tonto National Forest, and west of Goldfield Ranch.
Aimee Bergstrom
Legal Assistant
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road | Suite 100 | Scottsdale, AZ 85251
480-565-3017 | 480-385-2757 fax
ab@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidential and/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. Thank you.
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Schuster, Gregory - FS, AZ <greg.schuster@usda.gov>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:07 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Quintana, Devin - FS, AZ; Adkins, Richard - FS, AZ; RJ Cardin (PRK)
Subject:
CPA2024004 - Preserve at Goldfield Ranch (adjacent to Lower Sycamore)
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Mr. Mueller,
Thanks for reaching out on this matter of business.
This rezoning proposal is adjacent to part of the Tonto National Forest that is heavily used by
motorized recreation users on the Mesa Ranger District, Lower Sycamore OHV area. Portions of
Lower Sycamore are currently proposed to be managed as a fee-for-use OHV Permit Zone. (see
below)
The Forest Service requests that the MCo Planning & Development work with developers, the Tonto
National Forest and, if appropriate, MCo. Parks, to identify and retain strategically important public
access and trailhead improvements, especially where legal public easements or rights-of-way already
exist or are planned in the subdivision.
The Tonto’s Land Management Plan has been recently executed. December 2023
Tonto OHV Fee Proposal: Region 3 - Recreation (usda.gov) Current/Active
Thank you for this opportunity to comment
Best,
Greg
2
Greg Schuster
SW Partnerships Office,
Volunteers, and Workforce
Development
Forest Service
Southwestern Region
480-292-0291
Greg.Schuster@usda.gov
2324 E. McDowell Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85006
fs.usda.gov
Caring for the land and serving
people
Best,
Greg
Greg Schuster
SW Partnerships Office,
Volunteers, and Workforce
Development
Forest Service
Southwestern Region
480-292-0291
Greg.Schuster@usda.gov
2324 E. McDowell Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85006
fs.usda.gov
Caring for the land and serving
people
3
From: Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 3:24 PM
To: jheekin@agilebroadband.com; emccalvin@fmyn.org; cklopatek@ftmcdowell.org; nphillips@ftmcdowell.org;
GregHarmon@msn.com; azcakes@mac.com; Jack Farmer <jack@santolinafarm.com>; Larry Kratzer (MCSO)
<L_Kratzer@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; ghanna@fs.fed.us; Schuster, Gregory - FS, AZ <greg.schuster@usda.gov>;
michael.byrd@srpmic-nsn.gov; Teresa Retterbush (PRK) <Teresa.Retterbush@Maricopa.Gov>; Scott Wilken
<swilken@azmag.gov>; kcotner@azmag.gov; pe@azland.gov; bfenske@azdot.gov; jgarcia@azdot.gov; Frank
McWilliams (MCSO) <FrankMcWilliams@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; Project Evaluation Program - Game and Fish
<pep@azgfd.gov>; lmalloque@dot.state.az.us; redletter@azdot.gov
Subject: [External Email]CPA2024004 - Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
[External Email]
If this message comes from an unexpected sender or references a vague/unexpected topic;
Use caution before clicking links or opening attachments.
Please send any concerns or suspicious messages to: Spam.Abuse@usda.gov
Good aŌernoon,
We have received a request for a major comprehensive amendment over 1729 acres within the Goldfield Area plan to
change the future land use designaƟon from The Preserve DMP to rural densiƟes.
The proposal covers mulƟple parcels northwest of Highway 87 in the Fort McDowell area.
The technical advisory commiƩee meeƟng will be held on July 2.
Please let me know if you have any quesƟons, comments, or concerns.
Kind regards,
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender and delete the email immediately.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Diandra Benally <dbenally@fmyn.org>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 5, 2024 4:54 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Brittany Bingold (Fort McDowell); kristen@pivotalpolicyconsulting.com
Subject:
Objection from Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Attachments:
Goldhawk 2024_FMYN Letter_signed 11.05.2024.pdf; 2013_04_24 AaPermits -
DMP2012004 APPROVAL LETTER.PDF19 (006).pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Dear Nicolas Schlimm:
Please find attached Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation’s objection to the Goldhawk at the Preserve development,
which is scheduled on the agenda for the hearing before the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission
this Thursday, November 7, 2024. The item is #11 on the agenda, CPA 2024004.
Your role in this process is crucial, and we appreciate your attention to this matter. If you have any questions,
please contact Brittany Bingold (copied on this email) or me at 480-789.7113 or dbenally@fmyn.org. Thank you.
Regards,
Diandra Benally
This message and any aƩached documents contain informaƟon that may be confidenƟal, privileged, aƩorney work product, or
otherwise protected by law. If the reader of this message or an aƩachment is not the intended recipient or the employee,
representaƟve, or agent responsible for delivering the message or aƩachments to the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that
any disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, use, or copying of this message or any aƩachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communicaƟon in error, please noƟfy the sender immediately by replying to the sender and delete, discard, and destroy all copies of
the message and aƩachments promptly. Thank you.
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 8, 2024
Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Berry Riddell LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road
Suite 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Re: PA2024034 Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
PA2024034 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. DiMartino:
Thank you for your answers to questions 1-2 and 4-6. But your responses to my
questions 3 and 7-10 are, at best, not responsive. More importantly, they reveal some material
factual errors in your applications that need to be corrected before Planning and Development
can adequately review your proposals and before I can address the planning issues they raise.
The CPA Does Not Simply “Remove” and “Reclassify” a Portion of Preserve DMP
As to your answer to question 3, your first sentence is correct that all of the land in
Goldfield Ranch other than the defunct DMP is classified for planning purposes as Rural 0-1
du/ac, so any land outside of the former DMP does not need a plan amendment to be reclassified
as such. But this still does not explain how, by simply removing any acreage from the former
Preserve DMP, the plan amendment can create “1,940 contiguous acres of the larger 2,434-acre
[former Preserve DMP] Site,” since the largest contiguous acreage of that larger site was only
1679 acres, in Parcel A. Subtraction cannot result in addition. My question was clear: how can
you increase the contiguous acreage simply by “removing” some acreage? To increase the 1,679
contiguous acreage of Parcel A you must add some more contiguous acreage that was not part of
the former Preserve DMP, so my question asked you to identify that additional acreage.
You chose not to answer that question, insisting that “1,940 acres is the project area”
even though the entirety of the defunct Preserve DMP north of SR 87 never included more than
1,728 acres. What is this additional acreage and where does it come from, since it cannot
possibly come from the old Preserve DMP?
2
Your Applications Include Undisclosed Acreage
Although did not identify the additional acreage in your response the answer now
becomes apparent from your rezoning application, which is both factually wrong and
inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Both the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and the 2007 DMP clearly showed that Parcel B was not contiguous with Parcel A,
and that Parcel B was not contiguous with State Route 87. But the maps in your rezoning
application purporting to show “Existing Zoning” and “Proposed Zoning” both show the new
project to make the former Parcel B contiguous with both Parcel A and SR 87. Of course this
can only be accomplished by adding to the former DMP some acreage located between Parcels A
and B and some acreage located between Parcel B and SR 87. And this is confirmed by the fine
print below both of those maps, which indicates the “Total Area” as consisting of 1,939 acres,
whereas the former Parcels A and B together were only 1679 + 48.8 = 1727.8 acres. The
difference is 212 acres, which is what my question asked you to explain.
The map in your rezoning proposal, the conceptual site plan and the conceptual roadway
plans have added to what was the 2007 Preserve DMP the following six 40+-acre parcels:
(1) Goldfield Ranch Phase III Parcel 1 (40.18 ac)(now 219-16-061 owned by GRRH);
(2) Parcel 3 (50.54 ac) (now 219-16-063K owned by GRRH);
(3) Parcel 5 (41.47 ac)(now 219-16-065A owned by GRRH);
(4) Parcel 12 (41.33 ac)(now 219-16-072 owned by GRRH);
(5) Parcel 13 (40.04 ac)(now 219-16-073 owned by Four Peaks Holdings); and
(6) Parcel 14 (40.32 ac)(now 219-16-074 owned by Four Peaks Holdings).
Total: 253.9 acres
None of these parcels was included in the list of parcels comprising the Preserve DMP
that was approved in 2007. See the attached list, which was excerpted from the Preliminary Plat
Narrative that was filed on December 17, 2007, after the 2006-07 DMP amendment. Also note
that your maps of “existing land use” and “proposed land use” also misrepresent the DMP
because DMP Parcels C and D on the south side of SR 87 were not contiguous as now shown on
your maps. They were discontiguous because the Preserve DMP did not include Goldfield
Ranch Phase 5 Parcel 8, Assessor’s Parcel 219-16-114F, which you have also added to the 2007
Preserve DMP.
These factual misstatements are confirmed by your statement that the larger DMP site
was 2,434 acres, when in fact is was only 2,079 acres. These factual misrepresentations cannot
be attributed to the former owner Ellman Companies because your own current client, Goldfield
Ranch Realty Holdings, filed an application in December, 2012, to extend for five years the
termination date of the 2007 Preserve DMP. Your client’s extension application stated that the
Preserve DMP that was conditionally rezoned in Z2007150 “includes 2,079 acres.” See
Z2012090, “The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Modification to the Zoning Stipulations,” Project
Narrative Background ¶ 1. Having obtained that extension, your client is now judicially
estopped to claim that the Preserve DMP was actually 355 acres larger than it ever was.
3
The Surreptitious Inclusion of 253 Unidentified Acres Creates Many Factual
Misrepresentations on which Planning and Development staff has Relied
Your undisclosed and unexplained addition of six 40+-acre parcels to both the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning application means there are a significant
number of material inconsistencies and misrepresentations in these documents. Both the sheer
number of these factual misrepresentations and their interrelationship suggest that these are not
minor or immaterial mathematical errors but are fundamental to the essential purpose and effect
of the requested plan amendment and rezoning:
(1) The effect of the proposed plan amendment is not simply to “remove this approximate
1,728.37-acre portion of the Site from the Preserve DMP and reclassify it as Rural 0-1 du/ac” as
your Comprehensive Plan amendment states. In fact, your CPA also proposes to change the
Goldfield Area Plan for an additional 254 acres that were never included in the 2007 DMP.
(2) The effect of the CPA is not simply “to allow the Site to develop at a lower density”
as you contend. To the contrary, it materially increases the density on approximately 254 acres
that are currently zoned R-190.
(3) The CPA and the rezoning application are both seriously misleading because they use
inconsistent definitions of the “Site.” The CPA defines the “Site” as being the “whole Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch.” The rezoning application defines the “Site” as being “approximately 1,940
acres” “as shown below,” but the map “shown below” includes several parcels totaling more
than 254 acres that were never part of the 2007 Preserve DMP.
(4) Therefore even if the CPA were adopted and limited to amending the Preserve DMP
as you contend, the proposed rezoning could not be approved because it includes 254 acres
whose zoning would be inconsistent with both the Goldfield Area Plan and your proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
(5) The rezoning application misrepresents the “Owner” to be only Goldfield Ranch
Realty Holdings. The true owner of 80 acres (parcels 219-16-073 and 219-16-074) for which the
rezoning is sought is Four Peaks Holdings aka Grayhawk. In fact, didn’t this same undisclosed
owner previously seek, and be denied, essentially this same rezoning (one house per acre on
septic) of this same 80 acres, without claiming it ever to have been part of the Preserve DMP? Is
that rezoning denial the reason why Grayhawk did not want to be identified as one of the Owners
filing this rezoning application?
(6) It is not true that “this downzoning will consist of approximately 1,940 acres of the
Preserve” (Rezoning ¶ A, emphasis added) because it is an upzoning for approximately 254
acres that were never part of the Preserve.
(7) It is not true that “this rezoning of Goldhawk . . . as shown below, is a downzoning
from what was previously approved “(Rezoning ¶ B). To the contrary, it is an upzoning and at
least a fivefold increase in density from what was previously approved for 254 acres.
4
(8) The CPA Application states that it is for 558 lots but the rezoning states it is for 712
lots.
(9) It is not true that “the Site is comprised of approximately 1,940 acres and is part of
the larger Preserve at Goldfield Ranch” (Rezoning ¶ C) because more than 10% of the Site was
never part of the larger Preserve.
(10) It is not true that “This request is a downzoning that will reduce the number of
approved lots currently permitted on the Site” (Rezoning ¶ J) because it includes a significant
upzoning for 254 acres that will increase the number of approved lots currently permitted on the
Site. There are currently only six (6) “approved lots” on the 254 acres you have attempted to add
to the Preserve DMP Site, because these are only six 40+-acre parcels. Even without considering
zoning limitations each of the current two owners of these six parcels could only create an
additional four lots each without legally subdividing them. And these six 40-acre lots cannot
now be legally subdivided because there is no Certificate of Assured Water Supply and no more
will be issued in the Phoenix AMA. So on these 254 acres this requested rezoning would
increase the density from the current theoretical legal maximum of 14 wildcat subdivided lots to
as many as 250.
(11) It is not true that “the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is
“+/- 1,000 units” because the conditions on that zoning have never been satisfied and by this
application the Owner admits they never will be satisfied. Until those conditions are satisfied,
“the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is theoretically around 400,
because until those conditions are satisfied the underlying unconditional zoning remains R-190.
Planning and Zoning Staff Has Been Misled by these Material Misrepresentations
As noted above, the multiple repetitions of both the current zoning and the acreage of the
defunct 2007 Preserve DMP suggest you must have regarded these representations as highly
material to your applications. This is confirmed by the Pre-Application Meeting Form which
states: “The subject area . . . comprises the majority of the Preserve DMP area,” and “Staff feels
that the proposed RU-70 RUPD may be an improvement to the existing zoning on site.” Both of
these statements indicate that staff was misled by your misstatements that the “subject area” is
entirely part of the Preserve DMP area. Staff was also apparently misled by your representation
as to the existing zoning on approximately 254 acres of the subject site. These P&Z staff
statements indicate that your false comparison to existing zoning is virtually the only reason that
staff might support the rezoning. At the very least, the P&Z staff statements indicate that your
numerous erroneous comparisons to existing zoning is highly material to staff’s reaction.
Rezoning Application Contains Other Material Misrepresentations
Your answers and evasions to my questions confirm there are some other material
misstatements in your applications that you will want to correct before you find them to be
publicly embarrassing, or worse.
5
Rezoning Application ¶ G states that future residents will be served by “the Goldfield
Fire Center.” It appears that there is no such entity and that the name was made up. In fact, and
as you know, there is a Goldfield Ranch Fire District which apparently you have not contacted.
If and when you do, I believe you will learn that it has no fire station, equipment, employees or
volunteers and has no capacity to protect 712 homes.
Rezoning Application ¶ G also states that “the Site is bounded on the . . . east . . . by the
Tonto National Forest.” This is not true. The Site is bounded on the east by Goldfield Ranch.
As noted in our email correspondence, you have not been in contact with the homeowners and
the property owners associations that serve that planned community.
Rezoning Application ¶ H states that there is an “existing approved Analysis of Assured
Water Supply.” This is not true. There purportedly was an Analysis of Assured Water Supply in
June, 2007. But that expired in 2017 per Az.Admin.Code § R12-15-703(F). Your response to
my question # 7 indicates that you have no documents or evidence that your client has made any
effort to extend that Analysis. You also have no evidence that your client made any effort to
comply with its agreement, per Stipulation y of the rezoning extension (Z2012090), to
demonstrate “compliance with Maricopa County Subdivision Regulations 304.2 and 304.3 for
water and wastewater facilities.” Nor has your client submitted a “Certificate of 100 Year
Assured Water Supply,” or any “guarantee that the subdivision can and will receive an adequate
supply of potable water from a water system operated by a certificated water company or
municipality.”
Rezoning Application ¶ H also implies that the property will be served by SRP’s
“existing 12Kv [sic] line and easement to the property.” This is both false and not physically
possible. SRP has advised that the existing 12kV line is only capable of serving approximately
300 homes (of which more than 100 are already being served in Goldfield Ranch) and the
existing “easement” will terminate in 2035. Your response to my question # 9 indicates that you
have no documents or evidence that your client has made any effort to comply with Stipulation i
to the rezoning extension (Z2012090) to “provide written documentation from Salt River Project
(SRP) stating that SRP has the physical and legal capability to serve electricity to the site.”
You should feel no need to apologize, at least to me, for these misstatements. I am not
implying that they were either innocent or intentional, nor suggesting who is responsible for
them. Nor am I expressing any opinion on the merits of your applications, whether they
constitute sound planning and responsible development, or should be approved by the County. I
am hoping, however, that the details I have provided here will facilitate your client, myself and
Planning and Development reaching a mutual understanding of the indisputable facts that are the
background of your requests as they may be amended.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Joseph Mueller, Planner
g{x cÜxáxÜäx tà ZÉÄwy|xÄw etÇv{
II.
Description of Proposal
The Project is in conformance with the approved Development Master Plan Amendment,
dated December 19, 2007, comprised of four independent parcels totaling 2,079 acres,
located within the Goldfield Ranch community. Refer to the Vicinity Map, in Appendix A for
specific location and information. The Project is sensitive to the desert environment by
recognizing the constraints of the topography coupled with the existence of numerous
washes and therefore provides ample open space corridors.
The Project encompasses four distinct parcels separated into 31 Development Parcels. The
approved Development Master Plan for the Project allows development of up to 1,000 lots.
This Preliminary Plat request proposes development of 951 Single Family lots, including 487
semi-custom residential lots and 464 custom residential lots.
Parcel A is 1,680 acres of 24 Development Parcels consisting of a mix of semi-custom
and custom residential lots. The lots will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet for the
semi-custom lots and 43,560 square feet for the custom lots. This Preliminary Plat
request includes 487 semi-custom lots and 375 custom lots in Parcel A.
Parcel A may also include a community clubhouse, sales/welcome center, Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF) and water campus. The WRF and water campus provide
service for both Parcels A and B. The sales/welcome center will be located within the
community clubhouse on Parcel A-4. A Special Use Permit will be submitted
separately for the WRF, water campuses and community clubhouse.
Parcel B is 49 acres of one Development Parcel consisting of custom residential home
sites with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat request
includes 10 custom home sites within parcel B.
Parcel C is 263 acres of three Development Parcels consisting of custom residential
home sites with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat
request includes 53 custom home sites within Parcel C.
Parcel D is 88 acres of three Development Parcels of custom residential home sites
with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat request
includes 26 custom home sites within Parcel D. Parcel D also has a water campus
facility providing service for both Parcel C and Parcel D.
PAGE 4
The Project provides ample active and passive open spaces with an extensive trail system.
Unimproved trails of natural material connect intermittently with the improved private
collector road shared-use trail system. In excess of 30% of the Project will be open
space. The open spaces will complement the existing surrounding area maintaining a
residential development consistent with Goldfield Ranch. Additionally, the custom lots
have a disturbance limit which defines the boundary between where development can
occur and the conservation area of each lot.
g{x cÜxáxÜäx tà ZÉÄwy|xÄw etÇv{
IV. Location and Accessibility
The Project is approximately five miles east of the intersection of Shea Boulevard and State
Route 87 (SR-87), within unincorporated Maricopa County at the northeastern fringe of the
Phoenix Metropolitan area.
The property lies within portions of Sections 10 through 24, Township 3 North, Range 7 East,
of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Primary access to the Project is from SR-87 via existing 80-foot Road Easement and Public
Utility Easements, recorded with the 1977 Goldfield Ranch Records of Survey, known as
Burntwater Road and Palo Pinto Trail located on the north side of SR-87, along with Calle Sin
Nombre and Pleasant View Drive on the south side of SR-87. As part of the overall
circulation pattern for the Project, improvements to the existing access points shall be per
the requirements of Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) or as
otherwise approved by MCDOT.
The Maricopa County Tax Assessor Parcel Numbers for the properties within the Project are
as follows:
219-16-064
219-16-067
219-16-068
219-16-069
219-16-070
219-16-071
219-16-072
219-16-075
219-16-076
219-16-077
219-16-078
219-16-079
219-16-080
219-16-081
219-16-082
219-16-083
219-16-084
219-16-085
219-16-086
219-16-087
219-16-088
219-16-089
219-16-090
219-16-091
219-16-092
219-16-093
219-16-094A
219-16-095
219-16-096
219-16-097A
219-16-098
219-16-099
219-16-100
219-16-101
219-16-102
219-16-103
219-16-104
219-16-105
219-16-106
219-16-107
219-16-108
219-16-109
219-16-110
219-16-111
219-16-112A
219-16-114C
219-16-116D
219-16-117
219-16-118
PAGE 7
87
AZ
87
AZ
87
AZ
Fort
McDowell
Yavapai
Nation
Tonto
National
Forest
Fountain
Hills
Salt
Verde
River
The Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch
Saguaro
Lake
McDowell
Mountain Community
Regional Park
River
Goldfield
Ranch
PARCEL A
PARCEL B
PARCEL C
PARCEL D
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kimberlee Robinson <kimberleee7@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 20, 2024 3:32 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Re: CPA2024004 - Preserve at Goldfield
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hi Joseph & Nicholas,
It is my understanding that the previous R 1-8, R 70 & R 43 zoning for the preserve was never revoked by the board
members after it expired in 2017. It is reasonable to think that the zoning expired in 2017 it should have reverted back
to the original zoning of RU 190. Most residents of Goldfield Ranch did not know that the board did not revoke it back to
the original zoning of RU 190. Can you please give us an explanation of how & why this happened when you get a
chance?
Also, can you please provide us with a list of the board members that served on the Maricopa Board of Supervisors for
the years of 2017 & 2018 ?
Joseph, thank you for all of your help today.
Thank you!
Have a wonderful day!
Kimberlee
HomeSmart LifeStyles
Kimberleee7@gmail.com
480-510-5220 걭
걮
걯
거
On Aug 20, 2024, at 12:04 PM, Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Kimberlee,
Please find the attached documents for the comprehensive plan amendment attached. These are the
most recent documents I have from the applicant.
The zone change case, Z240006, is being managed by Nicholas Schlimm, who is copied on the email.
Kind regards,
<image001.png>
Joseph Mueller
2
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
<APPL-FORM-2-2024-08-12_v2 (1).pdf>
<LAND-EXHI-LAND-EXHI-2-2024-08-12_v2 (1).pdf>
<NARR-RPTS-NARR-RPTS-2-2024-08-12_v2 (1).pdf>
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Leslie Cantrell <lesliescantrell@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 20, 2024 3:39 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hi,
Thanks for talking to me today about the development in
Goldfield Ranch. Below are my concerns about the rezoning and
the issues I would like addressed BEFORE any approval of
rezoning.
1. How much of the Topography of Goldfield Ranch will be
changed to allow zoning of R1-8, RU-43, RU-70. Right now the
land is mostly plateaus and ravines. To put in 712 lots it would
have to level the ground and change the Topography of the
area.
2. What is the source of water they plan to use for the 712 -lot
community. How much water would they be allowed to pull?
3. Traffic - there are only 3 exits/entrances to Goldfield Ranch
that empties onto a 2 lane highway, 87. Are we going to have
the same problems that Anthem had when that development
2
opened on I-17? 712 lots times 2 cars per home equals over
1400 new vehicles daily.
--
Leslie Cantrell
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Mary Laney <mshealaney@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 26, 2024 4:00 PM
To:
District 2; Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Case Z240006 Goldfield Ranch Zone Change
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Gentlemen,
I will make this one quick and to the point. We would like to know how and why the DMP 2012004 The Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch did not expire in 2017. DMP re-labeled as DMP2006018 according to the Formal meeting minutes
Wednesday, April 24, 2013. A letter was sent to them requesting the report, they never submitted a new report in 2017,
2018 or 2019 or 2020 and here we are in 2024.
Please check records for a determination by the County Attorney back in December of 2019. It was communicated that
the report had not been received as of yet. The Preserve challenged the validity of the stipulations regarding the report
and Planning & Developments ability to bring it before the Commission for a hearing. Therefore the matter was referred
to the County Attorney's Office for advice. Check with Jen Pokorski. She was the author of the email.
What good does it do for the P&D Department to put stipulations on an approval or extension if the applicant does not
abide by them?
Goldfield Ranch should remain R-190 without giving exceptions for the application for amendment for Grayhawk. We
strongly oppose this application and would like all the documentation stating it was never revoked.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Kindly,
Mary Laney
Goldfield Ranch Resident
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
quincey roxburgh <qroxburgh@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 26, 2024 1:42 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch preserve
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
May I ask why this area has not be rezoned back to rural 190? My understanding that when the zoning
was changed for 1-2 houses per acre (2007) , then failed due to electricity, water and environmental
concerns, it was to immediately revert back to Rural 190.
Again in 2017 it should have reverted back when it was not renewed. Why?
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
CWP Directory <cwpdirectory@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:13 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND); District 2
Subject:
re: Case #CPA2024004
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
August 27, 2024
Subject: Case #CPA2024004 - Major Comprehensive Plan Change for Goldfield Ranch, Fort McDowell,
AZ
Hello,
This letter serves as opposition to the proposed zoning modification. Allegations of the Development Master
Plan (DMP) being intact and the entitlement of "The Preserve" to previous R 1-8, R 70 & R 43 zoning are
misleading assertions. The Preserve held entitlements between 1995 and 2013, including an extension
granted in April 2013, which lapsed in 2017. The prior zoning for R 1-8, R 70 & R 43 at "The Preserve" was
never officially revoked by the board post its expiration in 2017. A recent conversation with P&D staff verified
that the DMP had been reverted back to its original R-190 zoning, while another staff member stated that the
zoning entitlements are still in place. This situation highlights another occasion where Maricopa County P & D
appears to be bending regulations to accommodate specific parties.
The recent push by Grayhawk developers proposes a major comprehensive amendment allowing for
approximately 1,728 acres on plots starting at Rural 0-1 du/ac, exceeding the previous zoning changes. This
proposed development starkly contrasts with the rural, low-density, and equestrian-friendly character of the
area.
Contrary to claims, neither the owner nor the county has affirmed that this rezoning aligns with the "Goldfield
Area Plan". Previous instances from P&D staff have shown that Development Master Plans (DMPs) can create
exceptions to statutory requirements or amend subsequently adopted area plans. However, these arguments
lack validity as DMPs hold no legal significance under state law. ARS 11-814A does not offer any provisions
for exemptions related to DMPs.
Goldfield Ranch is structured across five phases, with all lots intended to maintain their R-190 zoning. It is
crucial that this area remains preserved as Goldfield Ranch stands as a testament to a vanishing lifestyle, and
the home and lot owners are resolute in commitment to its conservation. It is evident that large-scale
developers prioritize profit margins over the preservation of this distinctive area, disregarding its unique
characteristics.
There are numerous apprehensions regarding expanding Goldfield Ranch's construction scope, mostly water
supply. In 2023, Katie Hobbs placed a pause on new construction that requires ground water. Six Cities in
Arizona have declared water shortages. The area is prone to fire risks due to drought, traffic concerns,
congestion, wildlife impact, and access to National Forests. The proposed use of commercial wells by the
developer could lead to significant expense if landowners are compelled to dig deeper, given the
2
interconnected aquifers. Previous issues with water extraction by SRP under the expired DMP further
compound these concerns.
While the county has historically accommodated Wendy Riddel's requests, residents are actively mobilizing to
challenge this proposed change to protect the area. Litigation remains a potential course of action if necessary.
Sincerely,
Janice Ridgeway
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Barry Wilkens <barry.wilkens@asu.edu>
Sent:
Friday, August 30, 2024 11:22 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
terryjwilkens@gmail.com; County Managers Office; Barry Wilkens
Subject:
Goldhawk proposal Case# CPA2024004
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Dear Joseph and Nicholas,
I am writing this email in response to the proposed Zoning amendment case CPA 2024004 Goldhawk
development. Being a homeowner with property adjoining part of this development I have a number of concerns
and objections with regard to the rezoning request.
1) In 2017 it was my understanding that the zoning on the “Preserve” reverted back to R190 (approx.
4.5 acres) as the property owner had not begun anything over a 10 year period. If the renewing of
the Preserve high density zoning was allowed at that time it was not done with a public hearing.
2) I question the proposed use of wells (groundwater) for upwards of 1000 new homes first because
of our limited groundwater sources and secondly in light of the 2023 moratorium on new
developments without plans and studies of assured water supply.
3) The current source of electrical power crossing the Fort McDowell reservation allows for approx..
300 homes (we already have 140+) and it is my understanding that the tribe is not willing to
increase the capacity through their easement as they also are not in favor of a high density
development bordering their land.
4) I also question the feasibility and possible eƯects on our groundwater sources of 1000+ separate
septic systems as proposed.
5) I strongly object to the unfairness of requiring those of us who built our own homes under the
Maricopa county requirements of hillside, wash and flood plain avoidance and what will certainly
be a major infraction of those requirements when a developer tries to cram building envelops on
to 1 acre lots. The topography out here is scabland at best with very little level buildable areas on
a typical R190 lot let alone 1 acre lots. The county topo maps with 20’ elevation graduations do
not fairly represent the unevenness of the topography out here. I’m hoping that before any
decisions are made that both members of the planning and zoning boards will visit the lands in
question to see first hand the diƯiculty of creating usable 1acre building lots while preserving the
natural contours and flora of the desert landscape.
6) Finally I strongly object to a high density development in our area as, speaking for the majority of
my neighbors, we moved here specifically for the open, rural and natural desert environment
allowing us to pursue a lifestyle with hobbies and interests compatible with the peaceful
and serene Sonoran desert as described in the document published by your departments called
“2020 An Eye to the Future the Goldfield Area Plan” Goldfield-Area-Plan-PDF (maricopa.gov) This is
one of a very few areas like it in the Phoenix Metro area. Please let us keep it this way.
2
Please also inform all of us when the public hearings are happening. The signs posted out here
give no dates but I have heard rumors of meetings in both November and December.
Thank you for your consideration and eƯorts in this matter.
Barry and Terry Wilkens
11608 N Burntwater Rd
Fort McDowell 85264
Ph 480 285 9054
APN 21916066D
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Friday, August 30, 2024 3:26 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Elyse DiMartino; Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Questions re Z2024006 Goldhawk at the Preserve
Attachments:
SchlimmLtrAug30WAttachment.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Attached in PDF is a letter raising nine questions about the rezoning that is being requested in Z2024006
regarding "Goldhawk At The Preserve." The last of these questions is equally applicable to the companion
plan amendment case CPA2024004 so I am also copying Mr. Mueller.
I look forward to your answers after you enjoy a wonderful Labor Day weekend.
Randy Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 30, 2024
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z2024006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
which is adjacent to the land currently subject to a rezoning application Z2024006, now
apparently called “Goldhawk At The Preserve.” I am also a member of the Board of Directors of
the Goldfield Property Owners Association (“GPOA”) which is resonsible to maintaining all of
the originally platted roads and roadway easements in Goldfield Ranch. I am writing in my
capactiy as the Secretary of GPOA but not on behalf of the Board because it has not had an
opportunity to meet and authorize any action since learning of the existence of Z2024006. The
questions I pose here are necessary for GPOA to intelligently consider how it should respond to
Z2024006, so you can be assured that your answers will be promptly communicated to the
GPOA Board for its consideration.
