No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002.0702.TCREM.PacketNOTICE OF REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE 01 SESSION OF THE ao °� FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL that is A Mayor Councilman Rick Melendez Vice Mayor Leesa Fraverd Councilwoman Kathy Nicola Jon Beydler Councilman Mike Archambault Councilman John Kavanagh Councilwoman Susan Ralphe WHEN: TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2002 TIME: 4:30 P.M. (the Council will meet in executive session from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at which time the regular session will begin) WHERE: COMMUNITY CENTER 13001 NORTH LA MONTANA DRIVE (PLEASE NOTE LOCATION CHANGE) RULES FOR ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL — ADOPTED 1118190 the Council's desire to hear public comment on agenda items. As it is important to maintain order during the meeting, please adhere to following rules of order if you wish to speak: 1.) All citizens wishing to speak must first be recognized by the Mayor. 2.) The Mayor will not call for public comment on an item until after a motion has been made and seconded and the Council has had adequate opportunity to discuss the item. 3.) Please stand, approach the microphone and state your name and address after being called on to speak. 4.) All comments must be directed to the Mayor. 5.) TIME LIMIT — THREE (3) MINUTES PER PERSON PER ITEM. 6.) Statements should not be repetitive. 7.) Persons or groups wishing to make longer presentations should see the Town Clerk prior to the meeting. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL — Mayor Beydler 1.) Pursuant to A.R.S. §38 431.03.A.1., AND A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.4, AND A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.7. VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR: discussion or consideration of employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee or employee of any public body, except that with the exception of salary discussions, an officer, appointee or employee may demand that such discussion or consideration occur at a public meeting. The public body must provide the officer, appointee or employee with such personal notice of the executive session as is appropriate but not less than 24 hours for the officer, appointee or employee to determine whether such discussion or consideration should occur at a public meeting. (The Council will discuss the status of legal services as of July 1, 2002; Paul Nordin's employment status; and the new town manager candidates.); AND to obtain legal advice from the Town Attorney regarding pending or contemplated litigation specifically: claims for legal work done for the Fountain Hills Voluntary Fire District by the firms of Martinez and Curtis and Brown and Bain.; AND for discussions or consultations with designated representatives of the public body in order to consider its position and instruct its representatives regarding negotiations for the purchase, sale or lease of real property. (Specifically, the Council will discuss terms of the Town Hall lease.) 2.) RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION Town of Fountain Hills Page I of 3 Last printed 07/01/02 4:10 PM • CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE TO THE FLAG — Mayor Beydler • INVOCATION — Councilwoman Ralphe ROLL CALL SWEARING IN CEREMONY: Mayor Beydler will swear in Ted Armbruster as the new presiding judge of the Fountain Hills Municipal Court. Consent Agenda: All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine, non -controversial matters and will be enacted by one motion and one roll call vote of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a Councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, they may request so prior to the motion to accept the consent agenda. The item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. *1.) Consideration of APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES of June 20, 2002. *2.) Consideration of the EXTENSION OF PREMISEIPATIO PERMIT submitted by Rosemary Barringer for the Silver Stein located at 17030 Enterprise Drive. The permit is a temporary extension of the Stein's liquor license on July 27, 2002. *3.) Consideration of RESOLUTION 2002-26 abandoning whatever right, title, or interest the Town has in certain public utility and drainage easements located at the northerly property lines of Lots 15, 16 and 17, and the easterly easement of Lot 16 and the westerly easement of Lot 15, Block 7, Plat 204 (17218, 17206 and 17152 E. Parlin Drive) as recorded in Book 142 of Maps, Page 10 Records of Maricopa County, Arizona - EA2002-11. �r 