1.
Why has GPOA not been officially notified? Doesn’t the County require that
all affected homeowners associations be notified of any rezoning request? Goldfield Ranch is a
“Planned Community” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) and GPOA is the only
“Association” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1804(2). As the Secretary of GPOA I can
confirm that it has received no official, unofficial or even casual notification of the initation of
Z2024006, even though it was apparently filed over six weeks ago. Can you please explain how
this can occur, and how can this rezoning application move forward in any respect until the
affected Association is notified?
2.
Please include GPOA in any TAC meeting. As the “local authority” over the
roads (see Question 4 below) GPOA should be included in any TAC meeting. Please advise of
the schedule.
3.
What is the hearing schedule and deadline for comments and objections? I
have heard third-hand that something may be scheduled for November. Please advise me of all
scheduled or even tentative hearing dates and the dates by which comments, questions and
2
objections should be filed so that staff has adequate time to consider them before preparing any
report or recommendation.
4.
Who will be responsible for both improving and maintaining the roads? The
rezoning “Narrative” states that “Private rural roadways (with public access) exist throughout the
property and will be improved and extended as necessary to provide reliable access to each lot.”
All of the main “backbone” collector roads exist on land that is privately owned but subject to
recorded ingress and egress easements in favor of the general public. GPOA has both a legal
opinion and an expert traffic engineer’s opinion that under A.R.S. §§ 28-101(43) and 28-627
GPOA is the “local authority” with the power and responsibility to regulate the usage of these
easements and the obligation to maintain the roadway access on them. So who will be
responsible for making and financing the “improvements” the rezoning applicant promises?
Given GPOA’s responsibility and obligation to maintain the easements that the developer
intends to use, the answer to this question is critical to GPOA’s consideration of its response to
the proposed rezoning. The Board may need more than thirty or sixty days to formulate its
response once an answer is obtained because it may need to engage a lawyer to advise as to the
Board’s legal obligations and a traffic engineer to quantify the nature of extent of those
obligations. The answer is not likely to be as simple as it sounds because even if the rezoning
applicant says it intends to be responsible for improving and maintaining the easements this
leaves the very difficult questions of (1) what security will be provided to GPOA to ensure the
applicant’s performance, (2) how will GPOA be relieved of any responsibility, and (3) who will
be responsible for maintenance after the developer is gone?
5.
Who will pay assessments on acreage not platted for homes? GPOA finances
its road maintenance by levying assessments on a per-acre basis. The conceptual site plan shows
a lot of acreage that is not platted for homes. Who will own this acreage and pay the per-acre
assessments?
6.
How can GRRH “improve” roads on land it does not own? As noted, all of
the originally platted roadway easements exist on land owned by the adjacent landowners and
only GPOA has authority to maintain the easements. The rezoning applicant Goldfield Ranch
Realty Holdings does not own the land underlying at least half of the main Burnt Water access to
this development on parcel 219-16-062a. How does GRRH have any authority to “improve” this
road?
7.
Will the County require the roads to be improved to County standards?
Stipulations M(4) and P to what the developer contends is the “existing Rural-190, Rural-70,
Rural-43 and R1-8 with Residential Unit Plan of Development Overlays and Planned Area
Development Overlays” require that all roadways must meet County standards, including the
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual. Will these same standards be required for this rezoning?
What if the originally platted easements cannot physically be improved to County
standards? The easements were platted in 1977 only to provide physical access to 40+-acre
parcels of raw land, not to 712 homes on one-acre lots. Some of the easements are in existing
washes and some of them are on narrow ridges so that it is physically impossible to maintain 80-
3
foot wide easements. In 1977 the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors determined that the
existing roads and easements in Goldfield Ranch Phase I and II “have not been opened, laid out
and constructed in a manner acceptable to Maricopa County” so it rejected the offer of
dedication of these roads to the County (see attachment), and would presumably make the same
determination as to the roads in Phase III and IV.
8.
When will GPOA be paid the $2.336 million? In Stipulation L(2) to the
rezoning extension, Z2012090, the current owner Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings agreed to
make a “contribution to regional transportation infrastructure” in the amount of “$3,281 per
residential dwelling unit.” For the 712 dwellings currently contemplated by this rezoning, that
amounts to $2,336,000. As noted above, GPOA is the “local authority” under state law
responsible for the regional transportation infrastructure. This involves not only the roads within
the parcels to be rezoned but also the adjacent land in Goldfield Ranch. The rezoning proposal
states that “existing private roadway connections will remain to the adjacent Goldfield Ranch
neighborhood ensuring circulation and connectivity throughout.” This means that the 712 homes
on the rezoned property will be utilizing roads such as Burnt Water, Northwoods Pass, Thirsty
Earth, Starfire and Vista Del Oro in the adjacent subdivision Goldfield Ranch Phase II. The cost
of maintaining these roads is paid by assessments levied against the owners of land in Phase II
on a per-acre basis. The Phase II landowners will need to be compensated for the additional
financial burden imposed on them by the rezoning of another subdivision. Until an adequate
traffic study is performed and until we know whether County standards will also be imposed on
these collector roads it is impossible to determine whether the existing stipulation for $2.3
million will be sufficient.
But in addition to the adequacy of the amount there is the critical question of when it will
be paid or at least secured. For two reasons, imposing this obligation as a subdivision stipulation
or even a zoning condition is insufficient. First, this owner/rezoning applicant has already
demonstrated it does not consider itself bound by its stipulations. Second, even if it regarded
stipulations as binding contracts there is nothing to guarantee it will not simply default. GPOA
cannot afford to run the risk of being required to maintain the roads for a 712 dry lot wildcat
subdivision that could result if the rezoning became effective before the owner/developer
defaulted on its obligations.
9.
Why rezone for a subdivision that cannot be created? Finally, although not
directly related to roads, there is the elephant in the room: Why should any rezoning should be
granted or even considered for a subdivision that cannot be approved or created? Arizona law
requires a Certificate of Assured Water Supply before a landowner can submit a subdivision plat
for approval and prohibits a County from approving a subdivision without such a Certificate.
A.R.S. §§ 45-576(A) & (B). We have known for well over a year that there will be no more
Certificates issued for the Phoenix Active Management Area. Although the rezoning application
claims to have an Analysis of Assured Water Supply that was issued in 2007 it expired in June,
2017, per Ariz.Admin.Code § R12-15-703(f) and in any event the AzDWR has announced that
such Analyses have no further significance unless a Certificate application was pending.
Since this rezoning applicant cannot even apply for approval of the proposed subdivision,
why should the County even consider this rezoning? State law currently prohibits the existing
4
40+ acre parcels from being legally subdivided, so wouldn’t the only effect of such rezoning be
to disable the County from preventing a wildcat subdivision of at least 712, if not 1,940, dry one-
acre lots? GPOA has struggled for more than 20 years to create and maintain roads and
easements that can adequately serve homes on five- and ten-acre parcels but is neither designed
nor equipped to handle the density and traffic generated by one-acre wildcat lots. Why is the
County even considering this rezoning that cannot result in an approved subdivision?
I look forward to your informative answers to these fundamental background questions so
that the GPOA Board can begin to consider how to respond. Usually I would direct such
questions to the applicant or its lawyer or planner but, as noted, the developer’s answers have
been evasive and uninformative at best and even then are very slow in response. Moreover, I
expect that the answers from the County would be far more reliable and based on solid,
verifiable authority. Again, I am not expressing any position or opinions on behalf of the GPOA
Board, but merely gathering reliable information for it to consider. So I look forward to your
answers and enjoy a great Labor Day weekend.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
GPOA Director/Secretary
cc: Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
ii;';t(; I 1
cntp4:l3fs 5:ltl
il;'. '
tli t ,.'
Liil :i Hl.a()t{l)l.D
Rl ll'H:l Tri
H.rri(.(tp!
r (!untJ-
t.
,{.d at Fr,1,ort ,n
8, .,d Ot Sugatu,rc._
ountu uf fl[uriruPit
6tate nf Ariznttu
(0ffirr uf tftr Olsrh
o
$tatr of Ariznrtu lrs.
6nunl11 rrf II{uriroPut-
-
/ lilrr';r 1]lorrtrlll,
/,.r, /,7 / , t/,7,y .//',r/ t ir.
ft.,trr i l,
,1 t:ili: r.\
,; I- t lrt. ll,
S('i't(,ll)(
t I , l i'-:
'//r.r/' ,7 //,. fro,,rr/ ,/'.'l'/,.rutr(t,t do
lo. Il,i r il(
l s ir t rrrc :tttd corrcct
('\t rarct
rr : r,t "rr1lt'rvisors'
nrct'titlg ltt'lrl
,\rrt)lr l l O" r) l
iii.Slrl lr; I,!
i{l-il_r tl,iLi lrl l)l-Ci\Ul)I
\: ' .r. lrr',i '
()l: R(),1DliA)' I lSl:l!LN-'tS:
3rr Eitnrau fi[lerrof . J./,,,,. /e,eu,to' t*
,r, y lr, ,r,/ o r,r/ o1/rterl de Q7i.a/ 9-,/ t1 tln 1lad
,y .'/,,1,". r,u, r.
(Jrr,. ,r/ /lrnrr;-r, t/,.(/*, nty ,(/L/
r/,,.,
lith
,/,,y,/ sL'ptrlnl)cr, l!77
,r,/ ?
cr,,r of i6r tiiaiiS",i,K*
rt
" ^{li, 1 v.isz}, .,:1i-.'
""; 's#lilz
,r
t).
lr I ,, , ,. -,it
L>'l
i d
t -.-
:
;
n
:'
/
!J!r r/ fu(ut.rr,
\t t, tlUr,,,
(.0unt)' !.t,iltttt.
r
I iIc
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Shelley Johnson <shelleyjohnson85264@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Friday, August 30, 2024 1:05 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Re: Opposition letter re: Zone Change case: Z240006 (WITH ATTACHED LETTER)
Attachments:
Johnson objection letter for major CPA 8.30.24.docx
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
.
Nicholas Schlimm,
Attached please find our letter in opposition to Zone Change case: Z240006. Please let this be on
record we have concerns re;arding this development as it relates to water and doubling the allowable
number of wells for this development.
Thank you,
Michele & Sheldon Johnson
12409 N Vista Del Oro
Scottsdale, AZ 85264
GOLDFIELD RANCH
August 30, 2024
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm
Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov
Maricopa County, Planning & Development
301 W Jefferson Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Zone Change case Z240006 (Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment {CPA} at The Preserve, Goldfield Ranch)
Dear Mr. Schlimm,
We am wriƟng to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700+ acre parcel in the Goldfield
Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one D/U or one single-family home per
five acres to one home per acre raises significant environmental concerns.
The development poses a severe threat to the water resources. We are sharing our concerns as we believe allowing this
Major CPA will have irreversible negaƟve impacts not only the current residents within Goldfield Ranch, but on the
desert ecosystem. There are communiƟes in Maricopa County having major issues currently with access to water, and
with the ongoing drought, allowing this Major CPA to move forward would put even heavier burdens on the fragile water
resources in the region.
The prolonged drought that has impacted the Sonoran Desert since the mid-1990s is the worst in over 110 years of
recorded history. This prolonged drought has already significantly affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced
availability for agricultural, residenƟal, and environmental needs. The proposed increase in housing density from the
currently zoned 1 D/U per acre would more than double the number of wells currently allowed, thus exacerbaƟng an
already overburdened/depleted water table.
In the most recent master plan that has expired, the plan was to put in their own water company or require holding
tanks and people would have to haul water in. Allowing this major CPA to allow individual wells when groundwater levels
in the region are criƟcally low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitaƟon is unconscionable. The increased
demand for water that will result from this Major CPA/development threatens to further deplete the aquifers, which are
the primary sources of water for local communiƟes and ecosystems. As a result, this could lead to the drying up of wells,
reduced water availability for exisƟng residents, and the deterioraƟon of local water quality due to increased
groundwater pumping. Any reducƟon in groundwater levels would have long-lasƟng effects on the desert's natural
vegetaƟon, which is already under stress from drought condiƟons, thereby altering the landscape and ecological balance.
If this Major CPA/development is permited, it will lead to further depleƟon of the aquifers. Given the decades that have
passed since the original zoning approval—long before the current drought condiƟons—it is crucial to conduct new,
independent water surveys to assess the current situaƟon and potenƟal impact of increased water usage. Given the
significant changes in water availability and ecological condiƟons since the original proposal – that has expired, you
should require a new environmental impact study be conducted to ensure compliance with state and federal
environmental laws. With the severe and irreversible impacts on water resources and the ecosystem, we ask you to
decline the Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sheldon L and Michele L. Johnson
12409 N Vista Del Oro, Scotsdale, AZ 85264
(Goldfield Ranch resident since 1993)
Shelleyjohnson85264@yahoo.com
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
omfdr <omfdr@aol.com>
Sent:
Saturday, August 31, 2024 1:46 PM
To:
County Managers Office; Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Concerns Regarding Goldhawk Project
Attachments:
Preserve Objection Final T.Z..docx
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Please find formal outline of issues.
I would like to point out that homeowners of current phases of GFR were under the impression that ALL lots of ALL
phases were to be 5 acres or more.
Also, I would like to ask why a moratorium was issues earlier this year that only homes with current approvals for wells
could bill as there was a concern for water preservation. Now we are approving hundreds of build sites? This does not
make sense. Are reactionary or proactive?
Please consider the current 5 acres lot delineation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dr Michael Muul
Teresa Muul
Sent from my Ultra 21S
Dr Michael and Teresa Muul
21625 E Northwood Pass
Ft McDowell, AZ, 85264-4308
Omfdr@aol.com
Dear Joseph Mueller
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed Development in
Goldfield Ranch known as (The Preserve).
I am wriƟng to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre parcel in
the Goldfield Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one
single-family home per five acres to one home per acre, along with the addiƟon of high-density
apartments, condominiums, and a golf course, raises significant environmental, infrastructural, and
economic issues. The development poses a severe threat to the local ecosystem, water resources,
community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region. This leter outlines the negaƟve impacts
this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem, parƟcularly in light of the ongoing
drought and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a 35-year
period of water scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought
has already significantly affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural,
residenƟal, and environmental needs. The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-
intensive ameniƟes such as a golf course, will only exacerbate the strain on an already
overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are criƟcally low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitaƟon.
The increased demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the
aquifers, which are the primary sources of water for local communiƟes and ecosystems. As a result, this
could lead to the drying up of wells, reduced water availability for exisƟng residents, and the
deterioraƟon of local water quality due to increased groundwater pumping. Moreover, any reducƟon in
groundwater levels could have long-lasƟng effects on the desert's natural vegetaƟon, which is already
under stress from drought condiƟons, thereby altering the landscape and ecological balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this
development proceeds, it could lead to further depleƟon of the aquifers, potenƟally requiring exisƟng
homeowners to drill new wells beyond 1,000 feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibiƟve, which
could render surrounding properƟes virtually worthless due to the financial burden of accessing water.
Given the decades that have passed since the original zoning approval—long before the current drought
condiƟons—it is crucial to conduct new, independent water surveys to assess the current situaƟon and
potenƟal impact of increased water usage.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to
the region's arid condiƟons and rely on specific ecological condiƟons to thrive. The proposed
development threatens to disrupt these condiƟons by increasing human presence and altering land use
in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased polluƟon, and the introducƟon of invasive species.
ParƟcularly at risk are the local wildlife populaƟons, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are
already struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-
density housing and golf course will fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate
and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns about the
disposal of wastewater. The addiƟon of over a 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses,
and a golf course will generate substanƟal amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure,
could contaminate local groundwater supplies. This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of
the region and the well-being of its residents.
AddiƟonally, the increased populaƟon density will place a considerable strain on the local highway
infrastructure. The exisƟng two-lane highway in each direcƟon is inadequate for the anƟcipated traffic
influx. Approving this proposal would necessitate construcƟng acceleraƟon and deceleraƟon lanes and
likely expanding the highway to three to four lanes in each direcƟon along with the necessary stop lights
at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the Verde River may need to be rebuilt to handle
increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both direcƟons, exacerbaƟng the negaƟve impact on the
surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potenƟal influx of
students resulƟng from this development. This could necessitate the construcƟon of new schools, a
burden that should fall on the developer, given the strain the development will place on exisƟng
educaƟonal infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services
infrastructure to support such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which does not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from
this development. Building new fire staƟons and emergency services faciliƟes will be necessary to ensure
community safety.
Furthermore, the development's addiƟonal infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads, bridges, and
public services, could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potenƟal tax increase would place an undue
financial burden on all residents, especially those who are reƟred and living on fixed incomes. Higher
property taxes to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would
be parƟcularly challenging for these residents, potenƟally forcing them out of their homes due to rising
costs.
5. Environmental and Legal ConsideraƟons.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to
the region's arid condiƟons and rely on specific ecological condiƟons to thrive. The proposed
development threatens to disrupt these condiƟons by increasing human presence and altering land use
in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased polluƟon, and the introducƟon of invasive species.
ParƟcularly at risk are the local wildlife populaƟons, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are
already struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-
density housing and golf course will fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate
and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago, necessitate
thorough reconsideraƟon considering current environmental condiƟons and regulaƟons. Given the
significant changes in water availability and ecological condiƟons since the original proposal, new
environmental impact studies should be conducted to ensure compliance with state and federal
environmental laws, including the NaƟonal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area that encompasses the Salt River, Verde
River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potenƟally irreversible impacts on water resources, local infrastructure, the
environment, and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authoriƟes to
reconsider the proposed development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is
crucial to prioriƟze sustainable development pracƟces that respect the unique and fragile environment
of the Sonoran Desert and consider the economic and social impact on the community, especially those
most vulnerable.
Thank you for your atenƟon to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideraƟon will be given to
protecƟng our natural environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Sincerely,
Dr Michael Muul and Teresa Muul
---
Feel free to adjust the leter to beter reflect your specific concerns or add addiƟonal details.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Tracy Cutting <tracylcutting@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 1, 2024 8:00 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Malcolm Cutting; Criquette Cutting
Subject:
Proposed Grayhawk Development in Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hello Mr. Mueller and Mr. Schlimm,
Upon learning of the proposed Grayhawk development on The Preserve in Goldfield Ranch, we have some concerns. I
know many of our neighbors have already written to you to share their concerns. Though most of our concerns would
echo theirs, I don’t want to bore you with more of the same.
If you are on the Maricopa County Zoning & Planning Committee, I don’t need to point out that Goldfield Ranch is zoned
R-190 because there is a lack of “public facilities such as water, sewage disposal, parks and playgrounds, and
governmental services such as police and fire protection.” It takes the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and the Fort
McDowell Fire Department at least 20 minutes to get out here in an emergency. This has been a particularly scary
wildfire season. Many of these fires were human-caused. I can’t imagine the strain on current services if we had 700 plus
families living out here.
If the proposed R1-8 is supposed to take “into consideration existing conditions, including present use of land, present
lot sizes, future land use needs and the availability of public utilities”, then anyone visiting Goldfield Ranch could see
that this proposal does not make any sense. I do hope that you will come out and visit our beautiful neighborhood and
see this for yourselves.
The one thing that most people are not talking about is that this 5,000 acres of rural land is home to many species of
animals, reptiles and birds that are indigenous to the Sonoran Desert and thrive here with the low density development
because they have some access to water. The Audubon Society comes out here annually to count the different kinds of
birds. Since moving here in 2021, we have seen more than one Gila Monster, more snakes than we can count - rattlers,
king, bull, ribbon, red racer to name a few, bobcats, mountain lions, javelina, owls, hawks and many varieties of
hummingbirds.
A high density development will threaten not only our rural way of life, but threaten many desert creatures that call The
Preserve area home. Their access to the Verde River would be cut off by development. I am sure my neighbors have
adequately addressed the water scarcity concern as the Verde River is much lower in recent years and digging more
wells would put too much stress on the aquifers and could put our water access at risk.
We urge you to talk to the developer and ask them to reconsider their development to stay in keeping with the original
plan of Goldfield Ranch, custom built homes on a minimum of 4.36 acres. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Tracy & Malcolm Cutting
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Debbi White <debswoj52@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, September 6, 2024 7:50 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
nicholas.schlimm@maricopa.go
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Case Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
I am a 17 year resident of Goldfield Ranch. I have seen many changes over the years. Some changes I liked, some
changes I did not like. Progress always happens.
The changes proposed in this new zoning is remarkably bad for Goldfield Ranch, no matter how it is dressed up or
proposed.
I am 100% against this zone change in Goldfield Ranch.
Sincerely,
Debbi White Wojtysiak
13322 N. Vista Del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
September 6, 2024
Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Berry Riddell LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road Suite 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Re: CPA2024006 Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
Z2400006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. DiMartino:
Thank you for your response to my letter of August 8 (copy attached), and I am
especially thankful for your acknowledgement of the myriad factual errors in your applications
regarding the acreage that was included in the old Preserve DMP. Your acknowledgements
clarify much of the confusion. But your corrections raise some additional questions to which I
hope you will be equally responsive.
1.
Will you be amending your applications to correct or eliminate the
misstatements of the acreage included in the Preserve DMP? I think you will agree that these
misstatements are highly material, consisting of at least 212 acres. I understand your comment
that “it is very typical for applications to be refined through the process with staff.” Does this
mean that you will be filing amended applications to “refine” your descriptions of both what was
in the old Preserve DMP and what are the current land use designations? When can I expect to
see that amendment? I do have some very substantive planning and zoning issues to raise with
your applications and I would prefer to address them to the final, refined application rather than
one that is admittedly factually inaccurate.
2.
Will your amended applications eliminate the 212 acres that were never part
of the Preserve DMP and that are not being “downzoned”? I appreciate your contention that
staff was not “mislead” [sic] in understanding that the purported “downzoning” from the existing
Preserve DMP zoning is “the only reason” for your comprehensive plan amendment and “the
only reason that staff might support the rezoning” (emphasis in original). Given that that is the
only reason you have suggested for this plan amendment and rezoning, will your amended
applications simply remove the 212 acres that were mistakenly included? Not only would this be
consistent with the only purpose of the plan amendment and rezoning but would actually
enhance that purpose “to allow the Site to develop at a [even lower] density.”
2
3.
It is legally and factually incorrect that the Preserve DMP was a zoning
“entitlement.” Another category of factual misstatements is the repeated references to the
Preserve DMP as being some kind of zoning “entitlement.” Your Comprehensive Plan
Amendment narrative application makes at least three references to the Preserve DMP as being
some kind of “entitlement.” And you flatly state this alleged “entitlement” was a zoning
entitlement defined by Maricopa County zoning classifications “Rural-70, Rural-43, and R1-8,
all with RUPD and PAD Overlays” (CPA p. 1). And your response to Question 11 makes clear
you regard this as a “zoning” entitlement when you state that “Arizona law is clear that zoning is
in place unless otherwise removed by the Board of Supervisors.”
But the Preserve DMP never included any zoning entitlement. To the contrary, it was
never more than a “conditional zoning” entitlement. Arizona statutes and Supreme Court
holdings are clear that conditional zoning is legally distinct from zoning. Conditional zoning is
authorized by a separate statute, A.R.S. § 11-814(I), that is separate and distinct from the
statutory authorizations of both the zoning power and the rezoning power, A.R.S. §§ 11-811(A)
& 11-813(B), (C) & (D). Because Arizona counties do not have home rule, this specific
authorization for counties to engage in conditional zoning was necessary to authorize that power,
distinct from both the general zoning power and the rezoning power. The Supreme Court has
made clear that conditional zoning is something that occurs at an entirely different time than a
zoning or rezoning. The holding of Pioneer Trust Company v. Pima County, 168 Ariz. 61, 811
P.2d 22 (1991) is that the time to seek a referendum on a conditional zoning is within 30 days of
the grant of the conditional zoning, not the much later time when the actual zoning amendment is
made. The analysis in that opinion also makes unmistakably clear that the grant of conditional
zoning is legally distinct from the grant of final zoning: “If the Board grants a request for
conditional approval, rezoning is subject to the satisfaction of all rezoning conditions and to the
adoption of a rezoning ordinance. . . . After conditional approval, the Board may adopt a
rezoning ordinance only when ‘all rezoning conditions have been satisfied . . . .’” Id. at 65. And
the Arizona Court of Appeals has specifically held that “conditional zoning requests that have
not been completed cannot run in perpetuity,” and that there is no “vested right in conditional
zoning” unless and until there has been “actual construction or establishment of the use . . .
accomplished in reliance on or in conformance with a previously issued permit authorizing the
commencement of the use or construction.” Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. v. Pima County, 171
Ariz. 427, 428 & 430, 431 P.2d 426 (App. Div. 2 1992).
Because it was conditional zoning only, it is factually and legally incorrect to refer to the
Preserve DMP as any kind of “entitlement.” No statute, regulation or case law defines
conditional zoning as being an entitlement. This is not just a technical or semantic difference
because in plain language the “entitlement” language is facetious or entirely misleading. I could
just as easily claim that as a 35+ year old natural born citizen I have an entitlement to exercise
the executive powers of the United States, conditioned only upon my being elected.
All the references to entitlements, zoning rights and zoning classifications should be
eliminated from the plan amendment and rezoning applications. At minimum, they cannot be
used without acknowledgement that they are merely conditional, which for planning purposes
means they are at best hypothetical, not actual or vested.
3
4.
A conditional zoning subject to conditions that cannot or will not be satisfied
is a nullity for both planning and zoning purposes. While in some circumstances the
distinction between a zoning entitlement and a conditional zoning might be a mere legal
formality or technicality, it is something altogether different when the conditions cannot be
satisfied, or are known to be unrealistic or practically impossible.
A conditional zoning has no existence in the absence of the conditions. A conditional
zoning does not become unconditional zoning when the conditions become impossible, or upon
expiration of the time limit for their accomplishment, or simply upon the owner’s declaration
that they no longer apply. Your repeated statement that “a stipulation of the previous case will
not apply as we are starting the process over” means that the entire “previous case” does not
apply since the Preserve DMP cannot exist without its conditions. And “starting over” must
mean starting as if the Preserve DMP never existed. That means satisfaction of the conditions is
at best unrealistic or practically impossible. One of the most significant conditions that your
applications implicitly acknowledge to be unrealistic is the approval of a proposed wastewater
treatment facility.
A comprehensive plan amendment requires a comparison of the proposed amendment
and the existing plan, and a demonstration that the amendment “constitutes an overall
improvement.” That comparison requires a comparison of apples to apples. Owners and
planners may have strong and strongly differing opinions whether apples are better than oranges,
but the answer is not debatable. The comparison must be between realities that are realistically
possible. We can debate whether a horse constitutes an overall improvement compared to a
mule, but it would be a meaningless exercise to debate whether a horse is an overall
improvement to a unicorn or Pegasus. Debating fantasies may be an entertaining exercise for
fans of J.R.R. Tolkein but they serve no purpose in the planning process.
What is a conditional zoning plan when its conditions are unrealistic? For planning
purposes it is not just an inchoate hypothetical, it is a null set. The unrealistic conditions mean it
is not a plan at all. For planning purposes the statute A.R.S. § 11-814(I) means the only possible
realistic plan when zoning conditions become unrealistic or impossible is reversion to the former
zoning classification. So when your proposed comprehensive plan amendment is compared to
the Preserve DMP (which is a specific subset of the Goldfield Area Plan, which is a subset of the
Comprehensive Plan), the comparison must be to the plan for that land when it has reverted to
the former zoning classification. That would have to be the Goldfield Area Plan.
The CPA application fails to satisfy the requirement of demonstrating an overall
improvement to the existing plan. The Preserve DMP with the assumption its conditions can
ever be satisfied has become the fantastic unicorn with which no realistic comparisons can be
made. Where is your consideration of whether your plan amendment is an overall improvement
of the Preserve DMP on the realistic assumption that its conditions will never be satisfied?
Planning must deal with realistic possibilities, not theoretical legal null sets such as a conditional
zoning whose conditions have become unrealistic or fantastic.
I look forward to your amended applications correcting or eliminating the admitted errors
and misstatements, removing the 212 acres that were never part of the Preserve, and including an
4
analysis of how your plan amendment constitutes an overall improvement to R-190, or any
improvement to a conditional zoning subject to impossible conditions.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Joseph Mueller, Planner
2
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 8, 2024
Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Berry Riddell LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road
Suite 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Re: PA2024034 Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
PA2024034 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. DiMartino:
Thank you for your answers to questions 1-2 and 4-6. But your responses to my
questions 3 and 7-10 are, at best, not responsive. More importantly, they reveal some material
factual errors in your applications that need to be corrected before Planning and Development
can adequately review your proposals and before I can address the planning issues they raise.
The CPA Does Not Simply “Remove” and “Reclassify” a Portion of Preserve DMP
As to your answer to question 3, your first sentence is correct that all of the land in
Goldfield Ranch other than the defunct DMP is classified for planning purposes as Rural 0-1
du/ac, so any land outside of the former DMP does not need a plan amendment to be reclassified
as such. But this still does not explain how, by simply removing any acreage from the former
Preserve DMP, the plan amendment can create “1,940 contiguous acres of the larger 2,434-acre
[former Preserve DMP] Site,” since the largest contiguous acreage of that larger site was only
1679 acres, in Parcel A. Subtraction cannot result in addition. My question was clear: how can
you increase the contiguous acreage simply by “removing” some acreage? To increase the 1,679
contiguous acreage of Parcel A you must add some more contiguous acreage that was not part of
the former Preserve DMP, so my question asked you to identify that additional acreage.
You chose not to answer that question, insisting that “1,940 acres is the project area”
even though the entirety of the defunct Preserve DMP north of SR 87 never included more than
1,728 acres. What is this additional acreage and where does it come from, since it cannot
possibly come from the old Preserve DMP?
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out, Randy. After looking at the numbers again, we confirmed the larger
acreage is actually +/-2,079 acres per the 2007 The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch DMP boundary, not
2,434 acres.
3
You are correct, the additional acreage does not come from the 2007 DMP. Our new project area
includes Parcel A and Parcel B of the 2007 Preserve DMP. Parcel A was +/-1,679 acres and Parcel B
was +/-49 for a total of +/-1,728 acres. We have added +/- 212 acres to the project area by including lots
1, 3, 5, 13, and 14, making the project area a total of +/-1,940 acres.
Your Applications Include Undisclosed Acreage
Although did not identify the additional acreage in your response the answer now
becomes apparent from your rezoning application, which is both factually wrong and
inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Both the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and the 2007 DMP clearly showed that Parcel B was not contiguous with Parcel A,
and that Parcel B was not contiguous with State Route 87. But the maps in your rezoning
application purporting to show “Existing Zoning” and “Proposed Zoning” both show the new
project to make the former Parcel B contiguous with both Parcel A and SR 87. Of course this
can only be accomplished by adding to the former DMP some acreage located between Parcels A
and B and some acreage located between Parcel B and SR 87. And this is confirmed by the fine
print below both of those maps, which indicates the “Total Area” as consisting of 1,939 acres,
whereas the former Parcels A and B together were only 1679 + 48.8 = 1727.8 acres. The
difference is 212 acres, which is what my question asked you to explain.