4.) Consideration of RESOLUTION 2002-27 abandoning whatever right, title, or interest the Town has in certain public utility and drainage easements located at the southerly property line of Lot 2, Block 4, Plat 506A (15830 Eagles Nest Drive) as recorded in Book 159 of Maps, Page 30 Records of Maricopa County, Arizona - EA2002- 12. *5.) Consideration of RESOLUTION 2002-28 abandoning whatever right, title, or interest the Town has in certain public utility and drainage easements located at the easterly property line of Lot 28, Block 2, Plat 505-D (16405 N. Canyon Drive) as recorded in Book 158 of Maps, Page 41 Records of Maricopa County, Arizona - EA2002-13. *6.) Consideration of ACCEPTANCE OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFER from SunRidge Canyon LLC of the North Heights Dam (eastern downstream half) REA 02-01. *7.) Consideration of RESOLUTION 2002-29 abandoning whatever right, title, or interest the Town has in that portion of the F Vehicular Access easement located within Tract A of SunRidge Canyon Parcel D-North and lying within the 20' access easement and the SRP access easement, both located adjacent to the westerly cul-de- sac bulb of Wildcat Court. NVAE 2002-05. *8.) Consideration of RESOLUTION 2002-30 abandoning the declaration of condominium for "Kingsdale Condominium Unit 11" located in Fountain Hills, Arizona pursuant to Article II, Section 208 of the Subdivision Ordinance for the Town of Fountain Hills, as recorded on Book 289, Map 47, of the records of Maricopa County, Arizona. 9.) Consideration of APPOINTING a new town manager for the Town of Fountain Hills. 10.) UPDATE by Recreation Supervisor Bryan Hughes on the final plans and activities for the July 4th Celebration. 11.) UPDATE by Councilman Rick Melendez on the recent activities of the ADHOC Sky Harbor/FAA Committee. Town of Fountain Hills Page 2 of 3 Last printed 07/01/02 4:10 PM 12.) Consideration of the PRELIMINARY PLAT for the 9-lot, 11.104± acre, Sierra Madre Estates, Phase I, located along the northwest side of Sierra Madre Drive, southwest of Golden Eagle Boulevard, Case Number 52001-16. 13.) Consideration of APPROVING A SETTLEMENT OFFER in the Town of Fountain Hills, et al. v. BNY Western Trust Company, et al. 14.) DISCUSSION OF MERITS of in-house versus contracted legal counsel. 15.) Consideration of the ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE BUDGET for the fiscal year 2002-2003 with appropriate direction to publish said document in accordance with state law. The Council may address any or all items contained in the budget document and initiate any suggested changes prior to adoption. 16.) Consideration of WAIVING THE FEES for the new Boys and Girls Club Youth Center. 17.) Consideration of ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF CLAIMS filed with the Town of Fountain Hills by Martinez and Curtis and Brown and Bain for legal work done for the Fountain Hills Voluntary Fire District. 18.) CALL TO THE PUBLIC AND ADJOURNMENT. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431 -01 (G), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters not listed on the agenda but must be within the jurisdiction of the Council. All comment is `subject to reasonable time, space and manner restrictions" and the Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during call to the public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the call to the public, individual Council members may respond to criticism, ask staff to review a matter or ask that a matter be put on a future agenda. DATED this 0 day of July, 2002, Cassie B. Hansen, of Administration/Town Clerk 'he Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with "%misabilities. Please call 837-2003 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's office. OR Town of Fountain Hills Page 3 of 3 Last printed 07/01/02 4:10 PM June 28, 2002 Interoffice Memo To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL 4 From: CASSIE HANSEN, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIO Date: 6/ 28/ 2002 Re: AGENDA ITEM #2 — SILVER STEIN EXTENSION OF PREMISE AGENDA ITEM #2 — EXTENSION OF PREMISE FOR THE SILVER STEIN: Rose Barringer has requested an extension of premise permit for the Silver Stein located at 17030 Enterprise Drive for her annual summer -time event scheduled for Friday, July 26, 2002. The request is to extend the Stein's liquor license to an area immediately adjacent to the west wall of the building. The area will be fenced with security personnel at the door to insure that alcohol remains within the approved area. This is a routine request and meets the statutory requirements regarding security, access and liquor control. Staff recommends approval contingent upon a favorable recommendation from Marshal Tate on Monday. Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 7/2102 Last printed 6/28/2002 2:30 PM FOUNTAIN HILLS MARSHALS MEMORANDUM To: Cassie Hansen, Director of Administration From: Todd Tate, Interim Town Marshal Date: 07-01-02 Subject: Extension of Premises — Silver Stein The purpose of this memorandum is to forward an endorsement of the attached extension of premises request from Rose Barringer of the Silver Stein. From your memo, I am aware that this will be added to the Council agenda for the July 2°d meeting. The Silver Stein is located at 17030 Enterprise Drive. The request is for an extension of premise for their annual summer time event on Friday, July 26, 2002. A review of our records indicates that the applicant has no outstanding complaints and has been in compliance during previous extension of premises for this event. I have contacted the State Department of Liquor Licenses & Control and found that the Silver Stein has a valid class 12 license, #07-192914-K-001, which is current through 03-31-03. A class 12 is a restaurant license and does allow temporary extension of premise provisions under the Arizona Revised Statutes, title 4, section 207.01(b). The extension must be contiguous to the premises, as the a applicant has indicated in her attached diagram. Based on compliance with the provisions of ARS 4-207.01(b), and the applicant's valid calss 12 license in place on the premises, I recommend approval by the Council. C;Z-`�(7 Z-e' Todd Tate Interim Town Marshal f ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES Sc CONTROL 400 W Congress #150 800 W Washington Sth Floor Tucson AZ 85701 Phoenix AZ 85007 (520) 628-6595 (602) 542-5141 s=APPLICATION FOR EXTENSIONOF PRENUSES/PATIO PERMIT ❑ Permanent change of area of service * Temporary change for date(s),of: _ 1. Owner or Agent's Name: .0tj Z/ Last 2.. Mailing Address: ,—� , Gty GS z state Zip 3. Business Name: �% / �1� / ry LICENSE 4. Business Address: / A-3 �A) i_1 /� / 1 City 5. Business Phone: ( c�G� r: 5 %— �i 2z, /fir% lZ i Ill S .zZ F COUNrY State zip p Residence Phone: (�d J ��� a 6. Are you familiar with Arizona Liquor Laws and Regulations? 0'�-ES ❑ NO Whajocyaity precautions will be taken to�prevent liquor violations in the extended r 8. Does this extension bring your premises within 300 feet of a church or school? M YES ❑ NO 9. INMRTANT: ATTACH THE REVISED FLOOR PLAN CLEARLY DEPICTING YOUR LICENSED PREMISES AND WHAT YOU PROPOSE TO ADD. ****After completing sections 1-9 bring this application to your local Board of Supervisors, City Council or Designate for their recommendation. char a in p �s is RECOMMENDED by the local Board of Supervisors, City Council or Designate: (Authofized ignature) - (Title) --{Agency) first duly sworn upon oath, hereby depose, swear and declare, under (Punt full name) penalty of perjury, that I am the APPLICANT making foregoing application and that the application has been read and that the contents the7f and all statements contained therein are true,correct and complete. n My commission /I - �-c Investigation Recommendation r Agent)gyFICIAL SEAL KIMBERLY BANUET NOTARY PUBLIC -ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY My Comm. Expires Nov. 20, 2005 SUBSCRIBEDINMY PRESENCE AND SWORN TO before me this _/1 aay of Day of Mgnth month ( Year (Signature f NOTARY PUBLIC) Date: Licensing Approval: i.IC0105 11197 Date: *Disabled individuals requiring special accommodation, please call the Department. U �� EA2002-1 l; Res. 2002-26 Plat 204, Blk 7, Lots 15,16 & 17 (Maduros, Doolittle & McNatt) Chron 115 Iry G ES7 L999 rbat is Ai�O4 Town of FOUNTAIN HILLS Public Works Department Engineering Division TO: Honorable Mayor and Town Council FROM: Art Candelaria, Civil Engineer REVIEWED: Randy Harrel, Town Engineer DATE: June 17, 2002 MEMORANDUM RE: Easement Abandonment 2002-11; Resolution 2002-26 17218, 17206 and 17152 E. Parlin Drive Plat 204, Block 7, Lots 15, 16, and 17 Spyros Maduros — Lot 15 Francis Doolittle — Lot 16 Ronald J. & Angeline S. McNatt — Lot 17 This item on the Town Council's agenda is a proposal to abandon the ten (10) foot public utility and drainage easements located at the northerly property lines of Lots 15, 16, and 17, and the easterly easement of Lot 16 and the westerly easement of Lot 15, Block 7, Plat 204, (17218, 17206, and 17152 E. Parlin Drive) as shown in Exhibit "A". The property owners of Lots 15, 16, and 17 desire the assurance that any future improvements made to the lots will not be infringed upon by the construction of utilities. Staff has received no comments to date from the adjacent property