Response:
While it is true that Parcel A and Parcel B are not contiguous, our project area is contiguous. Our
project area includes Parcel A and Parcel B from the DMP, along with lots 1,3,5,13, and 14 that
were not part of the DMP. Lots 1,3,5,13, and 14 are +/-212 acres.
The map in your rezoning proposal, the conceptual site plan and the conceptual roadway
plans have added to what was the 2007 Preserve DMP the following six 40+-acre parcels:
(1) Goldfield Ranch Phase III Parcel 1 (40.18 ac)(now 219-16-061 owned by GRRH);
(2) Parcel 3 (50.54 ac) (now 219-16-063K owned by GRRH);
(3) Parcel 5 (41.47 ac)(now 219-16-065A owned by GRRH);
(4) Parcel 12 (41.33 ac)(now 219-16-072 owned by GRRH);
(5) Parcel 13 (40.04 ac)(now 219-16-073 owned by Four Peaks Holdings); and
(6) Parcel 14 (40.32 ac)(now 219-16-074 owned by Four Peaks Holdings).
Total: 253.9 acres
None of these parcels was included in the list of parcels comprising the Preserve DMP
that was approved in 2007. See the attached list, which was excerpted from the Preliminary Plat
Narrative that was filed on December 17, 2007, after the 2006-07 DMP amendment. Also note
that your maps of “existing land use” and “proposed land use” also misrepresent the DMP
because DMP Parcels C and D on the south side of SR 87 were not contiguous as now shown on
your maps. They were discontiguous because the Preserve DMP did not include Goldfield
Ranch Phase 5 Parcel 8, Assessor’s Parcel 219-16-114F, which you have also added to the 2007
Preserve DMP.
4
Response:
You are correct that lots 1,3,5,13, and 14 were not part of the DMP, but are part of the project
area. Please note that these lots are +/-212 acres. Lot 12, however, was in the original DMP.
We believe this is where the discrepancy is regarding the 253.9 acres and the +/-212 acres.
These factual misstatements are confirmed by your statement that the larger DMP site
was 2,434 acres, when in fact is was only 2,079 acres. These factual misrepresentations cannot
be attributed to the former owner Ellman Companies because your own current client, Goldfield
Ranch Realty Holdings, filed an application in December, 2012, to extend for five years the
termination date of the 2007 Preserve DMP. Your client’s extension application stated that the
Preserve DMP that was conditionally rezoned in Z2007150 “includes 2,079 acres.” See
Z2012090, “The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Modification to the Zoning Stipulations,” Project
Narrative Background ¶ 1. Having obtained that extension, your client is now judicially
estopped to claim that the Preserve DMP was actually 355 acres larger than it ever was.
Response:
You are correct that the larger acreage was +/-2,079 acres, not 2,434 acres. Thank you again for bringing this to
our attention.
5
The Surreptitious Inclusion of 253 Unidentified Acres Creates Many Factual
Misrepresentations on which Planning and Development staff has Relied
Your undisclosed and unexplained addition of six 40+-acre parcels to both the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning application means there are a significant
number of material inconsistencies and misrepresentations in these documents. Both the sheer
number of these factual misrepresentations and their interrelationship suggest that these are not
minor or immaterial mathematical errors but are fundamental to the essential purpose and effect
of the requested plan amendment and rezoning:
(1) The effect of the proposed plan amendment is not simply to “remove this approximate
1,728.37-acre portion of the Site from the Preserve DMP and reclassify it as Rural 0-1
du/ac” as your Comprehensive Plan amendment states. In fact, your CPA also proposes
to change the Goldfield Area Plan for an additional 254 acres that were never included in
the 2007 DMP.
Response:
You are correct that the additional +/-212 acres (lots 1, 3, 5, 13, and 14) were not included in the 2007
DMP. However, they are part of the Goldfield Area Plan and already have a Rural 0-1 du/ac land use.
Therefore, the land use for those lots did not need to be amended. Further, we are not making any
changes to the Area Plan.
(2) The effect of the CPA is not simply “to allow the Site to develop at a lower density”
as you contend. To the contrary, it materially increases the density on approximately 254 acres
that are currently zoned R-190.
Response:
They are zoned Rural-190 but have an Area Plan land use of Rural 0-1 du/ac. There is no change to the
Goldfield Area Plan as the CPA did not include the additional parcels. However, the rezoning
application does increase the density of the additional +/-212 acres from Rural-190 to Rural-43 but it
still conforms to the Goldfield Area Plan and overall reduces the density of the previous Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch project area.
(3) The CPA and the rezoning application are both seriously misleading because they use
inconsistent definitions of the “Site.” The CPA defines the “Site” as being the “whole Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch.” The rezoning application defines the “Site” as being “approximately 1,940
acres” “as shown below,” but the map “shown below” includes several parcels totaling more
than 254 acres that were never part of the 2007 Preserve DMP.
Response:
The “Site” for the Major CPA and Rezoning will be different because the “Site” for the Major CPA must
represent only the Major CPA area and the Rezoning “Site” can only represent the area being rezoned.
The Major CPA application is only the +/-1,728 acres (Parcels A and B of the 2007 DMP) while the
rezoning includes the +/-1,728 acres plus the +/-212 acres that were not part of the 2007 Preserve DMP
but are a part of the Rezone
6
(4) Therefore even if the CPA were adopted and limited to amending the Preserve DMP
as you contend, the proposed rezoning could not be approved because it includes 254 acres
whose zoning would be inconsistent with both the Goldfield Area Plan and your proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Response:
We are struggling to understand your statements here…The Goldfield Area Plan land use
designation is Rural 0-1 du/ac which is consistent with our rezoning request. It is true that the
Major CPA does not include the additional +/-212 acres because the land use designation on the
additional +/-212 acres is consistent and does not need to be amended to permit a rezone of Rural-
43 (RU-43).
(5) The rezoning application misrepresents the “Owner” to be only Goldfield Ranch Realty
Holdings. The true owner of 80 acres (parcels 219-16-073 and 219-16-074) for which the
rezoning is sought is Four Peaks Holdings aka Grayhawk. In fact, didn’t this same undisclosed
owner previously seek, and be denied, essentially this same rezoning (one house per acre on
septic) of this same 80 acres, without claiming it ever to have been part of the Preserve DMP? Is
that rezoning denial the reason why Grayhawk did not want to be identified as one of the Owners
filing this rezoning application?
Response:
You are correct that both entities are ownership for the rezoning application. Because the application
form did not provide the space needed to include both entities, separate ownership authorization letters
were attached to the application page provided to you.
(6) It is not true that “this downzoning will consist of approximately 1,940 acres of the Preserve”
(Rezoning ¶ A, emphasis added) because it is an upzoning for approximately 254 acres that
were never part of the Preserve.
Response:
When taken in totality, this is a downzoning of a significant portion of the previous Preserve at Goldfield
Ranch site.
(7) It is not true that “this rezoning of Goldhawk . . . as shown below, is a downzoning from what
was previously approved “(Rezoning ¶ B). To the contrary, it is an upzoning and at least a
fivefold increase in density from what was previously approved for 254 acres.
Response:
We respectfully disagree. Overall, this is a downzoning of a significant portion of the previous Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch site.
7
(8) The CPA Application states that it is for 558 lots but the rezoning states it is for 712
lots.
Response:
You are correct that the 558 lots were proposed during the pre-application stage was accidentally
carried over into some of the CPA application documents. The application documents that our team has
shared with you should not have that discrepancy. These same documents were submitted to County staff
as well.
(9) It is not true that “the Site is comprised of approximately 1,940 acres and is part of the larger
Preserve at Goldfield Ranch” (Rezoning ¶ C) because more than 10% of the Site was never
part of the larger Preserve.
Response:
You are correct that only +/-1,728 acres were part of the Preserve.
(10)
It is not true that “This request is a downzoning that will reduce the number of
approved lots currently permitted on the Site” (Rezoning ¶ J) because it includes a significant
upzoning for 254 acres that will increase the number of approved lots currently permitted on the
Site. There are currently only six (6) “approved lots” on the 254 acres you have attempted to add
to the Preserve DMP Site, because these are only six 40+-acre parcels. Even without considering
zoning limitations each of the current two owners of these six parcels could only create an
additional four lots each without legally subdividing them. And these six 40-acre lots cannot
now be legally subdivided because there is no Certificate of Assured Water Supply and no more
will be issued in the Phoenix AMA. So on these 254 acres this requested rezoning would
increase the density from the current theoretical legal maximum of 14 wildcat subdivided lots to
as many as 250.
Response:
While we appreciate your analysis of the Arizona Subdivision statutes and Arizona water law, here we
are speaking specifically about the approved zoning entitlements.
(11)
It is not true that “the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is
“+/- 1,000 units” because the conditions on that zoning have never been satisfied and by this
application the Owner admits they never will be satisfied. Until those conditions are satisfied,
“the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is theoretically around 400,
because until those conditions are satisfied the underlying unconditional zoning remains R-190.
Response:
Respectfully, Arizona law is clear that zoning is in place unless otherwise removed by the Board of
Supervisors. That has never occurred here. Are you suggesting that we could build 400 lots
without meeting the conditions of the zoning?
Planning and Zoning Staff Has Been Misled by these Material Misrepresentations
As noted above, the multiple repetitions of both the current zoning and the acreage of the
8
defunct 2007 Preserve DMP suggest you must have regarded these representations as highly
material to your applications. This is confirmed by the Pre-Application Meeting Form which
states: “The subject area . . . comprises the majority of the Preserve DMP area,” and “Staff feels
that the proposed RU-70 RUPD may be an improvement to the existing zoning on site.” Both of
these statements indicate that staff was misled by your misstatements that the “subject area” is
entirely part of the Preserve DMP area. Staff was also apparently misled by your representation
as to the existing zoning on approximately 254 acres of the subject site. These P&Z staff
statements indicate that your false comparison to existing zoning is virtually the only reason that
staff might support the rezoning. At the very least, the P&Z staff statements indicate that your
numerous erroneous comparisons to existing zoning is highly material to staff’s reaction.
Response:
Please understand that it is very typical for applications to be refined through the process with staff, for
example correcting acreages. We will continue to work on the details of this application. We respectfully
reject the suggestion that we have mislead staff in any way and that this is an “upzoning”.
Rezoning Application Contains Other Material Misrepresentations
Your answers and evasions to my questions confirm there are some other material
misstatements in your applications that you will want to correct before you find them to be
publicly embarrassing, or worse.
5
Rezoning Application ,r G states that future residents will be served by "the Goldfield
Fire Center." It appears that there is no such entity and that the name was made up. In fact, and
as you know, there is a Goldfield Ranch Fire District which apparently you have not contacted.
If and when you do, T believe you will learn that it has no fire station, equipment, employees or
volunteers and has no capacity to protect 712 homes.
Response:
You are correct that this should have said Goldfield Ranch Fire District, not Center. As part of the
Rezoning and Major CPA processes, we will be having discussions with the Fire District as well as
all of the utility providers.
Rezoning Application ,r G also states that "the Site is bounded on the ... east ... by the
Tonto National Forest." TI1is is not true. The Site is bounded on the east by Goldfield Ranch.
As noted in our email correspondence, you have not been in contact with the homeowners and
the property owners associations that serve that planned community,
Response:
You are correct, it was intended to be a more general statement; however, we understand how it could
easily be misinterpreted.
As part of the application process, we sent out notification letters to the required property
owners and interested parties provided by County staff. We will be doing robust outreach and
holding a neighborhood meeting as we continue to move through these processes. We are happy
to hold additional individual meetings with you and any other interested neighbors.
Rezoning Application ,r H states that there is an "existing approved Analysis of Assured
Water Supply." This is not true. There purportedly was an Analysis of Assured Water Supply in
June, 2007. But that expired in 2017 per Az.Admin.Code § Rl2-15-703(F). Your response to
my question # 7 indicates that you have no documents or evidence that your client has made any
effort to extend that Analysis. You also have no evidence that your client made any effort to
comply with its agreement, per Stipulation y of the rezoning extension (Z2012090), to
demonstrate "compliance with Maricopa County Subdivision Regulations 304.2 and 304.3 for
water and wastewater facilities." Nor has your client submitted a "Certificate of 100 Year
Assured Water Supply," or any "guarantee that the subdivision can and will receive an adequate
supply of potable water from a water system operated by a certificated water company or
municipality."
Response:
Unfortunately, your understanding here is flawed. The extension for the Analysis of Assured Water
Supply was approved. The approval is provided herein.
Rezoning Application ,r JI also implies that the property will be served by SRP's
"existing 12Kv [sic] line and easement to the property." This is both false and not physically
possible. SRP has advised that the existing 12kV line is only capable of serving approximately
5
300 homes (of which more than 100 are already being served in Goldfield Ranch) and the
existing "easement" will terminate in 2035. Your response to my question# 9 indicates that you
have no documents or evidence that your client has made any effort to comply with Stipulation i
to the rezoning extension (22012090) to "provide written documentation from Salt River Project
(SRP) stating that SRP has the physical and legal capability to serve electricity to the site."
Response:
We have been engaged in discussions with SRP regarding this topic.
You should feel no need to apologize, at least to me, for these misstatements. I am not
implying that they were either innocent or intentional, nor suggesting who is responsible for
them. Nor am I expressing any opinion on the merits of your applications, whether they
constitute sound planning and responsible development, or should be approved by the County. I
am hoping, however, that the details I have provided here will facilitate your client, myself and
Planning and Development reaching a mutual understanding of the indisputable facts that are the
background of your requests as they may be amended.
We appreciate you bringing these items to our attention and for doing this exercise. We are happy to
continue to have dialogue with you and believe you will be significantly happier with this proposal
than the last.
Sincerely,
cc: Joseph Mueller, Planner
PAGE 4
g{x cÜxáxÜäx tà ZÉÄwy|xÄw etÇv{
II.
Description of Proposal
The Project is in conformance with the approved Development Master Plan Amendment,
dated December 19, 2007, comprised of four independent parcels totaling 2,079 acres,
located within the Goldfield Ranch community. Refer to the Vicinity Map, in Appendix A for
specific location and information. The Project is sensitive to the desert environment by
recognizing the constraints of the topography coupled with the existence of numerous
washes and therefore provides ample open space corridors.
The Project encompasses four distinct parcels separated into 31 Development Parcels. The
approved Development Master Plan for the Project allows development of up to 1,000 lots.
This Preliminary Plat request proposes development of 951 Single Family lots, including 487
semi-custom residential lots and 464 custom residential lots.
Parcel A is 1,680 acres of 24 Development Parcels consisting of a mix of semi-custom
and custom residential lots. The lots will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet for the
semi-custom lots and 43,560 square feet for the custom lots. This Preliminary Plat
request includes 487 semi-custom lots and 375 custom lots in Parcel A.
Parcel A may also include a community clubhouse, sales/welcome center, Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF) and water campus. The WRF and water campus provide
service for both Parcels A and B. The sales/welcome center will be located within the
community clubhouse on Parcel A-4. A Special Use Permit will be submitted
separately for the WRF, water campuses and community clubhouse.
Parcel B is 49 acres of one Development Parcel consisting of custom residential home
sites with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat request
includes 10 custom home sites within parcel B.
Parcel C is 263 acres of three Development Parcels consisting of custom residential
home sites with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat
request includes 53 custom home sites within Parcel C.
Parcel D is 88 acres of three Development Parcels of custom residential home sites
with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat request
includes 26 custom home sites within Parcel D. Parcel D also has a water campus
facility providing service for both Parcel C and Parcel D.
The Project provides ample active and passive open spaces with an extensive trail system.
Unimproved trails of natural material connect intermittently with the improved private
collector road shared-use trail system. In excess of 30% of the Project will be open
space. The open spaces will complement the existing surrounding area maintaining a
residential development consistent with Goldfield Ranch. Additionally, the custom lots
have a disturbance limit which defines the boundary between where development can
occur and the conservation area of each lot.
PAGE 7
g{x cÜxáxÜäx tà ZÉÄwy|xÄw etÇv{
IV.
Location and Accessibility
The Project is approximately five miles east of the intersection of Shea Boulevard and State
Route 87 (SR-87), within unincorporated Maricopa County at the northeastern fringe of the
Phoenix Metropolitan area.
The property lies within portions of Sections 10 through 24, Township 3 North, Range 7 East,
of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Primary access to the Project is from SR-87 via existing 80-foot Road Easement and Public
Utility Easements, recorded with the 1977 Goldfield Ranch Records of Survey, known as
Burntwater Road and Palo Pinto Trail located on the north side of SR-87, along with Calle Sin
Nombre and Pleasant View Drive on the south side of SR-87. As part of the overall
circulation pattern for the Project, improvements to the existing access points shall be per
the requirements of Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) or as
otherwise approved by MCDOT.
The Maricopa County Tax Assessor Parcel Numbers for the properties within the Project are
as follows:
219-16-064
219-16-086
219-16-104
219-16-067
219-16-087
219-16-105
219-16-068
219-16-088
219-16-106
219-16-069
219-16-089
219-16-107
219-16-070
219-16-090
219-16-108
219-16-071
219-16-091
219-16-109
219-16-072
219-16-092
219-16-110
219-16-075
219-16-093
219-16-111
219-16-076
219-16-094A
219-16-112A
219-16-077
219-16-095
219-16-114C
219-16-078
219-16-096
219-16-116D
219-16-079
219-16-097A
219-16-117
219-16-080
219-16-098
219-16-118
219-16-081
219-16-099
219-16-082
219-16-100
219-16-083
219-16-101
219-16-084
219-16-102
219-16-085
219-16-103
87
87
McDowell
Mountain Community
Regional Park
Fort
McDowell
Yavapai
Nation
The Preserve at
AZ
Goldfield Ranch
Fountain
Hills
PARCEL A
AZ
Goldfield
Ranch
PARCEL D
Tonto
National
Saguaro
Lake
PARCEL C
PARCEL B
Forest
AZ
87
River
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Tracy Alcorn <tracyalcornbanning@gmail.com>
Sent:
Saturday, September 7, 2024 6:12 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Case Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Subject: Strong Objection to Proposed Goldhawk Subdivision Development in Goldfield Ranch Preserve
Dear Joseph Mueller & Nicholas Schlimm,
I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed development of the Goldhawk subdivision on the
1,700-acre parcel within the Goldfield Ranch Preserve. This development plan includes increasing zoning density from R-
190 to one home per acre, as well as introducing high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course. My
objections are based on several critical issues, including the need to adhere to the original R-190 zoning, potential
conflicts of interest, and significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic concerns.
1. Zoning and Expired DMP:
The Development Master Plan (DMP) for this area expired in 2017. As a result, the zoning should have reverted to the
original R-190 designation, which allows for one single-family home per five acres. The proposed development plan,
therefore, does not align with the current zoning requirements. It is crucial that the county uphold the R-190 zoning to
respect the legal framework that governs land use and development in this area. Changing the zoning now to permit
high-density development contradicts the established guidelines and sets a troubling precedent.
2. Conflict of Interest:
I am deeply concerned about the potential conflict of interest involving Wendy Riddell, who serves both as the Chairman
of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and as an attorney for Goldhawk. This dual role raises serious questions
about impartiality and the integrity of the decision-making process. It is essential for the community to have confidence
that development decisions are made in the best interest of all stakeholders, free from any potential conflicts of
interest.
3. Environmental Impact:
The Sonoran Desert is already facing severe water scarcity due to prolonged drought conditions. The proposed
development will exacerbate the strain on local water resources, as the increase in housing density and the addition of
water-intensive amenities like a golf course will significantly raise water demand. This development threatens to deplete
groundwater levels further, affecting not only the local ecosystem but also the availability of water for existing residents.
Additionally, the high-density housing and golf course will disrupt local flora and fauna, potentially leading to habitat
loss, increased pollution, and the introduction of invasive species. Local wildlife, including wild horses and mustangs,
may suffer due to reduced access to vital water sources and fragmented habitats.
2
4. Infrastructure Strain:
The proposed development will place an immense burden on existing infrastructure. The local highway system, which
currently consists of two-lane roads, will require significant upgrades to handle the increased traffic. The potential need
for new acceleration and deceleration lanes, expanded highways, and a rebuilt bridge crossing the Verde River will
impose substantial costs and further strain community resources.
Moreover, the development will generate significant amounts of wastewater, which could contaminate local
groundwater supplies if not properly managed. Given that the development will not be connected to city services, there
is a pressing need to ensure adequate infrastructure for wastewater disposal to protect environmental health.
5. Impact on Community Services:
The local school district is already at capacity and will struggle to accommodate the influx of new students resulting from
this development. Additionally, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which currently provides emergency services,
will be unable to meet the increased demand. The development will necessitate the construction of new schools and
emergency services facilities, which should be funded by the developer rather than placing additional financial burdens
on the community.
In conclusion, the proposed Goldhawk subdivision development poses significant risks to the environment, local
infrastructure, and community well-being. The need to adhere to the R-190 zoning, address potential conflicts of
interest, and carefully consider the impacts of this development is paramount. I urge the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors to reject this proposal and prioritize sustainable development practices that respect both the natural
environment and the needs of the existing community.
Thank you for your attention to these critical concerns. I trust that the Board will make a decision that aligns with the
best interests of all residents and the preservation of our precious desert ecosystem.
Sincerely,
Tracy Alcorn-Banning
Goldfield Ranch Resident
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Theresa Franklin <tfranklindesigns@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 22, 2024 2:11 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Case Z240006
Attachments:
Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Case Z240006.pdf
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Please see our attached letter regarding the Zoning Request by Goldhawk for Goldfield Ranch. We are
opposed to this change and would like to be notified of any meetings where the public has the
opportunity to speak or submit comments regarding this change.
Thank you,
Robert and Theresa Franklin
11940 N. Vista del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
September 22, 2024
Attention:
Joseph Mueller
(Planning)
Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov
Nicholas Schlimm (Zoning)
Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov
Re: Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Case Z240006
As residents of Goldfield Ranch for more than 21 years, we once again are facing
developers who want to disrupt this rural community with higher density
development. We live at 11940 N Vista Del Oro and are less than 300 feet from where
the rezoning is proposed.
We understand the landowner has a right to develop, but not at the expense of quality
of life and rural lifestyle. Leave the zoning at R-190 as it has been and should
remain. Any overlay achieved by the last developer, Ellman, under the ‘Preserve’, had
a sunset clause that expired a long time ago.
Water is limited, our well is at 365 feet. Dramatically increasing density will put all wells
at risk. The commercial wells drilled into the lower aquifer will drain the upper aquifer
that the current residents use for their water source. This is a grave concern!
Will the newest developer put up a bond to ensure that the residents’ wells won’t
run dry?
The power grid is already strained. The FMYN and Tonto Forest are not interested in
providing more power across their lands. Dramatically increasing density will put reliable
power at risk.
All homes are on septic systems. Dramatically increasing density will put safe water at
risk. Thousands of septic systems or a sanitary district could create Verde River
contamination.
The roads are only chip sealed. Dramatically increasing density will put our primitive
roads at risk. This burden or additional expense for maintenance will be placed on the
backs of the existing landowners.
Fire is an ever-present danger. Dramatically increasing density will increase fire risk.
Our fire district sets policy only and contracts with the nearest Fire Department, FMYN
Fire Department, and depending on one’s location, is 5 to 8 miles away on winding
roads without any fire hydrants. Fighting fire without fire hydrants and no longer having
a Volunteer Fire Department has raised our ISO rating. Higher density will place an
undue burden on an already strained wildland and structure fire protection
systems.
The community is quiet. Dramatically increasing density will increase noise pollution.
The community is dark, the stars are spectacular at night. Dramatically increasing
density will increase light pollution.
The entire reason we moved to Goldfield Ranch was the open spaces and rural
lifestyle. Our way of life is now being threatened by another developer seeking to pave
paradise and put up a parking lot. From Ellman to Grayhawk, ‘Goldhawk’, no difference,
same predatory manipulators seeking to modify the rules to defecate in somebody's
else's neighborhood to maximize their profit.
Please do not rezone, let the culture, nature, and rural lifestyle remain. Let them build
big, beautiful homes on 4.3 acres like everyone else and sell them for premium dollars.
Hopefully SRP and the Salt River Pima MIC and Yavapai Nation will come to the rescue
again. The infrastructure for the last development planning was blocked by the Tribes
on reservations located on the Verde River and downstream due to the Sanitary District
that was proposed.
Increasing the density above Rural-190 is unsustainable.
Please say No to Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Z240006!
Respectfully,
Robert (Robin) and Theresa Franklin
11940 N. Vista del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ 85265
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Anne J. Earley <cayetanodesigns@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12:24 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch Zone Change case Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Sent from Yahoo Mail for Maricopa County Planning and Zoning
Mr.Schlimm,
My name is Anne Earley, I am a third generation Arizonan who grew up on a large ranch in southern Arizona. I tell you this
because when I decided to move from Tucson to the Phoenix area it was my criteria to find as rural an area as possible and
purchase as much land as I could afford. Initially my husband and I looked in the Rio Verde area but very quickly became
aware of the water issues and the lack of adequete planning to maintain a rural/suburban ranch environment. Consequently
our realtor brought us out to Goldfield Ranch east of Fountain Hills. We found a five acre lot that appealed to us and met
our needs. The fact that the subdivision had deed restrictions limiting the development to one house to four acres plus The
surrounding Tonto National forest on three sides of the subdivision and the Yavapai reservation on the west side also
appealed. We were told that all of Goldfield ranch was subject to the same deed restrictions. So three years ago we
purchased our property and began working to build our final home. We have just been informed that a portion of our
subdivision which had not been open to purchase is now trying to get the original house per land restrictions set aside and
new plans that include a golf course and a house per land plan of as little as one house per acre. This change will create an
array of new issues, many of them much like Rio Verde. in addition to which the changes would require tremendous
infrastructure changes, far greater demands on electric and water. To my knowledge the current homeowners in Goldfield
Ranch do not expect the area known as the Preserve to remain undeveloped but we all believed and expected that the same
house per acreage original plan would remain the same as the rest of Goldfield. Those of us who moved to Goldfield did so
because we preferred that rural environment, we were willing to drive the extra distance, drill our own wells, even organize
our own volunteer fire department. Allowing the dramatic increase in the number of houses in the Preserve will not only
impact our existing wells and electric needs it will seriously impact the Yavapai reservation, the Verde and Salt rivers. We do
not believe that this change will benefit the area in any way except to make the developers more money. Goldfield ranch has
been in existence for multiple decades and has been a good neighbor to the national forest, the reservation and the Verde
and Salt Rivers. Basically the community works, changing the original plan of the community will create many new issues like
fire fighting, electric, water, light pollution, runoff and a good deal more traffic on the Beeline which will impact law
enforcement and emergency services. As a soon to be new resident of Maricopa county and a woman whose family has
valued Arizona greatly and contributed greatly to the beauty and historical preservation of this state I humbly ask you to deny
the changes the current owners of the Preserve wish to instate and retain the one house to four acres original plan and deny
the building of a truly unneeded golf course.
Thank you for your time and please consider the requests of myself and my neighbors carefully.
Sincerely,
Anne J. Earley
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
jim mcneil <jlmau2010@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 6:52 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
County Managers Office
Subject:
Goldhawk zoning --known as the preserve near goldfield ranch
Attachments:
JM-preserve-doc 2 - Copy.docx
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Please read the word document attachment pertaining to the requested zoning changes in the
preserve area in Fort McDowell.
Another item to add--These roads are NOT maintained by Maricopa county-- We as Goldfield residents had to pay out of
our pocket for these chipped sealed roads that would have to handle higher levels of traffic.
Thank You
Jim McNeil
Jim McNeil
21511 E Northwood Pass
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
JLMAU2010@yahoo.com
September 24, 2024
Nicholas Schlimm
Planning
Maricopa County
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear Nicholas Schlimm,
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed Development in Goldfield Ranch
known as (The Preserve).
I am wriƟng to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre parcel in the Goldfield
Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one single-family home per five acres
to one home per acre, along with the addiƟon of high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course, raises
significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic issues. The development poses a severe threat to the local
ecosystem, water resources, community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region. This leter outlines the
negaƟve impacts this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem, parƟcularly considering the
ongoing and possible future drought condiƟons and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a 35-year period of water
scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought has already significantly
affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural, residenƟal, and environmental needs.
The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-intensive ameniƟes such as a golf course, will only
exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are criƟcally low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitaƟon. The increased
demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the aquifers, which are the primary
sources of water for local communiƟes and ecosystems. As a result, this could lead to the drying up of wells, reduced
water availability for exisƟng residents, and the deterioraƟon of local water quality due to increased groundwater
pumping. Moreover, any reducƟon in groundwater levels could have long-lasƟng effects on the desert's natural
vegetaƟon, which is already under stress from drought condiƟons, thereby altering the landscape and ecological balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this development proceeds, it
could lead to further depleƟon of the aquifers, potenƟally requiring exisƟng homeowners to drill new wells beyond 1,000
feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibiƟve, which could render surrounding properƟes virtually worthless due to
the financial burden of accessing water. Given the decades that have passed since the original zoning approval—long
before the current drought condiƟons—it is crucial to conduct new, independent water surveys to assess the current
situaƟon and potenƟal impact of increased water usage.
Several of the current residents in the Goldfield are very concerned about our water wells and not to have a similar
concern as North Scotsdale recently experienced. I and other never desire top haul water and our resources needs to be
research and evaluated.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid condiƟons and rely on specific ecological condiƟons to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
condiƟons by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
polluƟon, and the introducƟon of invasive species.
ParƟcularly at risk are the local wildlife populaƟons, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in
biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns about the disposal of
wastewater. The addiƟon of over 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses, and a golf course will generate
substanƟal amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure, could contaminate local groundwater supplies.
This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of the region and the well-being of its residents.
AddiƟonally, the increased populaƟon density will place a considerable strain on the local highway infrastructure. The
exisƟng two-lane highway in each direcƟon is inadequate for the anƟcipated traffic influx. Approving this proposal would
necessitate construcƟng acceleraƟon and deceleraƟon lanes and likely expanding the highway to three to four lanes in
each direcƟon along with the necessary stop lights at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the Verde River
may need to be rebuilt to handle increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both direcƟons, exacerbaƟng the negaƟve
impact on the surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potenƟal influx of students resulƟng from
this development. This could necessitate the construcƟon of new schools, a burden that should fall on the developer,
given the strain the development will place on exisƟng educaƟonal infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services infrastructure to support
such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which does
not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from this development. Building new fire staƟons and emergency
services faciliƟes will be necessary to ensure community safety.
Furthermore, the development's addiƟonal infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads, bridges, and public services,
could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potenƟal tax increase would place an undue financial burden on all
residents, especially those who are reƟred and living on fixed incomes. Higher property taxes to fund the necessary
infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would be parƟcularly challenging for these residents,
potenƟally forcing them out of their homes due to rising costs.
5. Environmental and Legal ConsideraƟons.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid condiƟons and rely on specific ecological condiƟons to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
condiƟons by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
polluƟon, and the introducƟon of invasive species.
ParƟcularly at risk are the local wildlife populaƟons, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in
biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago, necessitate thorough
reconsideraƟon considering current environmental condiƟons and regulaƟons. Given the significant changes in water
availability and ecological condiƟons since the original proposal, new environmental impact studies should be conducted
to ensure compliance with state and federal environmental laws, including the NaƟonal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area that encompasses the Salt
River, Verde River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
6. Electrical Power. So far SRP and Fort McDowell have not given permission to upgrade the 12 kV power line that
crosses the reservaƟon we have here that is meant to support about 300 homes total (we have around 140 currently).
The tribe is not in favor of this project either as it will sit on their boundary as well.
7. The land in this region is choppy with hills and many washes. To have any type of dwelling on one or two acres is
difficult. The areas of drainage and sepƟc locaƟons are a concern as the building sites would be difficult in many areas
due to the restricƟon of surface space.
8. Law enforcement is provided by Maricopa County sheriff office and would slight impact their services as well. Fort
McDowell has no jurisdicƟon in this same area as well.
9. Fire protecƟon and services would also be impacted as well.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potenƟally irreversible impacts on water resources, local infrastructure, the environment,
and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authoriƟes to reconsider the proposed
development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is crucial to prioriƟze sustainable development
pracƟces that respect the unique and fragile environment of the Sonoran Desert and consider the economic and social
impact on the community, especially those most vulnerable.
Thank you for your atenƟon to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideraƟon will be given to protecƟng our natural
environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Sincerely,
Jim McNeil
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 29, 2024 10:56 PM
To:
Jen Pokorski (COA); Elyse DiMartino; Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND);
Tom Ellsworth (PND)
Subject:
Meeting request re Z2024006
Attachments:
PokorskiLtrSept30WAttachments.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
County Manager Pokorski:
Attached in PDF is a letter raising some major County-wide and State-wide issues arising from the requested
rezoning called "Goldhawk at The Preserve," Z2024006, and requesting an in-person meeting with yourself,
the Director of Planning and Development, and the two assigned Planners Joseph Mueller and Nicholas
Schlimm.
I look forward to your response.
Randy Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
(602) 390-3070
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
September 30, 2024
Ms. Jennifer Pokorski, County Manager
Maricopa County
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z2024006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. Pokorski:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
adjacent to the land currently subject to rezoning application Z2024006, now apparently called
“Goldhawk At The Preserve.” I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the Goldfield
Property Owners Association (“GPOA”) which is resonsible for maintaining all of the originally
platted roads and roadway easements in the five subdivisions known as Goldfield Ranch. I am
writing to you to raise four major concerns about zoning application Z2024006. Three of these
issues implicate County-wide and State-wide issues beyond the level of Planning and
Development staff.
1.
Planning and Development has ignored resident questions for over a month.
On August 30 I wrote to the Planner handling this zoning application, Nicholas Schwimm, to ask
some rather simple procedural and policy questions (see attached). I have received no reaponse,
either from the Planner or the owner/applicant, not even an acknowledgement. So, for example,
I have not even been able to learn the deadlines and schedule for this zoning application, or
whether the County will require the roads to be improved to County standards. Is Planning and
Development responsive only to developers?
2.
Scheduling a hearing on the owner’s abandonment of conditional zoning. As
you know the conditional zoning that was granted to the Ellman Companies for the Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch included a five-year deadline. The hedge fund that foreclosed on the property,
Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings (GRRH), sought and obtained a five-year extension of that
conditional zoning in DMP2012004 and Z20120090. One of the conditions imposed by the
Board of Supervisors, and agreed to by GRRH, was that GRRH must file a comprehensive six-
element statuts report by April 23, 2018. GRRH failed to comply, and in your capacity as
Director of Planning and Development you issued a default notice on March 21, 2019, requiring
compliance by May 30, 2019. As you noted in your default letter, the required “report shall be
scheduled for public hearing by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (Board) upon
recommendation by the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission), to
2
consider whether zoning shall be reverted back to Rural-190 or whether the conditional zoning
shall be maintained for an additional five-year period” (emphasis added).
Why in the five years since that default has Planning and Zoning not scheduled a hearing
to recommend whether to revert the zoning back to R-190 or to continue the now abandoned
conditional zoning? Has that hearing been avoided simply by GRRH refusing to file the report it
was required to file? Well now we have a “report” because GRRH’s application for a
comprehensive plan amendment, stating its intent to “remove” most of the property from the
DMP and “starting the process over,” cannot be interpreted as anything other than a report that
the status of the conditional zoning project is dead and abandoned. So what is the process to get
this “report” on Planning and Zoning Commission’s agenda to revert the zoning to R-190?
We can expect that the GRRH lawyer will object that her Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Narrative CPA2024004 and rezoning application were not intended to be the
required status report that triggers the required zoning reversion hearing. But the planning law in
Arizona has rejected that excuse for almost four decades: her “reasoning would permit the
[county] to perpetually avoid urban planning by leaving out any element or any subdivision of an
element” of the report required by DMP2012004 Condition ‘c’. “A rose by any other name,
however, still smells as sweet, and the County cannot avoid implementation” of Condition ‘c’ by
stating the requested abandonment is not a status report. Haines v. City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz.
286, 289 (App. 1986).
3.
Why consider zoning when no subdivision can be approved without a 100-
year Certificate of Assured Water Supply? GRRH has admitted that it has no Certificate of
Assured Water Supply. Arizona has announced both that no more Certificates will be issued for
the Phoenix Active Management Area, and that the old Analyses of Assured Water Supply are
no longer effective. Arizona law therefore prohibits any legal subdivision of the old Preserve
40+-acre parcels. A.R.S. § 45-576(B). Indeed, the law even prohibits the owner without a
Certificate from “presenting the plat for approval” of a subdivision. A.R.S. § 45-576(A). Why
is the County even considering a rezoning for a purported “master planned community” that
cannot be created, or even applied for? Does the County intend to violate or evade state law and
endanger the Phoenix-area water supply? Or is GRRH’s “planned community” scenario merely
a charade?
4.
Will the County facilitate evasion of the Groundwater Management Act by
approving wildcat subdivisions or build-to-rent scams? Since the existing 40+-acre parcels
cannot be subdivided, there remain only two possible purposes of creating R-43 zoning to allow
one house per acre. If there can be no Development Master Plan under the Subdivision
Regulations, what kind of “planned community” could result? One possibility is a build-to-rent
shanty town, where the owner does not technically subdivide and sell the homes but rather
maintains title and merely builds short-term rentals. Obviously this creates as much overuse of
the aquifer as would subdivision. Maricopa County should not facilitate this evasion of the
Groundwater Management Act before the State can close this loophole (see attached). The other
possibility is even more frightening: once the property is rezoned for one house per acre the
owner could sell the 40+-acre parcels for amateur speculators to split five times each, and then
those parcels can be split five times again. Once the R-43 zoning has been granted the County
3
will have lost ability to prevent the wildcatting into about 1700 one-acre parcels, and the County
will lack any ability to require responsible development. No one will be responsible for
maintaining the roads or providing adequate water or sewage, much less fire protection. Does
Z2024006 court another Rio Verde disaster? Or does the County even appreciate that GRRH’s
zoning-only approach would permit that result? When it was pointed out that the land cannot be
subdivided without a now-impossible Certificate of Assured Water Supply, the GRRH planner
responded “here we are speaking specifically about the approved zoning entitlements,”
suggesting GRRH has no intent to proceed with a Development Master Plan despite its nice
sounding but vague “master planned community” language.
It's time the County starts dealing with these issues, and the normal process of a resident
posing questions to staff planners does not seem to be working. I request an in-person meeting
with the County Manager, the Planning and Development Director, and the two assigned
Planners Nicholas Schlimm and Joseph Mueller. I am available any time Wednesday, Thursday
or Friday this week. I look forward to hearing from you, and am always available to answer any
questions or provide any additional documentation or history that you may find helpful.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Mr. Ellsworth, Director, Planning and Development
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Mr. Joseph Mueller, Planner
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 30, 2024
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z2024006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
which is adjacent to the land currently subject to a rezoning application Z2024006, now
apparently called “Goldhawk At The Preserve.” I am also a member of the Board of Directors of
the Goldfield Property Owners Association (“GPOA”) which is resonsible to maintaining all of
the originally platted roads and roadway easements in Goldfield Ranch. I am writing in my
capactiy as the Secretary of GPOA but not on behalf of the Board because it has not had an
opportunity to meet and authorize any action since learning of the existence of Z2024006. The
questions I pose here are necessary for GPOA to intelligently consider how it should respond to
Z2024006, so you can be assured that your answers will be promptly communicated to the
GPOA Board for its consideration.
1.
Why has GPOA not been officially notified? Doesn’t the County require that
all affected homeowners associations be notified of any rezoning request? Goldfield Ranch is a
“Planned Community” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) and GPOA is the only
“Association” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1804(2). As the Secretary of GPOA I can
confirm that it has received no official, unofficial or even casual notification of the initation of
Z2024006, even though it was apparently filed over six weeks ago. Can you please explain how
this can occur, and how can this rezoning application move forward in any respect until the
affected Association is notified?
2.
Please include GPOA in any TAC meeting. As the “local authority” over the
roads (see Question 4 below) GPOA should be included in any TAC meeting. Please advise of
the schedule.
3.
What is the hearing schedule and deadline for comments and objections? I
have heard third-hand that something may be scheduled for November. Please advise me of all
scheduled or even tentative hearing dates and the dates by which comments, questions and
2
objections should be filed so that staff has adequate time to consider them before preparing any
report or recommendation.
4.
Who will be responsible for both improving and maintaining the roads? The
rezoning “Narrative” states that “Private rural roadways (with public access) exist throughout the
property and will be improved and extended as necessary to provide reliable access to each lot.”
All of the main “backbone” collector roads exist on land that is privately owned but subject to
recorded ingress and egress easements in favor of the general public. GPOA has both a legal
opinion and an expert traffic engineer’s opinion that under A.R.S. §§ 28-101(43) and 28-627
GPOA is the “local authority” with the power and responsibility to regulate the usage of these
easements and the obligation to maintain the roadway access on them. So who will be
responsible for making and financing the “improvements” the rezoning applicant promises?
Given GPOA’s responsibility and obligation to maintain the easements that the developer
intends to use, the answer to this question is critical to GPOA’s consideration of its response to
the proposed rezoning. The Board may need more than thirty or sixty days to formulate its
response once an answer is obtained because it may need to engage a lawyer to advise as to the
Board’s legal obligations and a traffic engineer to quantify the nature of extent of those
obligations. The answer is not likely to be as simple as it sounds because even if the rezoning
applicant says it intends to be responsible for improving and maintaining the easements this
leaves the very difficult questions of (1) what security will be provided to GPOA to ensure the
applicant’s performance, (2) how will GPOA be relieved of any responsibility, and (3) who will
be responsible for maintenance after the developer is gone?
5.
Who will pay assessments on acreage not platted for homes? GPOA finances
its road maintenance by levying assessments on a per-acre basis. The conceptual site plan shows
a lot of acreage that is not platted for homes. Who will own this acreage and pay the per-acre
assessments?
6.
How can GRRH “improve” roads on land it does not own? As noted, all of
the originally platted roadway easements exist on land owned by the adjacent landowners and
only GPOA has authority to maintain the easements. The rezoning applicant Goldfield Ranch
Realty Holdings does not own the land underlying at least half of the main Burnt Water access to
this development on parcel 219-16-062a. How does GRRH have any authority to “improve” this
road?
7.
Will the County require the roads to be improved to County standards?
Stipulations M(4) and P to what the developer contends is the “existing Rural-190, Rural-70,
Rural-43 and R1-8 with Residential Unit Plan of Development Overlays and Planned Area
Development Overlays” require that all roadways must meet County standards, including the
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual. Will these same standards be required for this rezoning?
What if the originally platted easements cannot physically be improved to County
standards? The easements were platted in 1977 only to provide physical access to 40+-acre
parcels of raw land, not to 712 homes on one-acre lots. Some of the easements are in existing
washes and some of them are on narrow ridges so that it is physically impossible to maintain 80-
3
foot wide easements. In 1977 the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors determined that the
existing roads and easements in Goldfield Ranch Phase I and II “have not been opened, laid out
and constructed in a manner acceptable to Maricopa County” so it rejected the offer of
dedication of these roads to the County (see attachment), and would presumably make the same
determination as to the roads in Phase III and IV.
8.
When will GPOA be paid the $2.336 million? In Stipulation L(2) to the
rezoning extension, Z2012090, the current owner Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings agreed to
make a “contribution to regional transportation infrastructure” in the amount of “$3,281 per
residential dwelling unit.” For the 712 dwellings currently contemplated by this rezoning, that
amounts to $2,336,000. As noted above, GPOA is the “local authority” under state law
responsible for the regional transportation infrastructure. This involves not only the roads within
the parcels to be rezoned but also the adjacent land in Goldfield Ranch. The rezoning proposal
states that “existing private roadway connections will remain to the adjacent Goldfield Ranch
neighborhood ensuring circulation and connectivity throughout.” This means that the 712 homes
on the rezoned property will be utilizing roads such as Burnt Water, Northwoods Pass, Thirsty
Earth, Starfire and Vista Del Oro in the adjacent subdivision Goldfield Ranch Phase II. The cost
of maintaining these roads is paid by assessments levied against the owners of land in Phase II
on a per-acre basis. The Phase II landowners will need to be compensated for the additional
financial burden imposed on them by the rezoning of another subdivision. Until an adequate
traffic study is performed and until we know whether County standards will also be imposed on
these collector roads it is impossible to determine whether the existing stipulation for $2.3
million will be sufficient.
But in addition to the adequacy of the amount there is the critical question of when it will
be paid or at least secured. For two reasons, imposing this obligation as a subdivision stipulation
or even a zoning condition is insufficient. First, this owner/rezoning applicant has already
demonstrated it does not consider itself bound by its stipulations. Second, even if it regarded
stipulations as binding contracts there is nothing to guarantee it will not simply default. GPOA
cannot afford to run the risk of being required to maintain the roads for a 712 dry lot wildcat
subdivision that could result if the rezoning became effective before the owner/developer
defaulted on its obligations.
9.
Why rezone for a subdivision that cannot be created? Finally, although not
directly related to roads, there is the elephant in the room: Why should any rezoning should be
granted or even considered for a subdivision that cannot be approved or created? Arizona law
requires a Certificate of Assured Water Supply before a landowner can submit a subdivision plat
for approval and prohibits a County from approving a subdivision without such a Certificate.
A.R.S. §§ 45-576(A) & (B). We have known for well over a year that there will be no more
Certificates issued for the Phoenix Active Management Area. Although the rezoning application
claims to have an Analysis of Assured Water Supply that was issued in 2007 it expired in June,
2017, per Ariz.Admin.Code § R12-15-703(f) and in any event the AzDWR has announced that
such Analyses have no further significance unless a Certificate application was pending.
Since this rezoning applicant cannot even apply for approval of the proposed subdivision,
why should the County even consider this rezoning? State law currently prohibits the existing
4
40+ acre parcels from being legally subdivided, so wouldn’t the only effect of such rezoning be
to disable the County from preventing a wildcat subdivision of at least 712, if not 1,940, dry one-
acre lots? GPOA has struggled for more than 20 years to create and maintain roads and
easements that can adequately serve homes on five- and ten-acre parcels but is neither designed
nor equipped to handle the density and traffic generated by one-acre wildcat lots. Why is the
County even considering this rezoning that cannot result in an approved subdivision?
I look forward to your informative answers to these fundamental background questions so
that the GPOA Board can begin to consider how to respond. Usually I would direct such
questions to the applicant or its lawyer or planner but, as noted, the developer’s answers have
been evasive and uninformative at best and even then are very slow in response. Moreover, I
expect that the answers from the County would be far more reliable and based on solid,
verifiable authority. Again, I am not expressing any position or opinions on behalf of the GPOA
Board, but merely gathering reliable information for it to consider. So I look forward to your
answers and enjoy a great Labor Day weekend.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
GPOA Director/Secretary
cc: Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
ii;';t(; I 1
cntp4:l3fs 5:ltl
il;'. '
tli t ,.'
Liil :i Hl.a()t{l)l.D
Rl ll'H:l Tri
H.rri(.(tp!
r (!untJ-
t.
,{.d at Fr,1,ort ,n
8, .,d Ot Sugatu,rc._
ountu uf fl[uriruPit
6tate nf Ariznttu
(0ffirr uf tftr Olsrh
o
$tatr of Ariznrtu lrs.
6nunl11 rrf II{uriroPut-
-
/ lilrr';r 1]lorrtrlll,
/,.r, /,7 / , t/,7,y .//',r/ t ir.
ft.,trr i l,
,1 t:ili: r.\
,; I- t lrt. ll,
S('i't(,ll)(
t I , l i'-:
'//r.r/' ,7 //,. fro,,rr/ ,/'.'l'/,.rutr(t,t do
lo. Il,i r il(
l s ir t rrrc :tttd corrcct
('\t rarct
rr : r,t "rr1lt'rvisors'
nrct'titlg ltt'lrl
,\rrt)lr l l O" r) l
iii.Slrl lr; I,!
i{l-il_r tl,iLi lrl l)l-Ci\Ul)I
\: ' .r. lrr',i '
()l: R(),1DliA)' I lSl:l!LN-'tS:
3rr Eitnrau fi[lerrof . J./,,,,. /e,eu,to' t*
,r, y lr, ,r,/ o r,r/ o1/rterl de Q7i.a/ 9-,/ t1 tln 1lad
,y .'/,,1,". r,u, r.
(Jrr,. ,r/ /lrnrr;-r, t/,.(/*, nty ,(/L/
r/,,.,
lith
,/,,y,/ sL'ptrlnl)cr, l!77
,r,/ ?
cr,,r of i6r tiiaiiS",i,K*
rt
" ^{li, 1 v.isz}, .,:1i-.'
""; 's#lilz
,r
t).
lr I ,, , ,. -,it
L>'l
i d
t -.-
:
;
n
:'
/
!J!r r/ fu(ut.rr,
\t t, tlUr,,,
(.0unt)' !.t,iltttt.
r
I iIc
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Amy Glennon <amyglennon@comcast.net>
Sent:
Friday, October 18, 2024 7:35 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk Development
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hello Joseph-
As homeowners in Goldfield Ranch we’d like to register our strong opposition to the zoning changes proposed
by Greyhawk Developers. Such a development would destroy the community we have built here at Goldfield
Ranch and tax our water and infrastructure resources to the limit, not to mention creating dangerous highway
congestion. The current 4.4 acre limit on lots allows for adequate water distribution, fire prevention and
maintenance of the natural Sonoran Desert environment native to this area. Further development would
destroy native plant and animal habitats.
Thank you for your attention,
Ty and Amy Glennon
12315 N Vista Del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
650-207-1978
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Adam Schubert <adam.schubert@mac.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 22, 2024 10:02 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to The Preserve at Goldhawk
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hi Joseph
We spoke on the phone and I wanted to send over an email with my points for opposition.
- The land use in the area is nowhere near a 1 acre per dwelling unit. The proposal would be completely non
conforming to the surrounding homes.
- The disturbance of the ecosystem. This land is rich with wildlife. Owls, Coyote, Sonoran Toads, Red
Tailed Hawks, Eagles, Snakes, Horses, Bobcats, Mountain Lions and even Big Horn Sheep have all been
seen here.
- The securement of power is a concern with gigantic high voltage lines ruining the natural land not to mention
the devastation the required access roads to construct these will cause. Both through the Indian reservation or
god forbid through the national forest from the other direction.
- Waste management - We have had a hard time finding locations for the septic systems on our 5+ acre
parcels so I am not sure how they will find suitable locations for individual septic systems in 1 acre plots and
what the effect of this runoff will be since all these washes feed into the verde river.
- Road access and traffic. Adding this many homes here will surely create significant traffic increase in and
out of fountain hills and through the reservation as a shortcut. The turning lanes on 87 will be backed up with
people waiting to turn into the new community. Also they seem to want to use our existing roads which we pay
for to allow residents to come through our roads into the back of their community. Now my home and
everyone on vista del oro will have people speeding by to get to their houses in the back.
- DARK SKY. Another major concern is the light pollution. This area is teaming with desert wildlife that
flourishes at night. As well as a peaceful environment where the existing residents have lived peacefully. The
light pollution from that many houses in that kind of density along with street lights and walking paths will surely
light up the night sky like a city destroying the natural dark sky we have here.
- Water Source. I was under the impression that the AZ water council said they will not be granting any more
subdivision permits for communities relying solely on ground water since all of the water in the area is allocated
for the next 100 years. How can we be guaranteed they will not be pumping so much water out from under us
that all of our wells run dry and we end up like Rio Verde?
2
- Fire Services. I am concerned that the impact of the sheer density of this community will further stress the
fire services we barely have as is and we will then be required to create our own sub station at our own
expense.
- a concerned neighbor
Adam Schubert
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
CWP Directory <cwpdirectory@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 22, 2024 1:30 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND); District 2
Subject:
Re: CPA20240004 - Goldhawk at the Preserve
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Mr. Mueller,
It is concerning that the developer Goldhawk, due to their substantial financial resources, is able to
initiate changes to the R190 zoning while we must adhere to its stipulations. Why does the County not
maintain the current R190 regulations for the developer which is consistent with the Goldfield 2020
plan? The approval of this rezoning or amendment is not mandatory, especially considering that there
are no existing services to support this development. The Salt River Project (SRP) has not provided its
approval, and it is to my understanding, is against it. A zoning change should not be considered until
there is confirmation of adequate electricity, water supply or fire services. Furthermore, regarding the
100-year water table, can you demonstrate the ability to provide a sustainable water source over that
period using well water? The notion that "most of the land" is consistent is misleading and does not
align with the characteristics of Goldfield Ranch. What specific comparisons are being made? Or, are you
referring to the likeness of the DMP that should have been revoked, because it never meant the 32
stipulations in the past and was never fully approved by the Board of Supervisors. What authority does
the County have to grant the developer these rights? Furthermore, what role does the District 2 Supervisor
play in this matter? The District 2 Supervisor is expected to advocate for their constituents.
I look forward to you and Mr. Thomas Galvins response.
Sincerely,
Janice Ridgeway
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 9:38 AM Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Good morning,
This email is to inform you that a case that you have previously provided comment on – CPA2024004 – Goldhawk at the
Preserve – has been scheduled for hearing.
The applicant’s request is for a major comprehensive plan amendment to amend the future land use designation from
the Preserve DMP (which allows for various housing densities) to Single Family – Rural (zero to one dwelling per acre).
2
The requested land use designation is consistent with the established land use designation for most of the land within
the Goldfield Area Plan.
It is important to note the related zone change request, Z240006, will not be considered at this hearing. The only
matter before the Commission will be amending the land use designation to allow for rural densities (0-1 du/ac).
For updates on the zone change case please reach out to Nicholas Schlimm, Planner: 602-506-0031 or
Nicholas.Schlimm@Maricopa.gov
The Planning and Zoning hearing will be on November 7th, 2024, and will commence at 9:30 am. Please note there are
several items on the agenda, tentative agenda order will be available the week of the hearing on the Planning and
Development website: Planning & Development | Maricopa County, AZ
The hearing will be located at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Auditorium, 205 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ
85003. Attendees will be given opportunity to provide oral comment in front of the commission, which will be part of
the public record for the case.
Virtual attendance is available, registration will open the week of the hearing and may be done so online (there is no
registration for in person attendance).
The case is currently slated for the December 11, 2024, Board of Supervisors hearing.
Kind regards,
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
3
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Adam Schubert <adam.schubert@mac.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 23, 2024 11:23 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Re: Opposition to The Preserve at Goldhawk
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
I would also like to add that the Cell Tower in our area is a satellite for fountain hills which is already stressed. When
fountain hills has events the service in town as well as our service is barely usable as is. This poses serious safety
concerns with being able to reach authorities, fire, and ems in case of emergencies.
On Oct 23, 2024, at 6:04 AM, Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov> wrote:
Adam,
Thank you for providing public comment on the case. Your email has been documented and will be
included with the staff report provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Board of
Supervisors.
As mentioned on the phone, case CPA2024004, the comprehensive plan amendment to redesignate the
land use over the site from The Preserve DMP to Rural Densities, is on the 11/7/24 Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing. That hearing will be at 205 W Jefferson St and will start at 9:30 am (several other
cases are on the same agenda).
The associated zone change case, Z240006, has not yet been scheduled for hearing. Nicholas Schlimm,
the case planner assigned to that case, is copied on this email.
Kind regards,
<image001.png>
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
2
From: Adam Schubert <adam.schubert@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 10:02 PM
To: Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Opposition to The Preserve at Goldhawk
Hi Joseph We spoke on the phone and I wanted to send over an email with my points for opposition. - The land use in t he area is now here near a 1 acre per dwelling unit. The proposal woul d be completely non conformi ng to the surr ounding homes.
Hi Joseph
We spoke on the phone and I wanted to send over an email with my points for opposition.
- The land use in the area is nowhere near a 1 acre per dwelling unit. The proposal would be
completely non conforming to the surrounding homes.
- The disturbance of the ecosystem. This land is rich with wildlife. Owls, Coyote, Sonoran
Toads, Red Tailed Hawks, Eagles, Snakes, Horses, Bobcats, Mountain Lions and even Big
Horn Sheep have all been seen here.
- The securement of power is a concern with gigantic high voltage lines ruining the natural land
not to mention the devastation the required access roads to construct these will cause. Both
through the Indian reservation or god forbid through the national forest from the other direction.
- Waste management - We have had a hard time finding locations for the septic systems on
our 5+ acre parcels so I am not sure how they will find suitable locations for individual septic
systems in 1 acre plots and what the effect of this runoff will be since all these washes feed into
the verde river.
- Road access and traffic. Adding this many homes here will surely create significant traffic
increase in and out of fountain hills and through the reservation as a shortcut. The turning
lanes on 87 will be backed up with people waiting to turn into the new community. Also they
seem to want to use our existing roads which we pay for to allow residents to come through our
roads into the back of their community. Now my home and everyone on vista del oro will have
people speeding by to get to their houses in the back.
- DARK SKY. Another major concern is the light pollution. This area is teaming with desert
wildlife that flourishes at night. As well as a peaceful environment where the existing residents
have lived peacefully. The light pollution from that many houses in that kind of density along
with street lights and walking paths will surely light up the night sky like a city destroying the
natural dark sky we have here.
- Water Source. I was under the impression that the AZ water council said they will not be
granting any more subdivision permits for communities relying solely on ground water since all
of the water in the area is allocated for the next 100 years. How can we be guaranteed they will
not be pumping so much water out from under us that all of our wells run dry and we end up like
Rio Verde?
- Fire Services. I am concerned that the impact of the sheer density of this community will
further stress the fire services we barely have as is and we will then be required to create our
own sub station at our own expense.
3
- a concerned neighbor
Adam Schubert
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Leslie Cantrell <lesliescantrell@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, October 24, 2024 2:39 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Leslie Cantrell
Subject:
Case number CPA2024004
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
To: Joseph Mueller c/o Maricopa County Planning &
Development.
I just received a notice of Public Hearing, informing me
about case # CPA2024004 - Goldhawk at the Preserve. My
property is located within 300 feet of the site and I have
expressed interest in this case to you in the past. I have 4
major concerns regarding this case. I have reached out to the
developer and have not gotten a response.
1. I purchased this property in 2004 with full knowledge that
you could only build 1 unit for 5 acres. I am sure Berry Riddel
was under the same facts when they purchased the property.
Why should he be allowed to rewrite the zoning to
accommodate this extensive invasion of homes in areas designed
for 1 home per 5 acres. The topography of Goldfield does not
warrant homes this close together. In order for the builders to
build 712 units they will inevitably have to change
the topography. Which negates the reason so many people of
Goldfield Ranch purchased their property originally.
2
2. Arizona is a Desert and does not have the water resources
to accommodate this many homes in this area. I know they say
they have done a water survey but have they considered all the
new buildings being built throughout Scottsdale? I am
constantly being reminded to conserve water while builders
keep adding new homes and people to AZ.
3. The design for this project has only ONE traffic exit out
of the development, the other exit is going through Goldfield.
Which will inevitably cause Goldfield homeowners to have to
deal with the overflow traffic. Why should we have to carry
that burden? Do you really think 712 homes times a minimum of
2 cars per home are going to exit onto HWY 87 without a
problem???? Have you seen HWY 87 on weekends and holidays?
HWY 87 will have the same problems Anthem has again causing
the people of the area to carry this burden.
4. I have reached out to these developers and they do not
return calls . How are we expected to trust them when they
come up with their textbook answers?
I wish to protest this request for new zoning.
Thank you,
--
Leslie Cantrell
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Monday, November 11, 2024 3:49 PM
To:
Darren Gerard (PND)
Cc:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND); Stephen Anderson;
llazarus@lslawaz.com
Subject:
Goldhawk at the Preserve, Z2400006
Attachments:
GerardLtrNov11.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Attached is a letter regarding the requirements that should be satisfied before there is any effective rezoning
of Goldhawk at the Preserve, in Z2400006. It summarizes the comments made by the County Attorney at the
Nov. 7 hearing in CPA2024004.
And now I suggest we all honor Veterans' Day (fka Armistice Day), and tomorrow remember and respect Orme
Victory Day.
Randy Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
November 11, 2024
Mr. Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
CPA2024004
Dear Mr. Gerard:
County Attorney Wayne Peck’s comments at the Nov. 7 Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing on CPA2024004 have important consequences for how Planning and
Development will address the Goldhawk at the Preserve rezoning request, Z240006. Before his
comments fade from memory and he retires, the significance of his analysis should be
memorialized in writing and in the record of Case # Z240006.
Zoning Stipulations Are Unenforceable Except at Subdivision. The bottom line of the
County Attorney’s analysis is that no revocation of a rezoning can be enforced, even if it was a
condition or stipulation imposed and agreed to when that rezoning was originally granted. At the
hearing the County Attorney gave two reasons for this conclusion: First, such zoning
stipulations are “enforced at the time of development, not at the time of zoning. So unless and
until they come in to develop the property there is nothing to enforce.”1 Second, the County
Attorney concluded that Proposition 207, since codified at A.R.S. § 12-1134, makes any
automatic revocation of zoning unenforceable absent the owner’s consent.2
The significant conclusion that follows from the County Attorney’s opinion is that such
stipulations are ineffective and unenforceable unless and until the developer proceeds with the
development and ultimate subdivision approval. In effect, they are not “zoning” stipulations at
1 County Attorney: “As far as the enforceability of any conditions on the zoning case, which is what the Judge was
addressing, those are enforced at the time of development, not at the time of zoning, so that unless and until they
come in to develop the property there is nothing to enforce.” Transcript of Nov. 7, 2024, at 2:47:22 (pending
availability of the official transcript and minutes this is my transcription from the YouTube recording).