owners. The southerly 20' of the common 10' public utility easements between Lots 15 and 16 will be retained for existing and potential future utility boxes. The Engineering Department has reviewed the site to ascertain any drainage issues in addition to the Town's general interest in the easement. It is the professional opinion of the Engineering Department that there is no need for the Town to retain the 10' drainage easement along the north lot line of Lots 15, 16, and 17 and along the common property lot line between Lots 15 and 16, proposed to be abandoned, with the understanding that certain lots within this subdivision are subject to lot -to -lot drainage runoff. The property owners of Lots 15, 16, and 17 are required to pass the developed flows generated by the upstream lots across their property. All affected utility companies have been notified of this abandonment proposal and have approved of the proposed abandonment of this public utility easement. CStaff recommends adoption of Resolution 2002-26 with the following stipulations: 16836 East Palisades Boulevard, Building C —P.O. Box 17958 — Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 — (480) 837-2003 — FAX: (480) 837-1404 EA2002-11; Res. 2002-26 Plat 204, Blk 7, Lots 15, 16 & 17 (Maduros, Doolittle & McNatt) Chron 115 • Provide a 20' x 40' Public Utility Easement along Parlin Drive centered on the lot line between Lots 16 and 17, as shown on the proposed Grant of Easement exhibit. • Provide a 20' x 20' Public Utility Easement on the southeast corner of Lot 15, as shown on the proposed Grant of Easement exhibit. bb att. cc: Spyros Maduros Francis Doolittle M/M McNatt F. Palter — Lot 18 Resident —Lot 10 Resident — Lot 11 Resident — Lot 12 Resident — Lot 14 16836 East Palisades Boulevard, Building C — P.O. Box 17958 — Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 — (480) 837-2003 — FAX: (480) 837-1404 When recorded, return to: Engineering Department Town of Fountain Hills P.O. Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 RESOLUTION 2002-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IT HAS IN A PORTION OF THE CERTAIN TEN (10') FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ALONG THE NORTHERLY LOT LINES OF LOTS 15, 16, AND 17, AND THE EASTERLY 10' EASEMENT OF LOT 16 AND THE WESTERLY 10' EASEMENT OF LOT 15. THE SOUTHERLY 20' OF THE COMMON 10' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS BETWEEN LOTS 15 AND 16 WILL BE RETAINED. ALL EASEMENTS ARE LOCATED IN BLOCK 7, OF PLAT 204, FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 142 OF MAPS, PAGE 10, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, as the governing body of real property located in the Town of Fountain Hills, may require the dedication of public streets, sewer, water, drainage, and other utility easements or rights -of -way within any proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Fountain Hills has the authority to accept or reject offers of dedication of private property by easement, deed, subdivision, plat or other lawful means; and WHEREAS, All present utility companies have received notification of the proposed abandonment; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and Common Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona as follows: SECTION 1. That a portion of the certain ten (10) foot public utility and drainage easements, located along the northerly property lot lines of Plat 204, Block 7, Lots 15, 16, and 17 and the easterly and westerly ten (10) foot public utility and drainage easement of Lots 16 and 15, Fountain Hills, Arizona; as shown in Exhibit "A"; as recorded in book 142 of maps, page 10 records of Maricopa County, Arizona; are hereby declared to be abandoned by the Town of Fountain Hills. Certain lots within this subdivision are subject to lot -to -lot drainage runoff. The property owners of Lots 15, 16, and 17 are required to pass the developed flows generated by the upstream lots across their property. SECTION 2. That this Resolution is one of abandonment and disclaimer by the Town solely for the purpose of removing any potential cloud on the title to said property and that the Town in no way attempts to affect the rights of any private party to oppose the abandonment or assert any right resulting therefrom or existing previous to any action by the Town. PASS FAIL tv10TI0N Resolution 2002-26 SECOND u r-,u Page 1 of 2 COUNT PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July 2002. ATTEST: Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk ��_.