2 County Attorney: “Zoning cannot automatically revert. . . . But again, the only way you can change zoning is by
going through the rezoning process. Now that has been made more complicated by something that I know you’ve
all heard of, because we’ve talked about it, and that’s known as Prop. 207. So if you were to attempt to rezone the
property now without the property owner’s permission, the County would be exposed to a claim under Prop. 207.”
Id. at 3:18:32.
2
all, but rather subdivision stipulations. Under the County Attorney’s analysis, such so-called
“zoning” stipulations are effective only “at development,” so they are completely ineffective if
the developer abandons the development and the property is sold to wildcat splitters. Such
purchasers of the not-legally-subdivided land would take free of the stipulations but could not be
deprived of the higher density zoning.
Moreover, such misnamed “zoning” stipulations would also be ineffective against
another developer who acquired the rezoned but unsubdivided land and then sought some other
kind of development or subdivision. Such a subsequent developer could nevertheless claim all
the rights under the effective zoning while being free of the conditions and stipulations. This is
exactly what is occurring now: Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings and Grayhawk claim they are
not bound by any of the stipulations of Z2012090 but that zoning nevertheless remains in effect.
Their lawyers have so stated, expressly.3 Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings and its lawyers have
proven the point—“zoning” stipulations are ineffective whenever the developer who agreed to
them sells or abandons the project. Such so-called zoning stipulations do not effectively
condition or restrict the zoning per se, but only that particular subdivision plan, and the zoning
remains effective and irrevocable even if that particular subdivision plan never occurs.
Essential Zoning Conditions Must Be Enforced Prior to Effective Zoning.
Unfortunately Mr. Peck misunderstood the point I was making when he stated that I was merely
urging that all of the stipulations of the current conditional zoning, Z2012090, be included as
stipulations to the rezoning being sought in Z240006.4 How would that make any sense after the
County Attorney just explained that such zoning stipulations are unenforceable?
Rather, because zoning-revocation stipulations are unenforceable, any condition that
Planning and Development deems absolutely essential to the requested rezoning, any sine qua
non condition, must be fully satisfied, in place and in effect (or somehow absolutely guaranteed)
before the rezoning is granted or becomes effective. To effectively prevent wildcat development
of one house per acre in Goldfield Ranch, my suggestion at the Nov. 7 hearing on CPA2024006
was that these sine qua non conditions that must be fully satisfied prior to effective rezoning
should, at minimum, include 1) a Certificate of 100 year Assured Water Supply, 2) physical and
legal availability of adequate electrical power, and 3) emergency fire protection services. There
may be others, such as adequate roads or sewage treatment facilities. Some such conditions
perhaps need not actually be established prior to effective rezoning because they could be
guaranteed by the posting of a sufficient bond. But any condition that cannot be absolutely
3 On July 15 I asked the Berry Riddell firm to provide me a copy of the “written report” required by Stipulation ‘h’
of Z2012090, which GRRH had agreed to file by April 23, 2018. The firm’s response on July 31 was: “The
previous stipulations will not apply as we are starting the process over to get these entitlements. The stipulations put
on this new case will supersede the stipulations in any previous case.” And yet on August 30, in response to my
pointing out that the conditions of the conditional zoning had not been and could not be satisfied, the firm
maintained: “Respectfully, Arizona law is clear that zoning is in place unless otherwise removed by the Board of
Supervisors. That has never occurred here.”
4 County Attorney: “What they will be proposing down the road is to rezone the property, which will do away with
the existing zoning and all those stipulations. So what the Judge is really asking is to ensure when you have the
zoning case, that those stipulations be applied to whatever zoning is put in place as a result of this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. So I understand his argument, I understand his concerns, but they are misguided at this hearing
where all you’re dealing with is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment . . . .” Id. at 2:47:44.
3
guaranteed by a bond needs to be in place and in effect before the rezoning, and this would
probably include both the water and electricity which under current law and geographical
constraints cannot be guaranteed by any amount of money.
Nothing Precludes Planning and Development From Requiring Satisfaction of
Essential Conditions Prior to Effective Rezoning. The other point that I suggested the County
Attorney confirm for staff was that nothing in his analysis precludes Planning and Development
from requiring satisfaction of such conditions before the rezoning is granted. Although the
County Attorney did not expressly respond to my suggestion the conclusion is driven by his
analysis that the ineffectiveness of zoning-revocation stipulations derives from Proposition 207.
That analysis applies only when there are “existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private
real property” (A.R.S. § 12-1134(A) (emphasis added)), such as a rezoning that has become an
effective entitlement. But because there is no “existing right” or entitlement to any rezoning,
there is no problem requiring satisfaction of such conditions before the rezoning, rather than
after. Therefore nothing in County Attorney’s analysis prevents Planning and Development
from imposing such conditions at the TAC meeting stage and requiring satisfaction of them
before the rezoning proceeds any further. That’s why I thought it important to clarify the County
Attorney’s analysis now (even though technically not relevant to CPA2024004), rather than
waiting until the Planning and Zoning Commission hears Z240006 sometime next year.
As you mentioned at our meeting on October 16, the developers’ common response is
that they need the rezoning first in order to obtain the financing necessary to provide the
infrastructure. But three facts of this unique situation render that canard inapplicable to
Goldfield Ranch: 1) this particular owner/applicant previously agreed to provide the
infrastructure of water and electricity by April 23, 2018, regardless of financing; 2) the particular
owner/applicant does not need any financing because it is itself a hedge fund and the financer of
what Ellman Companies proposed as an even larger, more expensive development that even
included a sewage treatment plant; and 3) no financing is capable of creating a Certificate of
100-year Assured Water Supply or a statement from SRP if in fact either the water or the
electrical power is legally or physically unavailable. These essential conditions are not as simple
as paving roads. The mere addition of Grayhawk’s brand and its 80 acres to GRRH’s 1,861
acres does not change the significance of these fundamental facts and certainly do not support
any rationalization of why the owner needs rezoning of land that cannot be legally subdivided.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Mr. Nick Schlimm, Planner
Mr. Joseph Mueller, Planner
Mr. Larry Lazarus, Esq.
Mr. Stephen Anderson, Esq.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Barry Wilkens <barry.wilkens@asu.edu>
Sent:
Sunday, March 9, 2025 7:40 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
John Keller; Kimberlee Robinson; Randy Haines
Subject:
CPA 2024004 Goldhawk at the Preserve Project
Attachments:
Goldfield Ranch Petition of opposition to Goldhawk proposal names.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Good Morning Nicholas,
I am inquiring as to the status of the Goldhawk at the Preserve development proposal for Goldfield Ranch. I am
one of the neighbors adjacent to the eƯected area and also a past president of the Goldfield Property Owners
Assoc. I would like to inform neighbors of what is happening with this proposal. Can you tell me when the next
meeting with county and the developer will be? What will be requested by the developer’s representative at that
meeting and which county committee/board will be hearing the proposals? Will any zoning decisions be made at
this meeting? Will this meeting be open to the public and should opinions by neighbors be addressed to you in
advance of this meeting? Depending on an outcome of this meeting what will next steps in this process be? Please
give me any other relevant information you might have regarding this project and keep me posted on future
developments relative to this project. Attached is a petition letter with over 100 signatures. The consensus in the
neighborhood is that any further development in Goldfield Ranch be done in accordance with the R 190 zoning
requirements we are all currently subject to. Please “reply to all” in your response.
Thank you,
Barry Wilkens
11608 N Burntwater Rd
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <kkrjhaines@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 10, 2025 11:00 AM
To:
Barry Wilkens; Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
John Keller; Kimberlee Robinson
Subject:
Re: CPA 2024004 Goldhawk at the Preserve Project
Attachments:
Appllication.pdf; Narrative.pdf; ResponseToStaffComments.pdf; Site Map.pdf
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
FYI, on Friday I was advised by Goldhawk's law firm that Goldhawk has filed an amended rezoning
application. I attach copies of the application, narrative, site plan and responses to staff comments of Sept.
17.
I do not know whether it has yet been scheduled for any hearings. I assume the next step would be to
schedule this for a meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee. In addition to those agencies invited to
attend the last TAC meeting this next meeting should include the Goldfield Property Owners Association,
which is the local authority over the roads, and the Goldfield Ranch Fire District. The amended rezoning
application does not reflect any progress on (1) legal access to groundwater, surface water, CAP water or any
other water rights to serve the proposed subdivision, (2) any legal right to subdivide the land in the absence of
a Certificate of Assured Water Supply, (3) physical access to adequate electrical power for the proposed
subdivision, or (4) adequate fire protection. Nor does it include any explanation or justification for a rezoning
for a proposed subdivision that is illegal under current law.
It is difficult to discern what progress or changes have been accomplished in the six+ months since the initial
rezoning application. The amended Narrative now claims an intent to "rezone the Site" "to permit a maximum
of 696 single-family rural residential lots," but this is inconsistent with the actual application "to accommodate
the development of a 712 lot master planned community." More significantly it is inconsistent with the
proposed "Rural-43" zoning that would permit up to 1,941 wildcat one-acre lots if Goldhawk is unable to
proceed with the subdivision in the absence of a Certificate of Assured Water Supply or in the absence of
more than 12kV electrical power permitted under the existing FMYN easement.
From: Barry Wilkens <barry.wilkens@asu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2025 7:40 PM
To: Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov <Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov>
Cc: John Keller <johnkeller740@gmail.com>; Kimberlee Robinson <kimberleee7@gmail.com>; Randy Haines
<kkrjhaines@hotmail.com>
Subject: CPA 2024004 Goldhawk at the Preserve Project
Good Morning Nicholas,
I am inquiring as to the status of the Goldhawk at the Preserve development proposal for Goldfield Ranch. I am
one of the neighbors adjacent to the effected area and also a past president of the Goldfield Property Owners
Assoc. I would like to inform neighbors of what is happening with this proposal. Can you tell me when the next
2
meeting with county and the developer will be? What will be requested by the developer’s representative at that
meeting and which county committee/board will be hearing the proposals? Will any zoning decisions be made at
this meeting? Will this meeting be open to the public and should opinions by neighbors be addressed to you in
advance of this meeting? Depending on an outcome of this meeting what will next steps in this process be? Please
give me any other relevant information you might have regarding this project and keep me posted on future
developments relative to this project. Attached is a petition letter with over 100 signatures. The consensus in the
neighborhood is that any further development in Goldfield Ranch be done in accordance with the R 190 zoning
requirements we are all currently subject to. Please “reply to all” in your response.
Thank you,
Barry Wilkens
11608 N Burntwater Rd
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Steven Feyrer-Melk <drsteve17@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 12, 2025 1:07 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Anne Marie Feyrer-Melk
Subject:
Serious Zoning questions
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dear Mr. Schlimm,
I received an update of the Goldhawk development in Fort McDowell.
The current zoning is for 4 acres and am I correct that they are requesting for all R43 (1 acre lots) and
changes to the hillside requirements?
Both of these requests will cause irreparable damage to the Goldfield Ranch community, environment,
safety, water, roads, livestock, congestion, power, air quality, ground quality due to hundreds of septic
systems, and the overall quality of life for the "Non-Goldhawk" residents.
I strongly urge you to consider the big picture of this request beyond the tax revenue and weigh the
significant negative impact it will have on the current Maricopa County residents in Goldfield Ranch.
Mr. Schlimm, this development property lies in a pristine desert environment surrounded by the Yavapai
Indian Reservation and the Tonto National Forest, not conducive to high volume housing.
Sincerely,
Drs. Steve & Anne-Marie Feyrer-Melk
11814 N Vista del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ. 85264
602.819.5578
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
CWP Directory <cwpdirectory@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, March 13, 2025 4:01 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk and Wendy Riddel
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Once again, Wendy Riddel is attempting to disrupt the unique and pristine rural landscape of Goldfield
Ranch, one of the last remaining areas of its kind. She possesses extensive knowledge of the area and
understands the significance of the homeowners perseverance of the area, but her intentions seem
focused on accommodating her client the land developer, regardless of the potential consequences to the
area. This approach could pave the way for other developers to rezone five plus acre parcels for profit.
I'm sure you are aware that this development wants access through the private roads that the homeowners
pay to maintain. It is important to note that the developer of Goldhawk, who is reportedly not affiliated with
Goldfield Ranch, lacks the authority to access these roads.
My question is, why subject the community to this process when Wendy Riddel has never faced denial in her
endeavors? After all, she previously served as chair of the Board and practiced as an attorney, both of which
would typically be regarded as potential conflicts of interest. It is widely believed that her proposals will
receive approval. Meanwhile, the community will once again experience stress over issues that seem
designed just to appease the public. Afterall, Riddel prominently touts her "creative thinking" on the main
page of the Berry Riddel website.
Sincerely,
Janice R.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 12:11 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Wendy Riddell; Tom Ellsworth (PND); Jen Pokorski (COA); Darren Gerard (PND); Stephen
Anderson; llazarus@lslawaz.com
Subject:
Z2400006 Goldhawk 2nd TAC Review
Attachments:
SchlimmLtrMarch18WAttachment.pdf
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Mr. Schlimm, attached is a letter regarding the amended rezoning application known as Goldhawk at the
Preserve. It details how the amended application fails to satisfy the Planning Division's requirements of
September 17, 2024, and should be considered before there is another TAC meeting. And in that regard,
please let me know (1) when Planning Division issues any comments, questions and requirements regarding
this 2nd Submittal, and (2) when any TAC meeting is scheduled on this 2nd Submittal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Randy Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
March 18, 2025
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve, 2nd TAC Review
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
which is adjacent to the land currently subject to an amended rezoning application Z240006.
The purpose of this letter is to outline the numerous failures of the 2nd Submittal dated March 4,
2025, to satisfy the Planning Division requirements dated September 17, 2024, and the multitude
of reasons why 2nd Submittal must similarly be denied, either before or after a TAC meeting.
Executive Summary. The rezoning application 2nd Submittal fails to identify any legal
purpose or benefit of the proposed rezoning. It also fails to satisfy many of the Planning
Division requirements, or even to respond to them except by evasion, distraction and half truths.
It must similarly be denied.
The only ostensible purpose of the proposed rezoning is illegal – subdivision of the land
in an Active Management Area without a Certificate of Assured Water Supply, violating A.R.S.
§ 45-476. But the effect of such rezoning without a legal ability to subdivide would be to
authorize the unregulated wildcat development of up to one thousand nine hundred (1900) dry lot
residences that would lack adequate water, electricity, fire protection or roads. To avoid that
result Planning and Development must simply deny approval of the 2nd Submittal until the
applicant demonstrates (1) a current legal ability to subdivide the land, (2) the existence of
adequate legal water supply, (3) the existence of adequate electrical power, (4) entrance and exit
roads that satify MCDOT standards, and (5) fire protection appropriate for 1900 residences, in
addition to both consistency and conformity with the Goldfield Area Plan as required by A.R.S.
§ 11-814(A).
No Legal Purpose for the Rezoning. The rezoning Application states the purpose of the
request is to “accommodate the development of a 712-lot master planned community.” The
Narrative somewhat inconsistently states it is “proposed conceptually as a 696-lot rural master
planned community.” Regardless of the proposed number of subdivision lots, these stated
purposes are illegal and therefore void under A.R.S. § 45-476(A) & (B) without a Certificate of
2
Assured Water Supply for the land that is located within the Phoenix Active Management Area.
In the absence of such Certificate, the owner may not offer such subdivided lots for sale, and the
County may not approve such a subdivision plat. No legal purpose can be served by such
rezoning.
The 2nd Submittal does not even outline a feasible plan by which the applicant could
obtain the required Certificate, nor any legal theory under which it could subdivide the land
without that Certificate. More broadly, it does not even attempt to explain why Planning and
Development should recommend approval of a rezoning that serves no legal purpose.
Neither the Application nor the Narrative even suggest some other legal purpose that
could be served by the rezoning. Until the Applicant can identify a plausible legal ability to
implement the subdivision, Staff must conclude that it is not “consistent with the purposes and
intent of the Ordinance and other pertinent regulations and policies” and therefore “deny the
request” pursuant to Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance § 306.4.
No Legal Purpose for Rezoning Unless and Until the Subdivision Is Legal. Although
developers often argue they need a rezoning before they can satisfy all the requirements for the
subdivision, neither the Application nor the Narrative even attempts to make any such argument.
Under the current state of the law, the granting of the rezoning would accomplish nothing toward
providing the required Certificate of Assured Water Supply. To the contrary, the granting of the
rezoning now would accomplish nothing more than to facilitate the County’s violation of A.R.S.
§ 45-476(B). And if the subdivision never becomes legally possible, the rezoning now would
only authorize the uncontrolled wildcat splitting into as many as 1,900 residential lots, and
disempower the County from requiring the provision of a Community Water System, MCDOT-
standard roads, and sufficient electrical power.
No Demonstrated Benefit or Smooth Transition to the Rest of Goldfield Ranch.
Planning Division requirements ¶¶ 5(c) and 5(d) require the 2nd Submittal Narrative to “ensure a
smooth transition between the site and the rest of Goldfield Ranch,” and to discuss “how the
zone change would impact or benefit surrounding land uses” (emphasis in original). The
amended Narrative contains no discussion of any such smooth transition or benefit to the rest of
Goldfield Ranch. To the contrary, it implies only detrimental impacts such as increased demand
on the common aquifer, exhaustion of the limited electrical power, increased traffic and road
maintenance burdens on roads outside of the conceptual HOA, and inadequate fire protection.
No Improvement of Roads to MCDOT Standards. Planning Division requirement ¶ 7
requires the 2nd Submittal Narrative to “address any MCDOT” concerns, and the incorporated
Engineering Plan Review and PND Transportation Comments require the public roads to be
“developed to County (MCDOT) standards,” including a minimum of two (2) points of access.
The amended Narrative fails to address how the secondary access that utilizes Vista del Oro in
the adjacent subdivision will be improved to MCDOT standards, or how it would be maintained
since it is located outside of the jurisdiction of the conceptual HOA.
No Documentation of Sufficient Water. Planning Division requirement ¶ 10(a)
requires “elaboration upon the proposed water distribution system” and documentation that the
3
“deepwater wells” would provide sufficient water to accommodate the demand for 712 dwelling
units. The amended narrative contains no such elaboration or documentation. It makes only a
vague reference to a “centralized site for treatment (as needed), domestic and fire storage, and
pumping,” which is neither elaboration or documentation. That treatment facility is not
otherwise described and its site does even appear on the site plan. The amended Narrative says
this theoretical water system would be “owned and operated by a private water company” but
there is no documentation reflecting that such a company even exists. The amended narrative
fails to reference any documentation reflecting how much water these existing wells produce.
Instead of elaborating it merely includes that same reference to an Analysis of Assured Water
Supply but fails to note that it applies only to the portion of the land located within the defunct
Preserve. That Analysis of Assured Water Supply, to the extent it might have any current legal
significance, did not include the more than 200 acres of the rezoning application that were not
part of the old Preserve, Parcels 219-16-061, -063K, -065A, -073 and -075. State law provides
that such Analyses of Assured Water Supply cease to be effective when there has been a material
change to the plat for which they were originally issued, such as by expansion of the boundaries,
as here. See Ariz. Admin. Code § 512-15-708(c) & (d). Nor does the amended Narrative
acknowledge that the Arizona Department of Water Resources has announced that such old
Analyses of Assured Water Supply no longer have any legal effect when not incorporated in a
Certificate of Assured Water Supply that had been issued prior to June 1, 2023.
No Proof of Adequacy of 12kV Electrical Power. Planning Division requirement ¶
10(b) requires the amended Narrative to address whether “the existing 12kV [electrical]
transmission line [would] be sufficient to accommodate the planned number of dwelling units
and residents.” The amended Narrative fails to even attempt to address this requirement. In fact,
my information is that 12kV may be sufficient to serve only about 200 homes, and more than
half of that demand is already being consumed by existing homes in Goldfield Ranch. The
Planning Division requirements specifically require that “If any discussions are planned or have
been held already, please explain here.” But the amended narrative fails to explain or even
summarize any such discussions that have been had. It merely states that the “developer has
been regularly engaging in discussions with SRP,” which only admits there have been such
discussions but wholly fails to “explain” them as the Planning Division requires. Moreover, the
existing 12kV transmission line exists on an easement granted by the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation, and that easement expires on December 1, 2031, see attachment. In addition to
discussions with SRP there must have been some discussion with FMYN about both an
expansion of the voltage limitation and an extension of time but the Narrative fails to identify
any such discussions, much less “explain” them.
No Disclosure of Adequacy of Fire Protection. Planning Division requirement ¶ 10(c)
requires explanation of “any discussions” with the Goldfield Ranch Fire District, either that “are
planned or have been held already.” The amended Narrative makes no attempt to satisfy this
requirement. The requirement specifically notes that the Fire District has only a volunteer fire
department that may have only limited resources. To be honest and forthright, the amended
Narrative should have explained that while there once was a § 501(c)(3) volunteer fire
department that was not part of the Fire District, it is now defunct, reportedly because it could
not afford workers’ compensation insurance. The amended Narrative should also have noted that
the existing Fire District has no fire station, no fire fighters or other employees, no hydrants, and
4
no fire trucks or other equipment. It only has an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nations for its fire department to respond to fires in Goldfield Ranch, but the
FMYN has previously advised that it would terminate that contract if development were allowed
at greater than R-190 density.
Conclusion. The amended rezoning application and Narrative fail to satisfy many of the
most material and dispositive requirements that Planning Division specifically identified six
months ago. Indeed, it is difficult to identify any progress or improvement in the past six
months. There is no more reason for Planning and Development to recommend approval of this
Submittal than there was in September. The result can be no different.
This rezoning cannot be allowed to proceed on the basis of purported “stipulations” that
are enforceable only at the stage of subdivision approval because under current law no
subdivision can be approved. But we know that these owners will nevertheless claim that a
rezoning is an irrevocable “entitlement” despite breach of stipulations and failures of express
conditions, just as they claim the “existing entitlements on the 1,941 acre Site permit the
development of 963 lots” despite their failure to satisfy the conditions and stipulations to which
they had agreed. Until legal and adequate water, electrical power, roads and fire protection are
actually in place and in effect the County cannot risk creating an entitlement to 1900 residential
lots without sufficient water, power, roads or fire protection. The 2nd Submittal provides no
theory, plan or mechanism to avoid that risk, nor any reason why the County should assume it.
If the Planning Division requires reliable factual information on these essential
requirements it could specifically invite the Department of Water Resources, the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, SRP and the Goldfield Property Owners Association to address the next
Technical Advisory Committee meeting on this 2d Submittal. But the TAC should not have to
do the applicants’ work for them. The lack of any legal purpose for the rezoning and the
applicants’ failure even to attempt to respond to the Planning Division’s specific requirements
are sufficient bases for Planning Division to “find that conditions required for approval do not
exist and, therefore, deny the request” per Zoning Ordinance § 306.4.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Ms. Wendy Riddell, Esq.
Mr. Tom Ellsworth, Planning and Development
Ms. Jen Pokorski, County Manager
Mr. Daren Gerard, Planning Manager
Mr. Larry Lazarus, Esq.
Mr. Stephen Miller, Esq.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
kathleen brandt <kjbrandt13807@gmail.com>
Sent:
Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:59 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Development
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
I am a resident of Goldfield Ranch and not in favor of this development. It will lower our property value .
How many parcels will be sold ?
Thank you.
Kathleen Brandt
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Sheila Mei <brianmei@icloud.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:09 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch resident
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hello Mr Schlimm
My husband and I have been Goldfield residents for 25 years we are very concerned about the
Goldhawk development and dense homesites as they are requesting to change the zoning . Our
community is unique as a five acre minimum and we would like to preserve this lifestyle… our other
concern is the water, we are all on wells and have great concerns that the Goldhawk giant deep wells
will deplete our communities water source . We strongly oppose any development that will increase
the homes and traffic load on our beautiful community .
Thank you for hearing our side
Brian and
Sheila Mei
480-495-3142
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Cindy Car <goldfieldview@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 3:47 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Re: Goldfield Ranch Case - Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hello Mr. Schlimm,
Big thanks for lending an ear to my concerns! I know you're knee-deep in zoning questions on a regular
basis and juggling the pressure of making such a big decision.
I am unsure of your familiarity with the area, but Goldfield Ranch is often regarded as one of the Valley's
"hidden gems" due to its prime location. It's located between the Tonto National Forest and the Fort
McDowell Indian Reservation, it is merely ten minutes from Saguaro Lake, making it a prime target for
developers seeking to capitalize on its appeal.
My concerns:
Ongoing construction efforts - During the previous meeting, inquiries directed at the builders'
representatives revealed that homes would be constructed in accordance with purchase orders.
Maintenance and access through private roadways during construction.
Assessment of water well availability for 1,000 homes - Lack of rain and snow, how can SRP
meet the water demands with the drought we have had?
Fire safety measures - This one scares me. There have been human-caused, fast-moving
wildfires in the Tonto National Forest that have charred nearly 200,000 acres, and fire officials
don't want to see a repeat. We surely don't need this many more people living in this area.
Hillside disturbance - The builder should be mandated to adhere to the existing land disturbance
patterns of the current residences and the R190 zoning. There are concerns that the developers
intend to level the land in some instances.
Other builders have the opportunity to rezone 5 acre parcels - Additionally, there is
apprehension regarding the possibility of granting approval for 1-acre lots, which could
inadvertently facilitate another builder's opportunity to purchase a 5-acre parcel. This may lead to
the subdivision of larger parcels into smaller, individual lots, further jeopardizing the integrity of
our neighborhood.
2
I encourage you to drive out to the location if you haven't already, and you will understand that there just
has to be a stop for unnecessary building for the pocket books of the developers. This will be a disaster
for the current residents, the terrain, and the wildlife.
Thank you Sincerely,
Cindy
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
March 25, 2025
Nicholas.schlimm@maricopa.gov
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
We own and reside at 14628 N. Vista Del Oro in Goldfield Ranch. We believe other
Goldfield residents have contacted you about this application and the serious deficiencies
which exist. We wish to address 4 issues which we believe require the denial of the proposed
rezoning.
1 The primary reason advanced by the applicant in support of the requested rezoning is
that it would result in a better project than what was approved in 2008. This argument
is false; the applicant acknowledges in its filings that development pursuant to the 2008
rezoning is not feasible. The options are not a new rezoning vs the 2008 outcome
because development is not going to occur pursuant to the 2008 plan. The pending
rezoning must stand on its own feet without any regard or comparison to the 2008
rezoning.
2 The proposed rezoning must comply with the development plan adopted by Maricopa
County. There are two plans affecting Goldfield Ranch; the county-wide plan called
“2030” and a specific plan called the Goldfield Area Plan. Law and policy universally
require that where there are two documents addressing the same topic, the more
specific controls over the general. The applicant here refers to the general County-wide
plan when the applicable issue is whether this application complies with the more
specific Goldfield Area Plan. The Executive Summary of the Goldfield Area Plan states
“Residential development at very low densities is intended for the entire planning
area.”, which the current application does not satisfy. Goal L1 provides “Promote
efficient land development that is compatible with adjacent land uses …” . Goal L2
provides “Preserve the scenic, rural, and residential equestrian character of the
Goldfield planning area.” This application should be evaluated so as to conform to the
Goldfield Area Plan.
3 There are multiple serious problems with the road network proposed in this application.
As the starting place, there are two aspects of the roads within Goldfield Ranch which
very seriously affect this application. First, roads in Goldfield do not satisfy MCDOT or
any other public road standards; they are merely chip-sealed on top of dirt. There is no
base below the roads. The roads are composed of approximately 2 ½ inches of oil
soaked gravel. This type of construction is not intended or sufficient for high traffic or
heavy usage. Second, the roads in Goldfield are privately owned and paid for by one of
the 5 existing phases within Goldfield Ranch. Property owners within one phase do not
own or contribute to the construction or maintenance of roads located within another
phase. Based on this background, please consider the following:
a. The proposed development has only one point of access with S.R. 87 which is
controlled by the applicant, that being Burntwater road at mile marker 194.
b. Burntwater is not constructed in compliance with MCDOT specifications.
c. The application proposes several connections from the Goldhawk development onto
road called Vista Del Oro. However, the applicant does not own any portion of Vista
Del Oro, nor does it contribute to the repair or maintenance of Vista Del Oro. Vista
Del Oro is located within and owned by the landowners in Goldfield Phase 2 (which
include the authors of this letter). The Phase 2 owners oppose use of Vista Del Oro
for ingress or egress to the Goldhawk project. Use of Vista Del Oro by Goldhawk
would cause severe congestion. Traffic engineering handbooks estimate that each
dwelling unit in an area like Goldhawk will generate between 5 and 10 vehicle trips
per day. With the density proposed in this application, that results in between 3500
and 7000 vehicle trips per day. Traffic engineering handbooks also estimate it will
take on average 30 seconds to exit onto a busy road such as S.R. 87 – the authors’
experience is that sometimes it is an easy turn, other times we wait a minute or
more to turn right. Simple math shows that even if the traffic is split evenly
between Burntwater and Vista Del Oro, it will take 25 minutes for even 100 vehicles
to exit onto S.R. 87 – and during rush hour Goldhawk will likely generate multiple
hundreds if not thousands of vehicle trips. This will result in a highly deteriorated
lifestyle for the existing residents in Goldfield, especially those in Phase 2, for which
existing residents receive no benefit.
d. Vista Del Oro is not designed or built to handle the traffic which would result from
usage from Goldhawk. There currently are about 65 homes in Phase 2 (the existing
traffic pattern is such the vast majority of vehicles using Vista Del Oro originate in
Phase 2) and even with this low level of traffic, the road has to be resurfaced
approximately every 5 years. If thousands of new vehicles use Vista Del Oro each
day from Goldhawk, the road will need to be resurfaced much more frequently.
Resurfacing Vista Del Oro is entirely paid by the Phase 2 owners. It is not reasonable
to expect the Phase 2 owners to either pay for more frequent road repairs or to live
with seriously degraded roads.
e. As congested as Vista Del Oro will be once Goldhawk is completed, the construction
phase would be worse. A standard 2000 sq ft house is estimated to contain
construction materials weighing 200,000 to 300,000 pounds. The units in Goldhawk
are projected to be significantly larger than 2000 sq ft. For the entire Goldhawk
project, that means hundreds of MILLIONS of pounds of material will need to be
transported to the project, much of which would traverse Vista Del Oro unless the
developer can devise and enforce a method to require all construction traffic to use
Burntwater. Vista Del Oro simply cannot handle that weight.
f. Respectfully, there is no principle of law or reason which requires the Phase 2
residents to allow a neighbor to destroy the roads the Phase 2 landowners own and
pay for. If this rezoning is permitted, existing residents will resist Goldhawk traffic
using Vista Del Oro.
g. Finally, the recent wildfires in Los Angeles very clearly demonstrated the serious risk
inherent in having limited roads in residential areas. We all saw pictures of
abandoned and burned vehicles which were unable to exit Palasades and other
neighborhoods due to the congestion. The entire Goldfield area is at high risk for
wildfires. About a year ago there was a large wildfire just north of Goldfield, which
came dangerously close to Goldfield homes. Within the last year there also have
been at least two fires within Goldfield which threatened to spread. Current
residents should not be required to face congestion when trying to flee the area,
due to traffic from Goldhawk.
h. This risk is greater because of the inadequate fire service for the area. In 2024 a
detached garage/shop on Vista Del Oro caught fire and when the fire departments
finally arrived, they did not carry nearly enough water. There are no waterlines or
hydrants in Goldfield. To fight this fire, the undersigned offered the water in our
swimming pool and other Goldfield residents were able to put a pump they own into
our pool and run hoses thru our garage and up our driveway to connect to the fire
trucks. But for the availability of our pool, the Forest Service representative said it
would have been hard to prevent a serious brushfire. Currently, homes are widely
spaced between themselves, so there is time to obtain water and fight a fire. In
Goldhawk, by contrast, the houses will be clustered and a fire will spread much
more rapidly.
4. Finally, there is one specific issue to be address in the proposed rezoning application.
The applicant seeks to rezone a relatively small block of acreage located east of
Burntwater Road from 5 acre development to one acre. This tract was left R190 after
the 2008 zoning and, respectfully, should remain R190. This tract is surrounded by and
abuts tracts which have already been built on R190 lots. The rezoning of this tract
would devalue surrounding lots; essentially rezoning of this tract would result in the
transfer of money from the existing homeowners who built in compliance with existing
zoning, to the developer seeking to change the zoning to allow much more dense
housing. The County’s Goldfield Area Plan provides for buffering and transitional land
use between area of low density and higher density. Even if the remainder of the
property is rezoned (which should not occur), this one tract on Burntwater can and
should remain R190.
Thank you for your consideration; if you have questions please let us know.
Sincerely
Evelyn and John Keller
14628 N Vista Del Oro
Fort McDowell, Az 85264
Johnkeller740@gmail.com
614.477.2087
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Keith Canham <canham_k@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:16 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Greetings Mr. Schlimm,
I am writing in regards to Z240006 to rezone to one acre parcels the Preserve area of Gold Field Ranch. My
concerns are as follows:
The access roads into the area are only dirt and chip sealed. The traffic of a possibly over 1900 homes on such
roads is a problem. At a minimum these roads need to be paved by the county or the developer.
They plan on drilling deep wells for water. What is their liability if my well goes dry or the water lever drops
with pumping for over 1900 homes?
Would the developer be required to adhere to the same hill side zoning rules that I have had to follow?
Could the developer come in and scrape off all the desert to build?
Regards,
Keith Canham
14406 North Lost Tank Trail
Ft. McDowell, AZ. 85264
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Larry Webster <larry.webster.az@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 8:47 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk Project-Fort McDowell
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Hi Nicholas,
Me and my family live in a home on 30 acres in Goldfield Ranch. We are vehemently opposed to the
proposed Godhawk Project. Our personal concern is well water usage. Being a former General
Contractor for close to 30 years, I do not oppose progress, and development, if done properly. We would
ask that if the development is approved, that they will be required to have 5 acre minimal parcels, like we
do. Cutting up that land into 1 acre parcels, and building hundreds of homes, will have a dramatically
negative effect on our ground water. Every home in Goldfield Ranch is on a minimum of 5 acres. It does
not seem fair that they would be able to build on 1 acre lots, and we have to build on 5. Thank you for your
consideration in this matter.
Larry Webster
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
omfdr <omfdr@aol.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 10:39 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk Proposal CPA2024004 and Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Good afternoon.
We live on lot 219-16-066H in Goldfield Ranch for the last 6 years.
We were attracted to the area due to all lots being 5 acres or more in size providing privacy and minimally
interrupted views. We assumed that all future development in the community would be held to the same
acreage.
We also were glad to have our own well as do most of the other owners in the community. As we are all
aware, not only in Arizona but other western states, the aquafers are fragile and finite. So much so that
last year a halt on new permits occurred by the county unless a well permit had already been approved.
In addition, Scottsdale halted water supply to the Rio Verde Community due to water concerns for
Scottsdale residents. These homeowners have suffered significant financial loss due to the issue.
Water and views are paramount to people living in Arizona. Approving one acre building sites instead of
keeping the 5 acre or greater lot sizes as stipulated in previous phases of GFR will potentially cause the
following issues of which the water issue will be nonretractable or reversable once it occurs.
1) Water. One acre well sites, or even a common well, that provides water to potential 1000+ homesite
will create a risk to all surrounding properties including the Indian Reservation, We Ko PA resort and
Fountain Hills as well as the Verde River water shed. This will not only effect humans but also vegetation
and wildlife. We experienced record drought and over 100 days of over 100 degree temperatures in 2024.
Are we not all heading the warning?.
2) Road Access is limited from Rt 87 onto Burntwater Road, as well as any of the other community roads,
and will create undo traffic backups and risk of fatal accidents due to lack of direct egress lanes for
proper merging onto 87 from the community. In addition, the median between East and Westbound
lanes is only wide enough to accommodate a few cars that are waiting to cross 87 to get into the
community this could create accidents/fatalities as other residents are waiting in the westbound merge
lane to get onto the median to wait there turn.
The community roads are 2 way traffic but are narrow and there are no midlane divider lines. In addition,
there is no shoulder for safe avoidance as there are varying hills and side ditches on either side of the
road. I have experienced several "near misses" while driving these windy and narrow roads, especially
during sunset/sunrise when vision may be impaired. We can only extrapolate that this will be a bigger
2
problem with 1000 (2000 if you assume each household has 2 cars) more cars using these mixed
aggregate roads.
These community roads are not built to withstand heavy equipment/traffic during and after construction,
who will pay for upgrading and maintaining them?
3) Fire risk. We experienced record numbers of wildfires (most due to humans) last year. The fire
department service is limited and would need to be expanded for the safety of all including Fountain
Hills, the reservations and our community. The developer would have to provide fire department services
at GFR or all will be at increased risk.
4) Schools. The potential community, in total, represents over 2000 possible homes including all lots in
the other phases as well as Goldhawk. How would kids be transported to Fountain Hills schools?
5) Hillside and wash variance request by Goldhawk. All phases of our development had strict guidelines
and regulations regarding hillside construction and interference with washes. This even was an issue
that needed to be addressed, according to the county, when I tried to build a pickleball court on a flat
area of my lot. Why wouldn't the developer for Goldhawk not be held to the same strict guidelines for
1000 homesites?
We respectfully request that the Goldhawk project be kept consistent with the 5 acre minimum lot size
thatwas approved by Maricopa county for the previous phases of GFR. This will maintain value of all
properties including surrounding communities outlined previously, conserve our precious water
resource, improve safety and minimize infrastructure construction and maintenance.
Michael and Teresa Muul
Sent from my Ultra 21S
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Michael Sierks <sierks@asu.edu>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:05 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
goldfield ranch development rezoning
Attachments:
Thoughts on Goldhawk application.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Hi Nicholas,
As a longtime resident of Goldfield ranch, I have number of concerns about the proposed development
and rezoning at Goldfield Ranch. I've enclosed a detailed list of complaints that others in our community
have drafted, i agree with all of these concerns. The primary ones are excessively large increases in
traffic access through our existing entrances, ability to provide electricity for the proposed density and
concerns with excessive use of water from existing aquifer. -Mike Sierks
V1
Thoughts on Goldhawk application
Questions for developer:
1. The application covers 1737 acres and seeks zoning which would allow up to 1 dwelling
unit (“DU”) per acre. An additional 212 acres already has this zoning, so total amount
they seek to have the 1 DU/Acre is 1940 acres. They propose a 712 lot community.
a. Can there be more than one DU per lot?
b. If so, what types of DUs – single family, duplex, condo, apartment, etc
c. How many DUs would be allowed if they obtain this zoning change?
d. How many DUs does this developer propose?
2. Assuming one DU per acre, what other uses will be made of the balance of the 1940
acres?
3. Total size of Preserve is 2434 acres; what will happen on acreage not covered by this
application?
4. Application proposes to have green space surrounding the dwellings. How can they
guarantee this will remain green space and not be subject to future rezoning
application? Suggest create conservation easement in favor of unaffiliated entity.
5. What is plan for fire protection? If water used will come from wells, what is the
productive capacity of each well.
6. Will one or more exits onto SR 87 be included in this project? Will there be any traffic
lights?
7. Where will mailboxes for new development be located?
8. Have they received or applied for a permit from Az Dept of Water Resources (and/or
similar Maricopa County agency) to extract water from the aquifer? Ask for copies of
existing analysis of Assured Water Supply.
9. Are their existing developments by this applicant which people could visit and view?
Issues to investigate:
1. Would this development be included in the existing Goldfield fire district? How would
fire district be affected by this?
2. How many children be expected in this many DUs? Does FH school district currently
have the facilities and staff to accommodate that number of new students? What is the
position of the FH schools toward this development?
3. What is position of the Yavapai nation?
4. Water rights; do they have rights they need? Are their studies showing sufficient
quantity and quality of water supplies?
5. How much water storage or pumping capacity to fight fire?
6. Will new development be subject to existing GR CCRs? What is effect of that?
7. Any studies of cultural or archaeology in area?
Issues/arguments
1. They say in application that there will be no commercial or industrial in the 1940 acres,
but all these new dwellings will make commercial more attractive on the balance of
their acreage.
2. They argue that this is a “down zoning” since the existing zoning allows for more lots.
This is a paper tiger; they admit development under the existing zoning is not feasible.
Therefore, references to existing zoning are not relevant.
3. They say development under existing zoning was not possible to due infrastructure
problems. How would this be different in the proposed zoning? There is the same
infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, electric) now than existed under the existing zoning,
so why would the proposed application do any better.
4. The proposed application materially alters the current land use in the Goldfield area.
Currently, all the building in GR is 5+ acres per house. Why should that change?
5. Where the proposed development abuts or is near existing homes, new building should
mirror existing lot sizes. If necessary, densities can increase the further from existing
homes. For example, there is a block of acreage on the east side of Burntwater. That is
surrounded by 5+ acre development and that density should be maintained.
6. Clearly some of this development will use Burntwater for access. Currently the costs of
road maintenance are allocated on acreage basis. If the dwellings in the proposed
development are located within Phase 3, those homeowners will pay far less for road
maintenance than current owners (home on 1 acre will pay 20% of road assessment as
home on 5 acres) but will cause the same usage to the roads (more if construction
traffic is considered).
7. A major argument in the application is that dwellings will be “clustered” to minimize
disruption and maximize green space. First, “clustered” is not defined. More important,
while arguable there is a benefit to maximize green space, the primary rationale for
clustering is not environmental but economic benefit to the developer. The cost of
building roads, extending utilities and other infrastructure is very significant and is based
on a per foot basis. If the dwellings are grouped, much less infrastructure is required
and hence much more cost savings to the developer. 100 houses on 1/2 acre each costs
half of the infrastructure of 100 homes with 1 acre density. An argument can be made
that in exchange for the developer being allowed to cluster and save money on
infrastructure, the developer should reduce the overall density.
8. We can get from the State the average vehicle usage on SR 87. According to the
Census, households in our area generate 5+ vehicle trips per day. This number times
the maximum number of DU in this development will significantly increase the vehicle
traffic which, especially at the stoplights, are already backed up at high traffic times.
9. Comments on document called “Zoning Change with Overlay”:
a. Proposal to amend 1201.2.1 relating to hillside disturbance removes strict
restrictions and gives developer discretion how much disturbance is allowed.
Should retain firm standards. Says disturbance on each lot will “average
approximately ½ acres per lot.” That is very loose standard.
b. Plan says plan designed to preserve character of the area. Many existing GR
residents may disagree with that.
c. A small portion of acreage, especially tract east of Burntwater, is currently zoned
R70 and R190. Propose these remain unchanged.
d. At one place says lots will be 1 to 5 acres; other places say 1 to 2 acres.
e. New roads will connect to existing GR roads and neighborhoods. Says new
development will be accessed via existing GR roads. Increased impact?
f. The county’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan has a goal to reexamine prior decisions.
Perhaps 2008 zoning decision should be reexamined. The major basis supporting
this application is that the 2008 zoning allowed higher density.
10. Document called Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
a. Says this development will benefit surrounding area (i.e. GR) by building roads,
wells and septic. That “benefit” to existing GR is not obvious.
b. Says “low density” in this plan will be compatible with surrounding area. Not all
existing GR residents will agree.
c. Says this plan does not propose commercial or business uses – but this make
those uses much more likely on other area in Preserve.
11. [Note: need to review Goldfield Area Plan and compare to this proposal]
Process
1. The developer will undoubtedly have contract with the neighbors before the official
hearing. Normally the developer will get a room and have several “stations” manned by
representatives, to answer questions. The deficiency of this structure is that neighbors
cannot hear questions or comments by other neighbors, and the various developer
representatives may not each give the same answers to similar questions. It might be
better if the GR community organizes an event where interested neighbors sit together
in a room and invite developer representatives to come and answer questions. This way
everyone would share in the questions and answers.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Shelley Johnson <shelleyjohnson85264@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:17 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Fw: Opposition letter re: Zone Change case: Z240006 (WITH ATTACHED LETTER)
Attachments:
Johnson objection letter for major CPA 8.30.24.docx; Sheldon.Michele Johnson
opposition letter 3.25.25 case Z240006.pdf
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dean Ms. Schlimm,
Attached please find our letter of opposition for Zoning case: Z240006. It includes our original letter of
opposition and our current letter of opposition for the zoning changes and the Goldhawk
development.
Thank you!
Sheldon & Michele Johnson
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Shelley Johnson <shelleyjohnson85264@yahoo.com>
To: Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov <nicholas.schlimm@maricopa.gov>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 at 01:04:50 PM MST
Subject: Re: Opposition letter re: Zone Change case: Z240006 (WITH ATTACHED LETTER)
.
Nicholas Schlimm,
Attached please find our letter in opposition to Zone Change case: Z240006. Please let this be on
record we have concerns re;arding this development as it relates to water and doubling the allowable
number of wells for this development.
Thank you,
Michele & Sheldon Johnson
12409 N Vista Del Oro
Scottsdale, AZ 85264
GOLDFIELD RANCH
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Steve White <stevewhite.sve@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 8:52 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
case Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dear Mr. Schlimm,
I want to let you know that I strongly object to a rezoning of the 1941 acres as petitioned for by the
proposed Grayhawk development.
I firmly believe that landowners have the right to develop their property and that neighboring property
owners should not object just because they do not want to see development. However, I bought my
house in Goldfield Ranch understanding the zoning of the 1941 acres and the type of development that
might be allowed. It was not 1 acre lots. To potentially have that many houses right next door would
completely change the community of Goldfield Ranch.
I would ask that the commission reject this application for rezoning.
Thank you.
--
Steve White
612/819-5392
stevewhite.sve@gmail.com
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
John Keller <johnkeller740@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 26, 2025 6:07 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Nicholas, yesterday I emailed you a letter about issues with Goldhawk application. There was a
mistake in the letter; I said there was only 2 1/2 in chipseal on the roads. I have learned that in fact
the chipseal is only 1 1/2 in thick.
Thank you
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:18 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Tom Ellsworth (PND); Wendy Riddell; Jen Pokorski (COA); Stephen Anderson; Darren
Gerard (PND); llazarus@lslawaz.com; scott@carpenter.law
Subject:
Z240006 Goldhawk rezoning
Attachments:
SchlimmLTRMarch 26.pdf
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Mr. Schlimm, attached is a letter detailing how Grayhawk's amended rezoning application and Narrative fail to
satisfy the statutory requirements for this rezoning, and fail to address Planning Division's requirements of
September 17. This is in addition to my letter of March 18.
As I mentioned previously, please let me know when and if Planning Division "signs off" on the amended
rezoning application, either by denying it, setting it for another TAC meeting, or recommended approval or
denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Randy Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
March 26, 2025
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve, Planning Review
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
which is adjacent to the land currently subject to an amended rezoning application Z240006.
The purpose of this letter is to identify another significant failure of the 2nd Submittal dated
March 4, 2025, in addition to those identified in my letter of March 18. This failure to satisfy the
statutory requirement for rezoning is another reason why the 2nd Submittal must similarly be
denied, either before or after a TAC meeting.
Executive Summary. The rezoning application 2nd Submittal fails to even attempt to
demonstrate the rezoning is consistent with the “land use goals and policies” of the Goldfield
Area Plan, as required by A.R.S. § 11-814(A). Even a cursory review of the governing Goldfield
Area Plan demonstrates many express inconsistencies with its eight Elements, its 10 Goals, its 21
Objectives, and its 99 Policies, none of which are addressed by Grayhawk’s response or
amended Narrative. Mere conformity with a density range is insufficient to establish
connsistency with the entire plan. Arizona law forbids approval of this rezoning, even if the
applicant could also demonstrate a current legal ability to subdivide the land despite its violation
of A.R.S. § 45-476(A) & (B) addressed in my letter of March 18.
Arizona Law Requires Both Consistency and Conformity With the Goldfield Area
Plan. A.R.S. § 11-814A requires that “All rezonings adopted under this article shall be
consistent with and conform to the adopted comprehensive plan.” The adopted Comprehensive
Plan is Vision 2030, which expressly includes the Goldfield Area plan which is “more specific”
to the community characteristics, topography, and “site-specific” “unique conditions and needs
of [these] specific parts of the county.” Vision 2030, at 12. Arizona law therefore requires any
rezoning applicant to demonstrate both consistency with the Goldfield Area Plan, and conformity
to the Goldfield Area Plan.
Grayhawk Never Addresses Consistency With the Goldfield Area Plan. Planning
Division’s September 17 requirements ¶¶ 5(b) and 5(c) specifically required the amended
2
Narrative to acknowledge that the result of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be to
“obligate” the rezoning to “observe the same land use goals and policies” as the remainder of
Goldfield Ranch. Nothing in the amended Narrative or Grayhawk’s response of February 28
even attempts to do so. Both of those documents respond only by comparing the new
designation of density to that of the now-defunct Preserve DMP, which fails to address all of the
elements, goals, objectives and policies of the Goldfield Area Plan. This failure to attempt to
satisfy the statutory requirement and Planning Division’s requirements is sufficient reason alone
for Planning Division to deny approval or further consideration, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance §
306.4.
Grayhawk’s Rezoning Is Grossly Inconsistent with the Goldfield Plan. But even if
Planning Division is not prepared to deny the amended rezoning solely for failure to respond to
its requirements, it is a relatively simple matter for the Planning Division to determine that the
amended rezoning is in fact inconsistent with the Goldfield Area Plan in a great multitude of
respects. It is easy to identify a significant number of glaring inconsistencies with the Goldfield
Area Plan. A few examples are identified in the attached Appendix, and there are many more.
Even without a thorough consideration these few examples demonstrate major
inconsistencies in several very significant respects, including the Goldfield Plan’s requirements
for: (1) “densities consistent with the existing Rural—190 zoning;” (2) sanitary sewer systems;
(3) compliance with DWR groundwater requirements; (4) discouragement of groundwater
depletion; (5) encouragement of renewable water supply; (6) compatibility with the equestrian
character of Goldfield Ranch; (7) adequate buffers; (8) paving to MCDOT standards; (9)
avoidance of diversion of traffic into adjacent rural residential areas; (10) payment of fair share
of public facility and service needs such as roads and fire protection; and (11) higher quality
development than 700 septic tanks on one-acre lots, to name just a few.
Density Alone Does Not Establish Consistency. The rezoning Narrative never attempts
to demonstrate consistency with the Goldfield Area Plan. Instead, it utilizes three distractions to
avoid addressing this fundamental statutory requirement. First, the Narrative mentions only
consistency with the County Comprehensive Plan, rather than the much more specific and
detailed Goldfield Area Plan. Second, it implicitly assumes that the statutory requirement
pertains only to density, rather than the great number of other issues addressed by the Goldfield
Area Plan. Third, it expressly assumes that consistency with the Goldfield Area Plan will be
established by its simultaneously pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which does nothing
more than “remove” the Preserve DMP from consideration. All of these distractions are evident
in the single sentence of the Narrative that purports to address plan consistency: “The proposed
Comprehensive Plan designation will be consistent with the remainder of the existing Goldfield
Ranch to the east of the Site, which is also designated as Rural Densities, 0 – 1 du/ac.” Narrative
¶ D.
Compliance with a density range cannot possibly satisfy consistency with all of the
purposes, goals, policies and objectives of a comprehensive area plan. This should be obvious
by a quick review of the Goldfield Area Plan itself, which addresses so many more and broader
issues than density. For most people who are not developers there is a lot more to life than the
number of dwellings per acre. The Goldfield Area Plan addresses many of those other aspects of
3
life. Just a quick review reveals that the Goldfield Area Plan includes an extensive table
identifying innumerable issues raised by the stakeholders, followed by twelve pages of specific
goals, objectives and policies within eight subject areas. Only extreme myopia could assume
that consistency with all of that could be demonstrated merely by a number that falls within a
referenced density range.
The density number alone says almost nothing about coordination with existing
infrastructure and constraints, or with satisfying the public service needs of the community.
“The field of planning is broad and wide-ranging, often described as ‘part art and part science’
because it involves a mix of many social, economic, environmental, political and legal issues.
How these issues are dealt with determines the extent to which public health and safety is
maintained, and whether a community has stable economic growth, maintains a clean
environment, ensures that citizens needs are met and that money is spent efficiently.” Vision
2030 at 1. “Vision 2030 supports public safety by coordinating new development with roads,
police and fire service, and water and sewer systems.” Id. at 6.
Perhaps the most important concept of planning is “coordination.” The principal function
of planning is to coordinate new development with existing infrastructure and needs, in light of
existing constraints. Consistency with an adopted plan therefore requires demonstration of how
the proposed new development coordinates with existing resources and constraints such as
“roads, police and fire service, and water and sewer systems.”
Planning involves stepping back and getting the big picture, not staying mired in a
particular land owner’s rabbit hole. Where are we, and how did we get here? This land owner is
the hedge fund whose greed suckered it into chasing Steve Ellman’s con job, and now finds itself
at the bottom of a huge hole of its own making. The first rule for dealing with that problem is to
stop digging. Except from the perspective of Ellman’s rabbit hole these 2000 acres of Sonoran
desert that lack adequate road access, any access to renewable water resources, any sewer
system, grossly insufficient electrical power and no legal ability to access it, no fire protection,
and great distance to any schools, would not appear to be the location to cram in 700 single
family homes on septic systems. Rather, from the big picture what these 2000 acres are best
suited for is equestrian development. There are already many residents on five, ten and 20-acre
lots who not only have backyard horses, corrals, barns and paddocks but several training arenas
and roping and cutting pens, in addition to a 90-acre state of the art training and breeding facility
and a wild horse sanctuary. The land is optimally located for equestrian purposes in the
immediate vicinity of West World, the Fort McDowell rodeo arena and the World’s oldest rodeo
in Payson. And it is surrounded on three sides by National Forest and immense opportunities for
trail rides. Why would anyone not afflicted by a rabbit hole perspective conclude the best use of
such land is a bedroom community of 700 homes? And the Goldfield Area Plan, created by
input from all stakeholders, makes clear that is not what the community wants or needs, and that
it would be totally inappropriate.
Grayhawk’s rezoning never attempts to consider such coordination with existing
infrastructure and constraints, and its mere compliance with a density range number does nothing
to accomplish that. The density number is a minor aspect of how a development coordinates
with existing infrastructure and constraints, or responds to community needs. Density is
4
Grayhawk’s sole focus because, like for any developer, density is the dominant factor in the
profit calculation. The function of planning, however, is not to help maximize developer’s
profits, but to consider the community’s needs in light of existing infrastructure and constraints.
As amply demonstrated by the many examples identified in the Appendix the Goldfield
Area Plan emphasizes innumerable concepts, categories and specifics where the Grayhawk
rezoning is inconsistent. The Goldfield Area Plan emphasizes the community’s needs and
desires for adequate emergency access, adequate roads, minimization of traffic congestion,
preservation of groundwater, sewer systems, police and fire protection, access to open space,
maintenance of the equestrian character, and preservation of the environment. Grayhawk’s
rezoning is not only inconsistent with that coordination with existing infrastructure and
constraints, but its one-acres homes would also preclude future development that is respective of
the equestrian character and natural open space.
State Law Also Requires “Basic Harmony” With the Goldfield Area Plan. In
addition to the plain language of A.R.S. § 11-814A, for almost 40 years the Arizona courts have
interpreted and applied similar statutory language to require “basic harmony” with the adopted
general plan. The Court of Appeals decision in Haines v City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz. 286 (App.
Div. 2, 1986), considered a very similar statute that applies to cities and municipalities, rather
than counties, A.R.S. § 9-462.01E. That statute has since been amended (principally to add a
similar conformity requirement) and is currently found at A.R.S. § 9-462.01F but at the time of
the Haines case it provided: “All zoning ordinances or regulations adopted under this article
shall be consistent with the adopted general or specific plans of the municipality . . . .” The
particular issue in the case was a rezoning to permit a building that would have exceeded a 250-
foot building height suggested by “precatory language” in the adopted general plan.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the statute’s consistency requirement means that
“the rezoning [must be] in basic harmony with the general plan.” The Court’s analysis was that
because the plan had several other goals and policies besides building height, such as
commercial development, open space, landscaping and recreation, and because there was
evidence that “the developer could build two 20–story buildings which would leave less open
space and less potential recreational areas,” the court could not find “the city council was wrong
in finding the rezoning in basic harmony with the general plan.”
There are at least two important lessons from this case. First, and most obviously, it
means that a single numerical factor is insufficient by itself to demonstrate consistency or
inconsistency with a general plan. Just as the 250-foot building height was insufficient to
determine consistency or inconsistency in the Haines case, so here conformity to the “0 -1
du/acre” density number is insufficient by itself to demonstrate consistency or inconsistency with
the Goldfield Area Plan. Yet that is all that Grayhawk relies on to demonstrate consistency.
Ever since the Haines decision almost 40 years ago, that is not enough to demonstrate the
consistency required by the statute.
Second, and equally important, the case establishes that statutory consistency requires
“basic harmony” with the adopted general plan. Grayhawk has not attempted to demonstrate any
“basic harmony” with the Goldfield Area Plan, probably because that’s a fool’s errand. Just the
5
24 selected examples mentioned above should be enough to convince any impartial observer that
the Grayhawk rezoning is in gross disharmony with the Goldfield Area Plan. Indeed, the
disharmony goes to the fundamental essence of the Goldfield Area Plan, whose multitude of
goals, objectives and policies were all adopted with the intent and purpose to prevent exactly this
kind of rezoning. Without any evidence of “basic harmony” with the Goldfield Area Plan,
Grayhawk’s Density Conformance Does Not Satisfy the Statute. It is already obvious
from the lawyer’s response and the amended Narrative that Grayhawk will attempt to argue that
its Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which only addresses density, is sufficient to satisfy the
statutory consistency requirement. But the amended Narrative ignores the significance of the
pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It assumes that its only effect is to change the
permissible density range. In fact it does much more than that. The stated effect of the proposed
Plan Amendment is to “remove this approximate 1,728.37-acre portion of the Site from the
Preserve DMP . . . .” Under the Goldfield Area Plan the Preserve DMP constituted its own sui
generis sub-plan, so none of the great bulk of the Goldfield Area Plan applied to the acreage
formerly part of the Preserve DMP. But once all that acreage (all of which is incorporated in the
rezoning’s identified 1,941 acres) is “removed” from the defunct DMP, it again becomes
governed by the Goldfield Area Plan. Simply arguing that their density is better than that of the
defunct DMP does nothing to demonstrate consistency with the Goldfield Area Plan, since the
old DMP never had to do so. Grayhawk might as well argue that its current plan is even better
than Ellman’s proposed 1000-home golf course, or McCulloch’s proposed sister city to Fountain
Hills on the other side of the lake that was to be created by the Orme Dam. While obviously
true, no such arguments accomplish anything toward demonstrating consistency with the
Goldfield Area Plan.
Grayhawk’s lawyer will try to argue that the last sentence of the statute, A.R.S. § 11-
814(A), which mentions how a range of density can satisfy the “conformance” requirement, is all
that the statute requires. But the plain language of the entirety of the statute makes very clear
that the statute’s “consistency” requirements requires much more than satisfaction of a density
range. The statute, A.R.S. § 11-814A, has two explicit requirements for any rezoning: it
requires that any rezoning both “be consistent with and conform to the adopted comprehensive
plan.”
Ordinary language indicates not only that these are two requirements but that they are
different kinds of requirements. “Consistency” is a logical concept, a question of whether
something fits within a logical category, or not. But “conformity” implies a correspondence to
form, which references aspects of physical form such as size, shape and density. So one
difference between the two requirements is that the first requires a logical analysis while the
second requires a physical analysis. A second major difference between these requirements is
that the first requires a simple “yes” or “no” answer while the second involves a range, “more or
less” answer. There is no such thing as of a range of consistency. “Conformity,” however,
permits a range. This fundamental difference between these two statutory requirements is made
evident by the last sentence of the statutory requirement, which clarifies that as distinct from the
consistency requirement, the conformity requirement only requires “land uses, densities or
intensities within the range of identified uses, densities and intensities of the comprehensive
plan.” The statute is explicit that a density number being within an appropriate range can satisfy
the conformity requirement, which permits a range. This explication of the conformity
6
requirement necessarily implies that such conformity alone cannot satisfy the consistency
requirement, obviously because there is no such thing as a “range” of consistency. It either is, or
it isn’t.
By only addressing conformity with the permissible range of density the amended
rezoning application fails even to address, much less demonstrate, consistency with the Goldfield
Area Plan. To demonstrate consistency with the Goldfield Area Plan would require
consideration of all of its eight (8) Elements, its 10 Goals, its 21 Objectives, and its 99 Policies.
It is beyond peradventure that Grayhawk has failed to make that effort, and that its simplistic
conformity with the density range cannot possibly satisfy the statutory requirement of
consistency.
Conclusion. Under State law, Grayhawk’s amended rezoning cannot be approved until it
has been demonstrated to be consistent with the Goldfield Area Plan. Grayhawk has not even
attempted to make that demonstration, and its meagre alleged conformity to a density range
cannot satisfy the statutory consistency requirement, which is expressly additional to the density
range conformance. In the glaring absence of any attempt to demonstrate consistency with the
Goldfield Area Plan, the rezoning application and Narrative do not merit referral to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, even with a recommendation of denial. Planning and Development
should simply deny this application pursuant to Zoning Code § 306.4.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Ms. Wendy Riddell, Esq.
Mr. Tom Ellsworth, Planning and Development
Ms. Jen Pokorski, County Manager
Mr. Darren Gerard, Planning Manager
Mr. Larry Lazarus, Esq.
Mr. Stephen Anderson, Esq.
APPENDIX
7
Examples of Grayhawk’s Inconsistencies with Goldfield Area Plan
R-190 Zoning
Policy L1.1.1: “Encourage densities consistent with the existing Rural-190 zoning
district.” Most obviously the amended rezoning does nothing to “encourage” densities consistent
with R-190, but in fact discourages such densities and actually accomplishes the opposite.