�_� .' ��✓mil/l<</ FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 'd- - . '.. Af Ailliam E. Farrell, Town tomey Resolution 2002-26 Page 2 of 2 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS EASEMENT ABANDONMENT EXHIBIT "A" PLAT 204 BLOCK 7 LOTS 15, 16, 17 PLAT 204 �� �. BOOK 142 LOT 12 PAGE 10 ', `, 10' P.U.E. & D.E. �1 \ ABANDONDED LOT 11 ` (EA-1997-02 RES. 1997-04) 10' P.U.E. & D.E. ABANDONDED (EA-2000-20 `• `�� \� 0�606 RES. 2000-44) '" , E ----TT, f ABANDON 10' " N �g'p5'� P.U.E. & D.E. ABANDON 10' P.U.E. & D.E. BLOCK 7 LOT 16 BLOCK 7 LOT 17 LOT 13 BLOCK 7 LOT 15 LOT 14 NEW P.U.E. ,yo lk O• RETAIN 20 L.F. OF P.U.E. / �y��0.00 / NEW P.U.E. ABANDON 10' D.E. �0,ON0AID Zp /9',aM / . '2 00. 103. LAND SG. LOT 2 \�fICATF �L AR 16545,11) 6545 i - RANDY L. A HARREL �1 I _-SCALE 1"=50' LOT 3 ',DATE: 5-29-02 1 LO' 4 �P�2pNA U•`'�,, ;� �� EA2002-12; Res. Plat 506A, Blk 4, Lot 2 (15830 Eagles Nest Drive) Lincoln & Becker Chron 116 �TAIN �1 0 , Town of FOUNTAIN HILLS a 3 Public Works Department 3 i o �° Engineering Division Fsr. iva9 • '"'4PW'" MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Town Council FROM: Art Candelaria, Civil Engineer REVIEWED: Randy Harrel, Town Engineer DATE: June 17, 2002 RE: Easement Abandonment 2002-12; Resolution 2002-27 15830 Eagles Nest Drive Plat 506A, Block 4, Lot 2 Brett Lincoln and Ann Becker This item on the Town Council's agenda is a proposal to abandon the ten (10) foot public utility and drainage easements located at the southerly property line of Lot 2, Block 4, Plat 506A, (15830 Eagles Nest Drive) as shown in Exhibit "A". The property owners of Lot 2 desire the assurance that any future improvements made to the lot will not be infringed upon by the construction of utilities. Staff has received no comments to date from the adjacent property owners. The Engineering Department has reviewed the site to ascertain any drainage issues in addition to the Town's general interest in the easement. It is the professional opinion of the Engineering Department that there is no need for the Town to retain the drainage easement proposed to be abandoned, with the understanding that certain lots within this subdivision are subject to lot -to -lot drainage runoff. The property owners of Lot 2 are required to pass the developed flows generated by the upstream lots across their property. All affected utility companies have been notified of this abandonment proposal and have approved of the proposed abandonment of this public utility easement. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 2002-27. att. cc: Brett Lincoln and Ann Becker Ms. Sloan M/M Vergetis M/M Smith 16836 East Palisades Boulevard, Building C — P.O. Box 17958 — Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 — (480) 837-2003 — FAX: (480) 837-1404 When recorded, return to: Engineering Department Town of Fountain Hills P.O. Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 RESOLUTION 2002-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IT HAS IN A PORTION OF THE CERTAIN TEN (10') FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LOT LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 4, OF PLAT 506A, FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 159 OF MAPS, PAGE 30, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, as the governing body of real property located in the Town of Fountain Hills, may require the dedication of public streets, sewer, water, drainage, and other utility easements or rights -of -way within any proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Fountain Hills has the authority to accept or reject offers of dedication of private property by easement, deed, subdivision, plat or other lawful means; and w WHEREAS, All present utility companies have received notification of the proposed abandonment; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and Common Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona as follows: SECTION 1. That a portion of the certain ten (10) foot public utility and drainage easements, located along the southerly property lot line of Plat 506A, Block 4, Lot 2, Fountain Hills, Arizona; as shown in Exhibit "A"; as recorded in book 159 of maps, page 30 records of Maricopa County, Arizona; are hereby declared to be abandoned by the Town of Fountain Hills. Certain lots within this subdivision are subject to lot -to -lot drainage runoff. The property owners of Lot 2 are required to pass the developed flows generated by the upstream lots across their property. SECTION 2. That this Resolution is one of abandonment and disclaimer by the Town solely for the purpose of removing any potential cloud on the title to said property and that the Town in no way attempts to affect the rights of any private party to oppose the abandonment or assert any right resulting therefrom or existing