Objective G1.1: “Encourage and support residential development with gross densities
that reflect the existing zoning of the area.” Nothing in the amended rezoning supports or
encourages residential development with densities reflective of the existing zoning. To the
contrary, it contradicts the existing zoning by a factor of 5X.
Integration and Buffers
Goal L1: “Promote efficient land development that is compatible with adjacent land
uses, is well integrated with the transportation system, and is sensitive to the natural
environment.” The amended rezoning that permits one house per acre is not “compatible” with
Goldfield Ranch’s five and ten acre parcels; its roads and traffic burdens are not integrated with
those of Goldfield Ranch, and there is far less sensitivity to the environment.
Policy l1.3.3: “Encourage adequate buffers between land uses to protect adjacent or
affected residents from potentially incompatible uses.” The amended rezoning includes no such
encouragement, and in fact prevents adequate buffers from equestrian uses and five and ten acre
ranches.
Policy G1.1.3: “Promote development that is appropriate given physical constraints such
as topography, roadway constraints, washes, water supply, habitat, subsidence and fissures.”
The amended rezoning Narrative not only does nothing to promote such development consistent
with existing physical constraints but, to the contrary, proposes development that is incompatible
with existing constraints such as lack of renewable water resources and lack of adequate
electrical power, and the lack of any utility easements under the Beeline Highway.
Objective L1.2: “Attain high quality residential development that is sensitive to the
natural environment and compatible with adjacent land uses.” There is nothing “high quality”
about 700 homes on septic tanks, this shows no sensitivity to the natural environment, and is not
compatible with the rest of Goldfield Ranch.
Equestrian Character, Open Space and Natural Environment
Policy L1.3.1: “Encourage land uses that are compatible with the rural residential and
equestrian character of the Goldfield planning area . . . .” The amended rezoning includes no
such encouragement and establishes lot sizes that are incompatible with equestrian uses.
8
Goal L2: “Preserve the scenic, rural, and residential equestrian character of the Goldfield
Planning Area.” The amended rezoning Narrative does nothing of the kind and in fact would
destroy the existing “equestrian character” of Goldfield Ranch.
Policy T1.1.6: “Consider equestrian crossings and access in future roadway
improvement projects.” No such consideration exists.
Objective ED1.1: “Support rural, low-density residential and equestrian oriented
development to retain the qualify of life enjoyed by this area.” The amended rezoning
application contains no such support but, to the contrary, effectively prevents any “equestrian
oriented development.” It does not require either an equestrian or a land planner to recognize
that one-acre single family homes are not supportive of equestrian development.
Policy ED1.1.4: “Support the continuation of low density rural residential and
equestrian-related activities that are compatible with existing uses in the community and that
produce income and/or contribute to the economy through direct and indirect expenditures.”
Nothing in the amended rezoning Narrative supports the continuation of equestrian-related
activities, and certainly not with any income-producing equestrian activities such as breeding or
training, which require more than one-acre single family lots.
Policy E1.1.5. “Encourage under grounding of all utilities.” No such encouragement can
be found in the amended rezoning application.
Transportation and Trails
Goal T1: “Provide an efficient, cost-effective, integrated, accessible, environmentally
sensitive, and safe countywide multi-modal system that . . . promotes transit, bikeways,
equestrian and pedestrian travel.” There is nothing multi-modal about the minimal roads
reflected in the Narrative, and there is nothing about it that promotes bikeways, equestrian or
pedestrian travel.
Policy T1.1.3: “In coordination with MCDOT, explore alternative road standards due to
unique drainage conditions . . . .” The amended rezoning Narrative does not explore alternative
roads standards that would avoid existing drainage problems, but to the contrary expressly
provides that it will utilize the existing roadway easements that have such drainage problems.
Policy T1.1.4: “Support . . . the future paving of main access roads consistent with
adopted County design standards.” The amended rezoning application specifically provides for
its use of Vista del Oro as one of the two required main access roads, even though it is in another
subdivision, with no provision for paving it to MCDOT standards.
Access
Policy T1.1.7: “Encourage adequate access for fire and emergency vehicles for new
development.” No such consideration exists.
9
Policy T1.1.9: When evaluating new residential subdivisions and development master
plans, work with ADOT and MCDOT to help determine if an overpass is necessary or feasible
across State Route 87 (Beeline Highway).” There has apparently been no such work, although
the traffic to be generated by 700 homes will undoubtedly require an overpass at the Burnt Water
access.
Policy T1.1.10: “Evaluate new residential subdivisions and development master plans to
help determine if its own entrance from State Route 87 (Beeline Highway) is necessary or
feasible to help discourage traffic being routed or diverted through surrounding rural areas.” The
amended rezoning Narrative includes no such evaluation, and not only makes such a separate
entrance infeasible but expressly relies on diverting traffic through surrounding rural areas,
specifically Vista Del Oro in Goldfield Ranch Phase 2.
Water Supply and Sewer Systems
Policy E1.2.2: “Support and foster federal, state, and local surface water and groundwater
quality management programs to reduce pollutants in wash/drainage systems and groundwater.
uses.” Nothing about 700 septic tanks supports any management program to reduce pollutants.
More importantly, the subdivision without a Certificate of Assured Water Supply does not
support but in fact violates “state . . . groundwater” management programs.
Objective W1.1: “Encourage protection and enhancement of renewable water and
groundwater supplies within the framework of state and federal laws, regulations, and guidelines
for existing and future needs and that helps achieve safe yield requirements.” The amended
rezoning does nothing to encourage protection or to enhance renewable groundwater supplies.
The amended Narrative, which seeks a subdivision without a Certificate of Assured Water
Supply, is demonstrably not “within the framework” of state law. And the increased mining of
groundwater, by a factor of 5X or more, demonstrably does the opposite of helping to achieve
safe yield.
Policy W1.1.1: “Support Arizona Department of Water Resources programs, rules, and
regulations for new development and for water conservation.” Again, the proposed subdivision
without a Certificate of Assured Water Supply flouts DWR programs, rules and regulations for
new development and for water conservation.
Policy W1.1.4: “To help ensure balanced water supplies, discourage new development
that utilizes more groundwater than is naturally or artificially recharged within the planning area,
or that meets ADWR requirements.” The amended rezoning application actually encourages or
requires, rather than discourages, development that utilizes more groundwater than is recharged.
The natural recharge is minimal, especially when compared to the 713 acre feet per year the
development intends to utilize. The application is contrary to statutory and ADWR requirements
for a Certificate of Assured Water Supply as a precondition to subdivision.
Policy G1.1.1: “Within new Development Master Plan development, require community
water and sanitary sewer systems, and other necessary public services to meet the needs of future
10
residents . . . . “ The rezoning’s reliance on individual septic systems manifestly contradicts this
requirement of a sanitary sewer system.
Fair Contribution to Community Needs
Goal C1: “Ensure that new development pays its fair and proportional share of the cost of
additional public facility and service needs generated by new development.” Nothing in the
amended rezoning Narrative purports to pay any share, much less a fair and proportional share,
of public facility and service needs, such as electrical power, roads, schools, fire protection, or
sheriff’s services.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Anne J. Earley <cayetanodesigns@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 3, 2025 8:54 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Altering the zoning density of Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dear Mr. Schwimmer,
I am writing to express my opposition to changing the zoning density in Goldfield Ranch. I purchased my
five acres four years ago and have plans to build a 2400 Sq ft house as required by the deed restrictions
in place on all of Goldfield Ranch. My efforts to build a house have been fraught with many difficulties
such as my builder stealing $200,000 + from me. He has since lost his contractors license and I have had
to throw out $18,000 house plans for a house I can no longer afford. But I muddle thru with plans for a
less expensive build but a build that meets the requirements of the deed restrictions that I was well
aware of at the time I purchased the property. Maricopa county planning and zoning appears to have
little or no regard for the rules that were put in place when Goldfield Ranch was established. Those of us
who have bought land out there did so with the intention and desire to live in a rural environment and
accept the inconveniences that come along with rural living. Allowing the developers to ignore the long
existing deed restrictions in order for their profit margin to increase dramatically while placing far greater
demands on the electric infrastructure available, the water table and the already dangerous traffic
situation is nothing short of creating a fraud on those of us who bought land with the understanding that
the development would always exist under a 2400 Sq ft site built residence on no less than four
acres. The county has already allowed an individual to place a small modular home on their land in
direct defiance of the deed restrictions indicates that your regard for contractual agreements and the
expectations of property owners is virtually nil. I am not a wealthy person, my future home in Goldfield
will presumably be my last. The county's attitude towards Goldfield homeowners is putting my hopes in
jeopardy. I'm sure that is of little or no importance to you because it seems quite clear, having attended
the last public hearing on this matter, that your interests, for whatever reason, lie with the developers. If
you insist on overriding the deed restrictions in Goldfield in favor of the developers wishes I will do
everything I can to organize a class action suit against Maricopa County and said developers for fraud
and damages. I will do my best to make sure that those in planning and zoning will be named personally
in said suit and I will advocate tirelessly for an investigation into why such a decision was made against
the existing homeowners and the deed restrictions we counted on to protect the rural environment we
paid to live in.
I urge you to decide on behalf of the existing homeowners in Goldfield Ranch and restore some
semblance of confidence in the planning and zoning process where homeowners rights are respected
and preserved.
Sincerely,
Anne J. Earley, (520)471-0996
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Connie Pageler <mypageler@msn.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 3, 2025 9:53 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield expansion
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Sir, just a question or two. How does the Preserve plan on supporting all these new homes with water
and power. I may be wrong but we do live in the desert and our state government has been warning of
water shortage for several years. Also the power source that we have on contract with the tribe expires in
2030 so even those already here may have issues. I'm sure the Preserve has many friends there in the
department I only wish the rest of us had them when we were building. Thanks for your time.
Constance Pageler
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
John Keller <johnkeller740@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 3, 2025 1:35 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Nicholas, we and a number of our neighbors have written to you raising serious concerns with this
proposed rezoning. Will the County respond to our concerns in any way? If not, how do we know if
our concerns have been considered? If the applicant responds to our concerns, will their responses
be sent to us?
If the staff prepares a report for the Board, will that be sent to us or will it be publically available?
Particularly these days, it’s important that citizens feel included in the process and that the process is
transparent.
Thank you
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Mr Ballistic <thebarbellcompound@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 3, 2025 8:40 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch Homeowner's Association (GRHA)
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hey there,
I just wanted to offer my feedback on the Goldfield Ranch Homeowners Association (GRHA)
expansion.
I believe that the expansion will cause issues for the local residents for these reasons:
-possible fire hazards due to all the proposals of 700+ smart meters/solar
-unwanted LED streetlights with cameras
-excessive congestion, light pollution, and noise pollution
-water related issues
Lastly, there are numerous homes for sale in the local area and 700+ more doesn't make sense.
Thanks for your time,
MJ
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 3, 2025 9:13 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Wendy Riddell; Darren Gerard (PND); llazarus@lslawaz.com; Stephen Anderson;
scott@carpenter.law
Subject:
Z240006 Goldhawk Zone Change
Attachments:
SchlimmLtrApril2.doc
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Mr. Schlimm, attached is a letter detailing why Zoning Ordinance 1002.5(3) precludes recommendation for
approval of Z240006 until Grayhawk submits "specific evidence and facts" showing that its proposed
development "will not adversely affect adjacent properties," which it has not done.
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
April 3, 2025
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve, Planning Review
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
which is adjacent to the land currently subject to an amended rezoning application Z240006.
The purpose of this letter is to identify yet another significant failure of the rezoning application
to satisfy the requirements for approval pursuant to Maricopa Zoning Ordinance Article
1002.5(3), in addition to those identified in my letters of March 18 and March 26.
Executive Summary. Maricopa Zoning Ordinance Article 1002.5(3) requires that any
recommendation for approval of a proposed Residential Unit Plan of Development (“RUPD”)
“shall include” “specific evidence and facts showing” that the proposed development “will not
adversely affect adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof.” Grayhawk’s amended
rezoning application and Narrative include no such evidence, and the substantial opposition filed
by residents of those adjacent properties demonstrates that there will in fact be significant
adverse effects. Until the applicant submits “specific facts and evidence” showing there will be
no adverse effects on adjacent properties, the proposed RUPD cannot be recommended for
approval.
Specific Facts and Evidence Show Substantial Adverse Effects on Adjacent
Properties. Even before the rezoning application has been noticed for public hearing the file is
replete with specific facts and evidence submitted by at least 14 adjacent residents that the
proposed RUPD will have substantial adverse effects on adjacent properties and their permitted
uses. The adjacent residents’ objections include evidence of a wide variety of adverse impacts
including exhaustion of limited electrical power, depletion of nonrenewable groundwater,
inadequate fire protection, inadequate access, traffic congestion, unfunded road maintenance
obligations, threat to groundwater sanitation, and burdens on a distant school district. The
extensive and highly detailed Goldfield Area Plan also establishes many of these same facts and
evidence of adverse impacts, and many more, that would be generated by any RUPD that is
based on a zoning more dense than R-190.
2
Grayhawk Submits No Facts or Evidence Showing No Adverse Impacts. Yet the
amended rezoning Narrative includes no such “specific evidence and facts” “showing” that the
RUPD will not have such adverse effects. It relies exclusively on lawyers’ arguments that the
proposed RUPD is somehow better than the previous overlay that applied to much of the same
acreage. But that defunct DMP is not the “adjacent properties and permitted uses” that Zoning
Ordinance § 1002.5(3) requires to be considered. And yet § 1002.5(3) imposes the burden on the
applicant to present “specific evidence and facts” of the lack of any adverse impact on adjacent
properties and uses; it does not impose the burden on neighboring residents to present specific
evidence and facts of adverse impacts, although they have done so.
Promises Are Not Presently Identifiable Facts. The Zoning Ordinance not only
requires “specific evidence and facts” but requires them to be identified and included in the
Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation for approval. This means that a
developer’s promises of future facts cannot satisfy § 1002.5(3). Promises are not existing
identifiable facts. And in any event we now know that developers’ promises and so-called
“stipulations” are unenforceable, see my letter of Nov. 11, 2024.
Legality Does not Establish Lack of Adverse Effects. Most importantly, Zoning
Ordinance § 1002.5(3) requires more than a demonstration that the applicant’s proposed uses are
legal, such as by having a Certificate of Assured Water Supply or roads improved to MCDOT
standards. So in addition to proving that the existing groundwater supply is adequate and its
usage legal, § 1002.5(3) requires the applicant to demonstrate that such use will not adversely
affect adjacent properties such as by increasing their depth to water or the expense of drilling
deeper wells. In addition to all roads being improved to MCDOT standards it requires that
adjacent residents not be imposed on by increased traffic congestion or delays or road
maintenance expenses and obligations.
Objecting Residents Are Not Required to Make the Developer’s Case. In light of all
of the facts and evidence that adjacent residents have already submitted this application cannot
be recommended for approval unless and until the applicant submits, at a minimum, qualified
expert analyses such as: (1) a traffic impact study demonstrating that there will be no traffic
congestion affecting adjacent properties, there will be no additional road maintenance obligations
and expense imposed on adjacent property, and the emergency access will be adequate; (2) a
hydrology study demonstrating there will be no depletion of the aquifer or drawdown of the
depth to water for the private wells located on adjacent properties; (3) demonstration of existing
adequate electrical power to serve both adjacent properties and the development when built out;
and (4) demonstration of existing adequate fire protection for both the development and adjacent
properties.
Even if Grayhawk does submit such facts evidence and expert opinions, it remains
difficult to anticipate how it can demonstrate no adverse impact from the 5X increased density
and deviation from the R-190 zoning standards that the adjacent properties enjoy. The Goldfield
Area Plan already demonstrates that all stakeholders regard any deviation from R-910 zoning to
be a multi-faceted adverse impact on the adjacent land. But the requirement imposed by §
1002.5(3) is that the applicant identify facts and evidence of no such adverse impact, and this
application cannot be recommended for approval until it is somehow satisfied. It is not within
3
the purpose or scope of this letter to make Grayhawk’s case for it, but only to demonstrate how
Grayhawk has not made it.
Conclusion. Grayhawk’s pending application for a new RUPD cannot be recommended
for approval until it submits presently existing facts and evidence that the rest of Goldfield
Ranch will not be adversely affected.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Ms. Wendy Riddell, Esq.
Mr. Darren Gerard, Planning Manager
Mr. Larry Lazarus, Esq.
Mr. Stephen Anderson, Esq.
Mr. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Barry Wilkens <barry.wilkens@asu.edu>
Sent:
Sunday, April 6, 2025 8:28 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
terryjwilkens@gmail.com; Barry Wilkens; Kimberlee Robinson; John Keller; Randy Haines
Subject:
Goldhawk Project CPA 2024004 Z240006
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Dear Nicholas,
I am a neighbor adjacent to the area in question and am writing to express my strong objection to the application
for high density (R43) rezoning of the Goldhawk area development project. Besides all of the valid concerns about
water and electrical power availability as well as traƯic congestion and fire safety issues I would like to specifically
address the feasibility of actually developing the property as proposed while remaining inside of county
requirements for setbacks from hillsides and washes as well as being consistent with the Goldfield Area Plan. The
terrain in Goldfield Ranch is very rough with the general geography being dominated by hillsides and washes.
Finding building footprints consistent with County requirements with R190 lots is already very challenging (as
those of us who have built here understand very well) and going to R43 will be impossible at the density levels in
the overlay proposed by this application. I have read the 1st review comments response and see from comments
3,4 and 5 that you and your staƯ are aware of these issues but I don’t believe that the applicant will be able to
conform to the hillside and wash setback requirements as that state they will. They already seem to be looking for
concessions on setbacks, flag lots etc. By the time roads and utilities have been put in place and construction of
homes are competed it will not be possible to keep the minimum land disturbances anywhere near to the 25%
claimed by the applicant. I hope that you and your staƯ have made site visits to the area to gain a perspective of
the geography issues. This project in no way conforms with the Goldfield Area Plan which requires the preservation
of the desert environment and character of the neighborhood be maintained. The only way to satisfy these
guidelines would be to maintain the current form of development via R190 zoning. I have personally spoken to over
100 neighbors (through the petition campaign) and in my experience there is ZERO support for this project. There
are no benefits to neighbors of this project or the natural environment at all. The only motivation for this project is
financial gain by the developer and investors which is a very poor motive.
Thank you,
Barry Wilkens
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
jim mcneil <jlmau2010@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 10, 2025 11:08 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Case number--Z240006 or CPA2024004---GoldHawk
Attachments:
JM-preserve-doc 2 - Copy.docx
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Good Day Nicholas,
I am submitting my opinions and comments for GoldHawk--
Thank You
Jim McNeil
21511 E Northwood Pass
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Jim McNeil
21511 E Northwood Pass
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
JLMAU2010@yahoo.com
April 10, 2025
Nicholas Schlimm
Planning
Maricopa County
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear Nicholas Schlimm,
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed Development in Goldfield Ranch
known as (The Preserve).
I am wriƟng to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre parcel in the Goldfield
Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one single-family home per five acres
to one home per acre, along with the addiƟon of high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course, raises
significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic issues. The development poses a severe threat to the local
ecosystem, water resources, community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region. This leter outlines the
negaƟve impacts this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem, parƟcularly considering the
ongoing and possible future drought condiƟons and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a 35-year period of water
scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought has already significantly
affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural, residenƟal, and environmental needs.
The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-intensive ameniƟes such as a golf course, will only
exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are criƟcally low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitaƟon. The increased
demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the aquifers, which are the primary
sources of water for local communiƟes and ecosystems. As a result, this could lead to the drying up of wells, reduced
water availability for exisƟng residents, and the deterioraƟon of local water quality due to increased groundwater
pumping. Moreover, any reducƟon in groundwater levels could have long-lasƟng effects on the desert's natural
vegetaƟon, which is already under stress from drought condiƟons, thereby altering the landscape and ecological balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this development proceeds, it
could lead to further depleƟon of the aquifers, potenƟally requiring exisƟng homeowners to drill new wells beyond 1,000
feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibiƟve, which could render surrounding properƟes virtually worthless due to
the financial burden of accessing water. Given the decades that have passed since the original zoning approval—long
before the current drought condiƟons—it is crucial to conduct new, independent water surveys to assess the current
situaƟon and potenƟal impact of increased water usage.
Several of the current residents in the Goldfield are very concerned about our water wells and not to have a similar
concern as North Scotsdale recently experienced. I and other never desire top haul water and our resources needs to be
research and evaluated.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid condiƟons and rely on specific ecological condiƟons to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
condiƟons by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
polluƟon, and the introducƟon of invasive species.
ParƟcularly at risk are the local wildlife populaƟons, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in
biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns about the disposal of
wastewater. The addiƟon of over 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses, and a golf course will generate
substanƟal amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure, could contaminate local groundwater supplies.
This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of the region and the well-being of its residents.
AddiƟonally, the increased populaƟon density will place a considerable strain on the local highway infrastructure. The
exisƟng two-lane highway in each direcƟon is inadequate for the anƟcipated traffic influx. Approving this proposal would
necessitate construcƟng acceleraƟon and deceleraƟon lanes and likely expanding the highway to three to four lanes in
each direcƟon along with the necessary stop lights at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the Verde River
may need to be rebuilt to handle increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both direcƟons, exacerbaƟng the negaƟve
impact on the surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potenƟal influx of students resulƟng from
this development. This could necessitate the construcƟon of new schools, a burden that should fall on the developer,
given the strain the development will place on exisƟng educaƟonal infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services infrastructure to support
such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which does
not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from this development. Building new fire staƟons and emergency
services faciliƟes will be necessary to ensure community safety.
Furthermore, the development's addiƟonal infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads, bridges, and public services,
could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potenƟal tax increase would place an undue financial burden on all
residents, especially those who are reƟred and living on fixed incomes. Higher property taxes to fund the necessary
infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would be parƟcularly challenging for these residents,
potenƟally forcing them out of their homes due to rising costs.
5. Environmental and Legal ConsideraƟons.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid condiƟons and rely on specific ecological condiƟons to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
condiƟons by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
polluƟon, and the introducƟon of invasive species.
ParƟcularly at risk are the local wildlife populaƟons, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in
biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago, necessitate thorough
reconsideraƟon considering current environmental condiƟons and regulaƟons. Given the significant changes in water
availability and ecological condiƟons since the original proposal, new environmental impact studies should be conducted
to ensure compliance with state and federal environmental laws, including the NaƟonal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area that encompasses the Salt
River, Verde River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
6. Electrical Power. So far SRP and Fort McDowell have not given permission to upgrade the 12 kV power line that
crosses the reservaƟon we have here that is meant to support about 300 homes total (we have around 140 currently).
The tribe is not in favor of this project either as it will sit on their boundary as well.
7. The land in this region is choppy with hills and many washes. To have any type of dwelling on one or two acres is
difficult. The areas of drainage and sepƟc locaƟons are a concern as the building sites would be difficult in many areas
due to the restricƟon of surface space or inadequate soil permeability.
8. Law enforcement is provided by Maricopa County sheriff office and would slightly impact their services as well. Fort
McDowell has no jurisdicƟon in this same area as well.
9. Fire protecƟon and services would also be impacted as well. This proposal is too dense for the current environment
and road usage would greatly be impacted as the is no designated road for access to the development unless using
exisƟng roads that are owned by the residents of Goldfield Ranch—not the county of Maricopa.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potenƟally irreversible impacts on water resources, local infrastructure, the environment,
and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authoriƟes to reconsider the proposed
development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is crucial to prioriƟze sustainable development
pracƟces that respect the unique and fragile environment of the Sonoran Desert and consider the economic and social
impact on the community, especially those most vulnerable.
Thank you for your atenƟon to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideraƟon will be given to protecƟng our natural
environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Sincerely,
Jim McNeil
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
April 11, 2025
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk at the Preserve
Dear Mr. Schlimm
We are having real concerns about the process of this rezoning. We and a number of
other Goldfield Ranch owners have written raising serious deficiencies with this application.
My wife and I wrote you recently about several issues including the inability of the road system
in Goldfield to handle the traffic which will be generated from the proposed project. Our
concerns arise from the fact that we have not received any response from either the applicant
or the County. We have no confidence that our and other issues raised have been considered
in the review of this project. If the applicant or the County believe there are valid answers to
the issues raised, we are entitled to hear what the proposed answers are, so we may vet them
and offer our opinions as to whether the answers are responsive and/or valid.
It appears the applicant has the opportunity to see the issues raised by the neighbors
but the neighbors have no opportunity to see the responses of the applicant. There are people
who are highly skeptical about the rezoning process and question whether the money and
political connections of applicants make opposition – even if reasonable and valid – a waste of
time.
If the applicant has proposed answers to the issues raised, please provide those answers
for review by our community. If the applicant has not provided answers, then a decision
turning down this application should be exceedingly easy.
Thank you
John Keller
14628 N. Vista Del Oro
Fort McDowell, Az 85264
Johnkeller740@gmail.com
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Glenn Shomperlen <glenn19550@gmail.com>
Sent:
Saturday, April 12, 2025 1:01 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND); Glenn Shomperlen
Subject:
Goldhawk at the Preserve Case# Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dear Mr. Schlimm -
I own property in Goldfield Ranch, parcel 219-16-032K. I am opposed
to the proposed zoning changes for the property owned by Goldhawk at
the preserve for the following reasons.
Adding 750 homes will increase traffic significantly and add wear and
tear to our roads - which we paid for. Is the county going to take
them over and pay for repairs and repaving?
It will change the character of our neighborhood from rural to urban.
I moved out here to get away from the hustle and bustle of the city.
From what I understand, all water from this development will come from
wells. that concerns me. It will put a big strain on our water
supply. Will our wells run dry? Will we face the same problems as
the homeowners near Rio Verde? That is a nightmare I don't want to
deal with - and shouldn't have to.
Another question is, where will the power come from? I don't think we
have the infrastructure to support 750+ new homes.
I have been to the proposed site many times over the years and I
question how they can comply with the hillside ordinance requirements.
There are many washes and the terrain is rolling hills. Are they
going to bring in bulldozers and level the area? What will that do
for flood control, or lack there of? Nothing good I'm sure. I am
glad I am upstream from this proposed development.
Please leave things the way they are. The areas zoned for rural 190
in Maricopa County are almost gone. Let this one remain.
Regards,
Glenn W. Shomperlen
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Connie Pageler <mypageler@msn.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 5:06 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield ranch( Goldhawk at the Preserve)
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Sir
My concerns as a property owner in Phase 5 Goldfield ranch are water availabilty and power service.
Living in The desert where for years the government has said we are running out of water puts a huge
strain on our supply. Also with only 1 power source into our area and with our contract with the
reservation expiring in 2030 i see that as a huge concern. Not to mention traffic and the cost to us
property owners to keep them drivable. I am totally against this plan as many of us are. It should not be
Who you know that pushes this through the county but what is right for those who chose to live here
under the original rules of parcel size and development.
Thank you
Constance Pageler
22997 E Laurel Lane
Fort McDowell az
Parcels 219-16-116F
219-16-114E
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Zukowski <zuksaz@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 9:14 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk project OPPOSITION
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Edward and Christine Zukowski of 21859 E. Thirsty Earth Trail, Fort McDowell, parcel number 219-
06-051B are opposed to the development by Goldhawk. We feel that the traffic, water and electricity
issues have not been addressed in a way that benefits the entire community.
Thank you.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kenji Kingsford <kenji.kingsford@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 9:12 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Gold Hawk Project near Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
I am very much opposed to this project.
Way too many issues.
Water!!
Zoning : Tonto Forest is too close for any lots smaller than 5 Ac. Minimum!
Goldfield Ranch, Most lots near are over 10 Ac. Up to 40 AC!!
Please do not allow this project to threaten our Tonto National Forest.
Thank you,
Kenji Kingsford
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Phil lund <pclund36@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:04 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND); PND PZAppeal
Subject:
Casey #: Z240006 Goldhawk at the preserve
Dear Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission BOS and Nicholas Schlimm,
We received a noƟce that our property is located within 300 feet of the proposed Goldhawk development project, Case
#: Z240006. Our parcel number is: APN 219-16-066J.
We strongly OPPOSE the Goldhawk at the Preserve project, Case. #: Z2440006.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Philip and Lori Lund
21721 E Northwood Pass
Fort McDowell, AZ. 85264
APN 219-16-066J
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 4:37 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Wendy Riddell; Darren Gerard (PND); llazarus@lslawaz.com; Stephen Anderson;
scott@carpenter.law; Benjamin Timm
Subject:
Z240006 Goldhawk Preserve rezoning
Attachments:
SchlimmLtrApril15WAttachments.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Mr. Schlimm, I hope you're enjoying a happy tax day. And I can appreciate that you must be hard at work
preparing a staff report for the day we remember Paul Revere's Ride. Here is another contribution to your
effort.
Attached is a letter specifically addressing why the applicants for the rezoning in Z240006 cannot demonstrate
that they have, or have a concrete plan for, adequate electrical power to serve their proposed
development. Without that, they cannot satisfy the requirements for approval of their proposed RUPD under
Zoning Ordinance 1002.5(3), and that failure cannot be covered up by any so-called zoning conditions and
stipulations.
Randy Haines
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
April 15, 2025
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve, Planning Review
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
which is adjacent to the land currently subject to an amended rezoning application Z240006.
The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate how the applicant has admitted that there is
insufficient electrical power for its proposed development and the applicant has no plan or ability
to obtain it.
Executive Summary. The owner of 96% of the land subject to the rezoning request is in
current violation of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, and the County issued notice of that
default over six years ago. The continuing violation is that the applicant fails to produce written
reports of the status of its plan (if any) to provide sufficient electrical power or any other
required entitlements, licenses, permits and compliance with the existing land use plan. These
violations are an effective legal admission that the applicant cannot demonstrate that SRP “has
the physical and legal capability to serve electricy to the entire site contemplated,” or has any
realistic plan to accomplish that.
Specific Facts and Evidence Of Zoning Code Violation. Goldfield Ranch Realty
Holdings (“GRRH”) is the hedge fund that foreclosed on the Preserve in 2008, and remains
today the owner of 96% of the land included in the pending rezoning application, Z240006. In
2012 GRRH filed zoning case Z2012090, seeking a five-year extension of the many deadlines
and stipulations of the rezoning that had been obtained by its defaulted borrower, Ellman
Companies, in Z2007150. To obtain that modification to the rezoning stipulations, GRRH
agreed to 38 stipulations reflected in the Board of Supervisors Minutes of April 24, 2013.
By Stipulation “h” GRRH agreed to “submit a written report every five years” “which
details the status of this project.” Simultaneously GRRH agreed to Stipulation “c” of
DMP2012004 which clarified that the “status of this project” shall “include[e] progress on
obtaining necessary entitlements, licenses, and permits, compliance with the conditions of
2
approval, compliance with the approved narrative report [and] compliance with the approved
land use plan.”
One of the conditions of approval required that GRRH “shall provide written
documentation from Salt River Project (SRP) stating that SRP has the physical and legal
capability to serve electricity to the entire site contemplated by the Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
Development Mater Plan.” Stipulation “i”.
GRRH failed to file any such detailed status report by the first deadline of April 23, 2018.
The Director of Planning and Development Jennifer Pokorski issued a default notice on March
21, 2019, a copy of which is attached hereto. That default notice required the report to be filed
by May 30, 2019. No such report was filed, nor did GRRH or its lawyer provide any excuse for
the violation. Stipulation “u” of Z2012090 provides that “Noncompliance with the conditions of
approval will be treated as a violation in accordance with the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.”
GRRH has also failed to file the detailed status report that was required to be filed by
April 23, 2023.
I reported these Zoning Code violations through the County’s online form submittal on
October 2, 2024, a copy of which is attached. The record contains no evidence that the County
has taken any action to enforce this continuing zoning code violation. The staff report to the
Planning and Zoning Commission filed on Nov. 7, 2024, in connection with CPA2024004 does
not even mention that the applicant is in current violation of the Zoning Ordinance, or that the
now-County Manager has issued a default notice to that effect.1
Applicant’s Defaults Prove It Cannot Demonstrate Any Plan to Obtain Adequate
Electrical Power.
It’s basic common sense that if you’re not telling me something you should, it’s because
you have something to hide. Keeping that secrecy must be very important to GRRH, because it’s
more important to GRRH than complying with the Zoning Ordinance or performing its simple
obligations.
Nor has GRRH provided any lame excuse for its nondisclosure, such as the common
excuses of “I forgot” or “I didn’t think it was important.” It may now recognize that all such
excuses would lack any credibility after it failed to respond to the County Manager’s default
notice of March 21, 2019.
And this is not the ordinary sharp businessman’s nondisclosure of the kind underlying the
concept of caveat emptor. This nondisclosure is an express violation of law, after service of an
1 It is possible that the author of that report was unaware of the County Manager’s default notice of March 21, 2019,
or of the continuing Zoning Ordinance violation. If so, this suggests Planning and Development should also
investigate the accuracy and security of its own records, and whether there has been some corruption of the
computer system or the human variety. For the April 24 hearing, however, the balance of this letter demonstrates
why that default notice and the continuing Zoning Ordinance violation must have a central role in the staff report
and recommendation, because those facts could be determinative.
3
express default notice. In such a legal context even nonlawyers understand that if you fail to file
an answer after service of a complaint, default judgment is the almost certain result. GRRH and
its lawyer (to whom the default notice was addressed) must know that the ordinary result from
their failure to respond to the County’s default notice would be an effective default judgment
finding that the applicant cannot demonstrate that SRP now has, or someday will have, “the
physical and legal capability to serve electricity to the entire site contemplated.” In the mind of
GRRH, it’s better to run the risk of such a default judgment than to disclose the information it
has kept secret for seven years. That must be pretty damning information.
Indeed, most landowners probably understand that the most likely consequence of their
violation of the Zoning Ordinance is the County’s denial of any other requested permits. This
remedy is expressly mandated by Zoning Ordinance § 1504.1 when a proposed “alteration,
maintenance or use does not fully conform to any Ordinance, regulation, or provision enacted or
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.” This provision and understanding is probably sufficient
to authorize simple denial of GRRH’s proposed rezoning.2
But when a legal violation is a failure to disclose required information, there is a much
less draconian common sense remedy, the “adverse inference.” This remedy is frequently
employed by both civil and criminal courts when a party has intentionally failed to maintain and
produce evidence that it was required to maintain and produce – draw the adverse inference that
the hidden evidence must be adverse to the party hiding it.3 This is not just a technical legal rule
known only to lawyers; it’s just common sense: If there is something you’re not telling me, it
must be detrimental to you.
2 We have heard no explanation for the County’s failure to enforce its own Zoning Ordinance and Stipulations. The
County Attorney apparently advised that the County could not enforce its stipulations through one remedy
specifically mentioned in the stipulations themselves – reversion of the zoning to R-190. But that is no explanation
for why no other enforcement mechanisms have been employed. For example, nothing in the County Attorney’s
opinion would preclude an investigation, hearing, and imposition of civil and criminal penalties. This was clarified
by the County Attorney’s explanation at the Board of Supervisors’ hearing on CPA2024004 and my letter of
November 11, 2024. Similarly, nothing in the County Attorney’s opinion would prevent Planning and Development
from denying a requested rezoning because of continuing violation of the Zoning Ordinance and express stipulations
and conditions.
3 See, e.g., “Under Arizona law, a trial court has discretion to impose sanctions when a party destroys potentially
relevant evidence, Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., 191 Ariz. 247, 249-50, 955 P.2d 3, 5-6 (App.1997),
including instructing the jury that it may infer that destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to the position
of the offending party.” Saban v. Maricopa County, 2010 WL 2977553 (App. Div.1 July 29, 2010);
“Although plaintiff does not dispute her duty to preserve relevant evidence, she maintains the extreme
sanction of dismissal is warranted only in cases of intentional destruction of evidence (spoliation). . . . “Destruction
of potentially relevant evidence obviously occurs along a continuum of fault—ranging from innocence through the
degrees of negligence to intentionality. The resulting penalties vary correspondingly.” Souza v. Fred Carries
Contracts, Inc., 191 Ariz. 247, 955 P.2d 3 (App. Div. 2 1997);
“When police negligently fail to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, [a Willits instruction] permits
the jury to infer that the evidence would have been exculpatory.” State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, 503 ¶ 62
(1999);
“When the state destroys material evidence, the contents or quality of which are at issue in trial, the jury
may infer that the facts are against the state's interest.” State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 33, 906 P.2d 542, 566 (1995).
4
Here, the adverse inference remedy means that the County must conclude that the reports
GRRH has failed to file would demonstrate that SRP does not have the physical and legal
capacity to serve electricity to the contemplated development, or any concrete plan to obtain it.
And an obvious corollary to the adverse inference rule is that the offending party be precluded
from presenting any evidence to the contrary. Having intentionally violated the law by failing to
produce required information, the defalcator cannot be rewarded by selectively submitting
evidence it deems favorable while concealing detrimental evidence.
The only common objection to adverse inference is that the failure to produce the
evidence was unintentional, or that this missing evidence would have had no bearing on the
defalcator’s liability. Here, there can be no such objection. The failure to produce the status
reports for seven years is manifestly intentional, especially after the County’s very specific
default notice of March 21, 2019. And after that notice, the nondisclosure was incontrovertibly
intentional when a second respect became due on April 23, 2023. There can be no debate about
the significance of the evidence that GRRH has withheld because without adequate electrical
power, or even a plan to obtain it, Planning and Development could not possibly approve a
rezoning to allow one house per acre on 1,940 acres.
The County Cannot Rely on Stipulations or Conditions to Justify the Rezoning.
Regardless of whether the County employs the adverse inference rule as a minimal remedy for
the applicant’s current zoning violation, both the continuing violation and the County’s own
failure to enforce it prove that no similar stipulations or conditions can be utilized to justify the
requested rezoning.
Without any kind of enforcement, such stipulations and conditions are meaningless
lawyer’s words.4 And this particular rezoning applicant well knows that, having acted with
impunity and apparent immunity for over a decade. This applicant knows that it can promise
anything necessary to get what it wants today, because there is no consequence for its failure to
perform in the future, as agreed.
This is especially true because this particular defiance and defalcation involves probably
the simplest and cheapest stipulation to perform, simply to file a couple of reports. An applicant
who defies such a simple obligation cannot be reasonably expected to perform far more difficult
and expensive conditions and stipulations such as building roads, installing a legal water system,
or providing fire protection. And without them, the County inherits another unregulated high
density wildcat development and a Rio Verde-type disaster.
More specifically, Maricopa Zoning Ordinance Article 1002.5(3) requires very “specific
evidence and facts showing” that the proposed RUPD “will not adversely affect adjacent
4 The meaninglessness of the lawyer’s words is also demonstrated by the response to Planning and Developments
September 17, 2024, requirements for this rezoning request. Planning and Development required an answer to its
question “Will the existing 12kV transmission line be sufficient to accommodate the planned number of dwelling
units and residents?” ¶ 10(b). The applicant’s sole response: “The Site is within the SRP service area who has an
existing 12kv line and easement to the Site. The developer has been regularly engaging in discussions with SRP.”
Amended Narrative ¶ I. That evasive nonanswer also justifies and requires the adverse inference that “No, the
existing 12kV transmission line is Not adequate to accommodate the planned number of dwelling units and
residents.”
5
properties or the permitted uses thereof.” Such “evidence and facts” must exist at the time of and
be included within the P&Z recommjendation. The legal requirement for such “specific facts
and evidence” cannot be satisfied by mere unenforceable promises that the applicant will do
something different in the future, especially not from this applicant who has already proven it
will ignore them. Such facts and evidence of a lack of adverse effect on adjacent properties must
exist today, on the ground and in reality, not in the applicant’s fantasies. The facts and evidence
existant today are that the proposed development would quickly exhaust the electrical power
legally and physically available to all of Goldfield Ranch. A greater “adverse effect” is hard to
imagine. Unlike water, electricity cannot even be supplied by trucks.
Conclusion. In light of the rezoning applicant’s intentional failure and refusal, for more
than seven years, to report the details of its attempt to obtain assurance of adequate electrical
power from SRP, the only possible inference is that the applicant cannot do so, and that the
electrical power is neither legally available nor physically available today. Having hidden the
evidence and violated the Zoning Ordinance for more than seven years, the applicant must be
precluded from submitting any evidence, or making any argument, that such power is now or
ever will be adequate and available. And at least for this repeat offender, no similar stipulations
or conditions can be used to justify the proposed rezoning and development.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Ms. Wendy Riddell, Esq.
Mr. Darren Gerard, Planning Manager
Mr. Larry Lazarus, Esq.
Mr. Stephen Anderson, Esq.
Mr. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
!"#"! $%!& ( !"#"! $%!&)
*
+ , -./0/0.01 2345 67
8
9, :9" $ %!& ( 9, :9" $ %!&)
;<=>?@ B C>D< EF>GB@F>H
EF>GB@>? IHJ>?KB@F>H
EF>GB@F>H LDD?<MM >? NB?O<G
PQKR<?
L==?>SFKB@<GT UVWXY BO?<M FH NZBM< [V NZBM< \ BHD NZBM< ] >J
@Z< ^>GDJF<GD ;BHOZ =GB@ G>OB@<D B==?>SFKB@<GT JF_< KFG<M <BM@
>J @Z< FH@<?M<O@F>H >J `Z<B a>QG<_B?D BHD `@B@< ;>Q@< bX
O>HMFM@FHc >J LMM<MM>?dM NB?O<GM UeYfegfWg\V fWgX @Z?>QcZ
fWXUV fWX] @Z?>QcZ fWY[V fWY\LV fWY]V fWYgV fWYXLV fWYb
@Z?>QcZ feeeV feeULV fee\CV feeghV feeX BHD feebi
EF>GB@F>H h<MO?F=@F>H
ei ^>GDJF<GD ;BHOZ ;<BG@T j>GDFHcM FM FH _F>GB@F>H >J C>HDF@F>H
kOd
>J hlNUWeUWW\ BHD >J C>HDF@F>H kZd
>J mUWeUWYW RT JBFGFHc
@> JFG<V RT @Z< D<BDGFH< >J L=?FG U[V UWebV B n?F@@<H ?<=>?@ nZFOZ
D<@BFGM oBp @Z< M@B@QM >J @ZFM =?>q<O@V oRp =?>c?<MM >H >R@BFHFHc
H<O<MMB?T <H@F@G<K<H@MV GFO<HM<MV BHD =<?KF@MV oOp O>K=GFBHO<
nF@Z @Z< B==?>_<D GBHD QM< =GBHV BHD oDp qQM@FJFOB@F>H BM @> Z>n
@Z< B==?>_<D GBHD QM< =GBH M@FGG ?<=?<M<H@M B==?>=?FB@< GBHD
QM< =GBHHFHc J>? @Z< =?>=<?@T BHD QHFHO>?=>?B@<D lB?FO>=B
C>QH@T FH BOO>?DBHO< nF@Z @Z< c>BGM BHD =>GFOF<M FH F@M
O>K=?<Z<HMF_< BHD B==GFOBRG< B?<B =GBHi
C>HDF@F>H kQd
>J mUWeUWYW =?>_FD<M @ZB@ rH>HO>K=GFBHO< nF@Z
@Z< O>HDF@F>HM >J B==?>_BG nFGG R< @?<B@<D BM B _F>GB@F>H FH
BOO>?DBHO< nF@Z @Z< lB?FO>=B C>QH@T m>HFHc s?DFHBHO<it
^>GDJF<GD ;BHOZ ;<BG@T j>GDFHcM nBM M<?_<D H>@FO< >J @Z<M<
D<JBQG@M RT G<@@<? DB@<D lB?OZ UeV UWeYV J?>K @Z< NGBHHFHc BHD
h<_<G>=K<H@ hF?<O@>? u<HHFJ<? N>v>?MvFi
Ui ^>GDJF<GD ;BHOZ ;<BG@T j>GDFHcM FM FH _F>GB@F>H >J C>HDF@F>H kFd
>J mUWeUWYW nZFOZ ?<wQF?<D @ZB@ rN?F>? @> B==?>_BG >J BHT xFHBG
NGB@ oG>@@FHcp @Z< D<_<G>=<? MZBGG =?>_FD< n?F@@<H D>OQK<H@B@F>H
J?>K `BG@ ;F_<? N?>q<O@ o`;Np M@B@FHc @ZB@ `;N ZBM @Z< =ZTMFOBG
BHD G<cBG OB=BRFGF@T @> M<?_< <G<O@?FOF@T @> @Z< <H@F?< MF@<
O>H@<K=GB@<D RT @Z< N?<M<?_< B@ ^>GDJF<GD ;BHOZ h<_<G>=K<H@
lBM@<? NGBHit LG@Z>QcZ ^>GDJF<GD ;BHOZ ;<BG@T j>GDFHcM ZBM
H>@ >R@BFH<D B==?>_BG >J BHT xFHBG NGB@V C>HDF@F>H kZd
<M@BRGFMZ<D @Z< D<BDGFH< J>? D>FHc M> nBM L=?FG U[V UWebV nZFOZ
@Z<?<RT BGM> <M@BRGFMZ<D @Z< D<BDGFH< J>? MQRKF@@FHc @Z< n?F@@<H
!
" !
#$ %&'
(
)
* +
, !-./ +
'0 #$
1 2 , +
3-4
*+ 0 *" 0 + #
!-./ 12& +
" $' #$ 12 3-4
!5 +
& *" -4,6 0
7 8
7 9
: 2
7 9
;/4! ./! /3/
7 <
=,
<
) >
( 45< 4/- "
"
? @
< " 4'/3. ' 5 A
1 ' < & 4-.!-;!/;5' !/;3
!/34' !/3A !/. ' !/.5<' !/.A' !/.;' !/.3<'
!/.B !---' !--4<' !--5 ' !--;@' !--3 !--B
> 9
1 2 ' ??
< 9
< & 4-.!-;!/;5' !/;3 !/34' !/3A
!/. ' !/.5<' !/.A' !/.;' !/.3<' !/.B !---'
!--4<' !--5 ' !--;@' !--3 !--B
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Jamison (US), Terry J <terry.j.jamison@boeing.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 7:57 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to the GOLDHAWK development
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
I want to formerly declare my opposition to the GOLDHAWK development project.
My name is Terry Jamison and I own two properties in Gold Field Ranch currently.
My home is 12824 N Meridian Road, Fort McDowel, AZ 85264. Parcel # 219-16-022R
I also own the lot at 13711 N Blue Coyote Road, Fort McDowel, AZ 85264. Parcel # 219-16-022S
Terry (TJ) Jamison
Director
Attack Helicopter Programs Vertical Lift
Business Development
Phone: 480-891-0427 (Mesa,AZ)
Boeing Mobile: 480-232-2981
Personal Mobile: 253-651-9377
,F----.,
The undersiSn(lgsyterpD Gotdfietd Ranch oppose the proposed Gol,dhawk
deveLopment for primaril.y the fol.Lowing 3 reasons:
1. This project wil,t irreparabty atter the character of this community.
2. The inf rastructure and services necessary to support the proposed Gol,dhawk
devetopment do not exist; and
3. The existing road system in Gol.dfiel,d Ranch upon which the proposed Gotdhawk
development reties cannot support the massivety increased usage and construction
traffic which woutd be generated by GoLdhawk.
js
7u Q4BvrN
Zz
-1 5 7 Z. FLE4giatrT fieuJ1
frgr //l aPorttPtr-, A z ? sa 6+
/2"J* ?ol', &o*''
2 Z" 5 ? €?/ < "-sn bt/ 1'/t e ''s
-k
no+ Ifi(?ou.t! Az- 8s2Q+
)"*J a,Q"^,-#
r5A u ,a k hcoots r.t
l-&ctt { e- PterAs.* N'T_ t// E-^)
fupr WDo-ryt, k* Xr>t tP
[';u{'brff Ef|c'h tft,sl'fq
Zzt frrf 'h P/eerch r l/,r",,t
H.tVc2owe// ,44-$rffi
//"u/6e
H ctrhrt' 16o leo,
?
a
'4,,1,, llil,,
3ha'
nll
ft { \l0r
LLnatr e-V\u\il Dr-
{al ff1.D0 ,'tul fti- S s z'"1
\
g,;Alhr
T K r u,r/ '{, [4e t
7zVar}, c, K,(trL Dr-
tr"rl lt/. Duur.// ,t, 7fz/-q
E*-.*&)--
A4* 4'*,ttg r\ftt rzd
Zkao:' f r#trc 5<
trc4f h<\c,wLz. ,r}2 S{ZC/
e.r/r,-'* tu-u
/ayhato I Dr-*ke
2)_efog t. Kc-/, / Dr
ir. AAc- r m u:r. /(
172 g (tc-y'
1
I
fr^"rDa.s
'fonnes' lern;5'
ZzloL f- Ka(,{ Dr.
Ft Mt.Dor,tetl , /z tS-2t"7
f4rcilror-r- i " |t111tt+
:LLqO:t F- Kht-r; D\
Ft. \t'^ "Du.rt . 4e (q zQLi
[),,nno (o,,n*, saffi tF lacn- 0&'
Ff 'rvLA*I *z gS>GL1
K; D,//,*
(r;s li,llians
aa806 E KnL'/ Ar
FI rneAor^rp/l Az ?+at
.99,b' /
4\toQDrn---
Lee:a Ntt\Sc^
lZ?d-, 8,, Orter brale
Fov\ finctYr,.lttt Nz BSztPc+
7J,-WJ,;d
l-.rn,i &,?ilArcas
ll&Oa 4*/ Surnlref*f qt* g1O
"
4rl WaDowr.itt t\t- Ksaa1
,4/
l.J/,"
vl^-^^,- t {-(-.,1 v,---\ 4 ,, n a lv(c s,n*v'
? / ti 4 / E No i, '#-2 v,,, e gd,Tr *5
77, l"( c. )l p ,, o/ ,{ }p E-ri(
ffi","{,p** fot*f 14essw'r
- ,/f *'
effi,q& '(;n h,o**
Z&ra {//nnnbnVAr'
fv ,/llDr'u'.- Az 46=Lr
hiAn"
/-; nJ Aoo.Q
i Z+(t P Si.l lr4qa5 fr f
4t ftr.{oey r( ftzgsl
%f,*,
J
N/r* e'Pt*
f zol, t 4/. 6tt*ur"'*-/ nir
FL,P-fu.*t't R .
V
nA0%
G,+- \1qLIc
zs*zz-,7 g c*kgp* O,:
f"-+ H-A*t(t+Z tru(f
Wdvr.Kwll
Atrson KatrI
A7ba1 e - ;uvlspLrr Dr '
hq tr4c )uuu{ U , kL t 5z{/..l
,ffi,M
t33^N,Vd+a Wl a(o
Fo'1 tT\cPi,nil AHt'l
Deboyatt t
- til r-,,; ti - njr),'l tJte l(
77t/z'f'r
flqUl flnt1P tot
lclA,t M, V:,rt1 g i.t oQ:t
;i- o1c lir qt ct t t ts'dt ,i
Y
@
De4nN St"cYj,tlL
133A3 $. G,lAt\iel
Y,*{Yle.Dro,/_il AZ.
NfrpeApd&,1
t;t /07 ,L,ryzt#ue-
Et D-:_ n")a A.l o P//
JU "\ rrJ h ouu ?"toX 8,.4o'*wf ,P4
\\ ;,1 -;
Wlzb }t: Fg^AouflVrl.{\
fr\foljl,hllo,,e[\ .Ae Ra
E',> 6 (*;l'**V'
rvt4) t AJ" V"i,j l''t.rtr ftq
pu., Y ht fi,,u. ".il . Az KSz g
'icA,ael Poor',
ttl7l/ /11 {l (arr,rt2 Don
For t F). Dn,,-te/l /t Z *il{tt
turoltryfra&w>
trr I t'c -p af
"{, fl?a'l\p*.-//, frz &
D, L,D u'[7ur^
J.
/a1
E,l (arrtiW'
laA+tu
t4Zo7 N.€1
Le,r7rn
MrcrrntrL 6ln.J
&r'io8 F -r4iftty csl4..ft\ i-a
f
M*bo'\r'rdr ( AZ tif
5n' 6n*o'
A,l 7o& 2-Vt;rst'7.€e#
,e/ / ,42 '9gete
/
f,*--
-/
c1 b
tf
-F
/rt,
Tlrr: utldersigned residerrts of Goldfietd Ranch opposCI the proposerJ Gotdhavrk
dev*loprrr*rrt tor pr irrrnrily tlre lotlowing 3 reasons;
1. This prolcct witt irre parabty atter the character of this community.
?. The infrastructure and servlces necessary to support the proposed Gotdhaurk
development do not exi$t; and
3. Tlre existing road system in Gotdfietd Ranch upon which the proposed Goldhawk
devetopment reties cannot support the massivety increased usage and construction
traffic which woutd be generated by Gotdhawk.
* Uuetf &*f'' v*e
T 4a &qry:tL_{3**
'4(r?frfa€-L c
:
AruQ
/ V.b $* N ,^Ut,s'{e,-'
tf -
'#
II
I
j
l
I
Z"z f* 7 t* {:s t, r* f /t: n
tst < n,r- f'.},'rll"(', r {cf rt"tr
hrh,f I fu,rn fir,l
tqwT el &nil#, *lJ W,i
:t1+\ €',
.u**\/,*
(r-)
i
I
ft1{-r1 ttotbD
2Vz'74 c P {e*t"v'
h-\ all+ Ko ( lr-*:
"?'L*7 Z'i .t . Q r cx'+-v'
D,vrr rt:('!'L,.rx,J) l/?f / f ruafr{tu,t,uf ,/il s S
,l
Q t -is i t, tll,tri u,az"/ D'e'.
,{
lll
I
i L- frr\'r( };iq (-. € ?( ,'r gi.^
)">r.q{ ,fl )\r*so.t
t
'.{/tv \
7N{
il/
{"J
.,\i
\
U r{--:
l2/4lp /r J< ,'ki"-a.
'ffiry**r w
-Btc*r {3**,
fi4&'P"&-'& er4*rc
.'4
o -)
t"varCrfnfn z,
{}f te ni"s icn t'o/*k Trt'
fJ'tai-f,
b ftwt*ers ,o
S i 8,t{
^l
,/3,;?tn'p^tgV{.e ,{b
J "rt),\frT
*f;eAD*
tt {f tg t}.,1j rt:ttl'u_iA iL,4 eb
tkaT 44 ,rtrJ , ;v tu
tgbt4g N,54uDY 8tur8
{- l.)*t,, t'-f /-./, # 7-
i r1.'? d Y r*t . caoi*4l r"iA,.'P.d-
gj4 i ,"r,. TF+re;-Iy p
iu / tfi ,u _u,uhi+e- 6ce rtry^
;1r6:i ",i [-,r:6.17 fi{/-D &i}
fr.>;t T ,tl'!c":,.7) -,u"tr;t t-- i 2- ,),:;:lL
',)J, tc 5
l Li r r C tV q"o'ioi:l t f-e r {' f;'.n
Tre*v d*W*),!
lT7zt, tu' kt',u- LE,*crTE
e,l,f *#n!ff\;,
i$tx:'4 Kf " \($reV6',G,
31
*t
trs; {;
,t
@**{
The undersigned residents of Goldfietd Ranch oppose the proposed Gotdhawk
devetopment for primarity the fottowing 3 reasons:
1. This project witl irreparabty alter the character of this community.
2. The infrastructure and services necessary to support the proposed Gotdhawk
devetopment do not exist; and
3. The existing road system in Gol,dfietd Ranch upon which the proposed Gol.dhawk
devetopment reties cannot support the massivety increased usage and construction
traffic which woutd be generated by Gotdhawk.
fu*r',lro / r'/,j*'u "'7
> ;*
E t ea 5""4r, y'J o,,nt e D pzta:tt
t fset N tJtslp ki &"*
1!t wt LDoatq il A 6. kg.<ao4
{/
//,,/?^,/Lh .l/aa tt Fol f)ut/aN
/4tD7 il. y'tJrtq uz Dpa
Es *l!T)x,ts ,a,,t 4E 4<22- 2
/
(,
-
4
iL* {l " k*}-
),. ,. .- \. v,--, r/) D-^ (' ctL-
t:f
ht fit u- a I l, ,/1
t* kr-Kh^
r4 dr?
{/i'7a- i}e/
attle"
l,= f
t^ t /) r,* o /1 ,r/--
tl-fr Atd,*^-
LI
ili ;
llt e.\l"-. [
"[o,.'.. rr^
1il,;ry .il, Q tl.lr.q\, f/"f .
[,, ^6 Y\ctb, ,*:\il .4 z {.r )6+
h#^ru,il^?,**-
i-!'
I
1k',(Lr /:l'( r /a, dr.r
/ v,t{ 1 beik {o& ( a^./u,r"
lY^,r$ d,lr le**i/
tVt ,? t') t" q
i./, n --lAr-r
/?,rn^nl YM ,"{rn i'h''t
tYqt"1 \s'hr"l( trrq,(e 6flnlylrv,
tr*tr tMchrrr,,:Lt kz W'z,t"u
k r^" /l,L bar'asy
t3110 N.&-qb"sh L*
tr*rt lYtoDro:e /l , ftz- gsebr
{n^t-{PM& {r(t*,tw,4ty .S{a:&
i 33^t ri aa./c{ei@ w
6it- Pt(Ctar,// gsJ [, /
SilF|*tM- H. nu-*-&Jlon \l-t z z N,:3lt,rr+[,.-,r-,.,rk-*
%,t;
z-
( >rlua J-r{d
i-*\-;z"u tli\l-- J. / uro-.
ft-u',ffi,r:
6 tt ^t n 5lV{'# f;'i 1,t-',t*' /4.\nf r'l ,tttE|r., d,:t" Pfifl
-t
,fuarp}. ou,fl,p-,
pi,4trti/!L lry/t_ut Tttt; !,
tt# 1{ ll V # ffi ttrr f( e
ffi
: I t8/7 ^i
d,51^WL s a
M'rt)
ftno**h{ ^r^(Gw,
tl8 t'{ /U /Ao}u las
6*/il#r,
t yre
{usnw 4tntuL
h 44o u. L/ \c;\lv Fr4
r*
t,
I
'M
M
Trwal L,&fihg
lsKcy rd l,:frh&e-&,Ww
$,r,r*Mt-^^fu'* ,Shw.ll G[o, ssllu rt^
I I z r 4 /V t/, sh' /k.( Cv^,-
Ft:r l* I/''1 L Dr^ e_/{ Pf Z*
W4#}A
ifr,tnr**r, I l"a
/ dtl| ir,J , V'tlr, Jul *,
t F+ dlr.M.,,{i til?-
r4l,^ {
K,.J,. t(.o^ /",1A
lrrl-r
{--rt
t
l'
(irLttl f ..{,{,,^ lr',t|,'-.^, }\,.
ffi
/il/r*}-,)tr AA; ,1,13'&**ffi',ffi#*
Wtr'i,#;;
T N\J/
tht{r;A" f.4{Nrzt
U 4t'[ #, #*2fi,ft.b'(iz,ui
F",m*)nr l),*,,rril az Pl-+tr{
&A l*t"4 -lx/^r*, 9fu"t^n I
JCto.n^ce-e lr-l MJ-'F$f,fu-rt
i,-1o t NJ i/lst.r- f{,ul
eflr-
W"
(i
@
f
The undersigned residents of Gotdfiel,d Ranch oppose the proposed Gotdhawk
devetopment for primarity the fol.towing 3 reasons:
1. This project wit[ irreparabty atter the character of this community.
2. The inf rastructure and services necessary to support the proposed Gol,dhawk
devetopment do not exist; and
3. The existing road system in Gol,dfietd Ranch upon which the proposed Gotdhawk
devetopment reties cannot support the massivety increased usage and construction
traffic which woutd be generated by Gotdhawk.
t\
+tb
>/&4tl l"j,t New i/6ry" N e*"#u"ftzK
E8 8^.l,.
tlL/f /t) ?rw fayoi-r
n, / 17, f; {^,,1 l)ep/ // Eur,r/w"/*," 1/t)
J*^ C /,* |'
lZ.lbA fl,5,n /ncn= Tr
5r^ r\^< /\ cr
3 vzr.t rtl
t]Z-1r> r*. fu\J(i"t-i' \?
o! Nt*X*og:lq W\7.'r;t* . Lc***e\l+1
fLrtulio ffi,q/,-
iW,fi.SKf'-:!W;
&l*
s
C'*ie 'r\Y\-e-
"FJ " r I
I l ) sr:, t{. 8.,.. ,* *.}0', RA
l)*{" }-tr"it
d] r g, e: l",i -'B* " ..*t,^.-\ * K)
tE\qsilE
C, fl'\ ,o llp*i N, lB,,r^*r**f
funfnl fitrr
tenei-l r'.1, fky"t;l,tn*eg
l"vf av-, !,4 ^ Ch,l)n
'j
...i
t
/rll.
/ J ctt f ti f)tu,v-hv;v{c:
') 'C \ Pl 3 -foN la\a1 N /3t-,Avf,^sar
57*AC,/,,
/r?ea n/ /-"/6./6,
t-)
/-/
-
,
(?--'<- e /" --/r* (t Sar^ Ooodn,.l' /tv;a N. bsfT,,tt<1.'t
l{4.-te..
izzo t Bnft_s\r w
.k^r^nfu flnsJ'/'c
ILLIZ FJ. f)."r.n WF'&,(
I
,..1 r-*2
t,fu*/-, f)e
I
z-r
{c.r: r ( {\ r-'tx ft
J/?/ / { i"t{ftzsi7 {ttrcfil fr
4./4'f,?fl
I
FI:l-
^
{/ltr-n-.t
-- 16,t". t./
/ Yl,/ii i Y'vr
QEg/ sl. 7.z7oa.c;gt&r";H r?/t,t
.e: Af*
.4qa'
yrr:i{ph
U',/&,Y { 77-/t{Sy tF$:z>t fi:n.tL
ir