previous to any action by the Town. Resolution 2002-27 Page 1 of 2 CPAS,SA�All- 05 5 — MOTION SECOND COUNT %' PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July 2002. ATTEST: Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk E FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS X. 0, - - pg;� �/ William E. Farrell, Town Attorney Resolution 2002-27 Page 2 of 2 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS EASEMENT ABANDONMENT EXHIBIT "A" PLAT 506-A BLOCK 4 LOT 2 \ LOT 27 � LOT 2r. PLAT 506-A 1 \BOOK 159 AGE 30 LOT 28 _ - - - - - - - �, LOT \29.11,� �21�500 \ h 'R RETAIN 10'� 6 cr V: P.U.E. & D.E. �LOT 3 �5 BLOCK 4 PGA LOT 2 / ABANDON 10' P.U.E. & D.E. LOT 1 , LOT 21 x, \ / IL O T %2 SCIII: 1*=40,' DATE:'\ 5-21-02 EA2002-13; Res. Plat 5051), Blk 2, Lot 28 Page I of I Chron 117 � 4 �t ,6,atis Asw Town of FOUNTAIN HILLS Engineering Department TO: Honorable Mayor and Town Council FROM: Art Candelaria, Civil Engineer REVIEWED: Randy L. Harrel, Town Engineer MEMORANDUM DATE: June 14, 2002 RE: Easement Abandonment 2002-13; Resolution 2002-28 16405 N. Canyon Drive Plat 505-D, Block 2, Lot 28 Paul Peterson and Ina Kliger This item on the Town Council's agenda is a proposal to abandon the twenty (20) foot public utility °\r and drainage easements located at the easterly property line of Lot 28, Block 2, Plat 505-D, (16405 N. Canyon Drive) as shown in Exhibit "A". The property owners of Lot 28 desire the assurance that any future improvements made to the lot will not be infringed upon by the construction of utilities. Staff has received no comments to date from the adjacent property owners. The 10' Public Utility and Drainage Easements along the northerly property line will be retained. The Engineering Department has reviewed the site to ascertain any drainage issues in addition to the Town's general interest in the easement. It is the professional opinion of the Engineering Department that there is no need for the Town to retain the drainage easement proposed to be abandoned, with the understanding that certain lots within this subdivision are subject to lot -to -lot drainage runoff. The property owners of Lot 28 are required to pass the developed flows generated by the upstream lots across their property. All affected utility companies have been notified of this abandonment proposal and have approved of the proposed abandonment of this public utility easement. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 2002-28. Imp cc: Paul Peterson & Ina Kliger M/M Catalano D. White & J. McManaman M/M Kelly When recorded, return to: Engineering Department Town of Fountain Hills P.O. Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 RESOLUTION 2002-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IT HAS IN A PORTION OF THE CERTAIN TWENTY (20') FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ALONG THE EASTERLY LOT LINE AND RETAINING THE 10' PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 28, BLOCK 2, OF PLAT 505-D, FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158 OF MAPS, PAGE 41, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, as the governing body of real property located in the Town of Fountain Hills, may require the dedication of public streets, sewer, water, drainage, and other utility easements or rights -of -way within any proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Fountain Hills has the authority to accept or reject offers of dedication of private property by easement, deed, subdivision, plat or other lawful (W means; and WHEREAS, All present utility companies have received notification of the proposed abandonment; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and Common Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona as follows: SECTION 1. That a portion of the certain twenty (20) foot public utility and drainage easements, located along the easterly property lot line of Plat 505-D, Block 2, Lot 28, Fountain Hills, Arizona; as shown in Exhibit "A"; as recorded in book 158 of maps, page 41 records of Maricopa County, Arizona; are hereby declared to be abandoned by the Town of Fountain Hills. Certain lots within this subdivision are subject to lot -to -lot drainage runoff. The property owners of Lot 28 are required to pass the developed flows generated by the upstream lots across their property. SECTION 2. That this Resolution is one of abandonment and disclaimer by the Town solely for the purpose of removing any potential cloud on the title to said property and that the Town in no way attempts to affect the rights of any private party to oppose the abandonment or assert any right resulting therefrom or existing previous to any action by the Town. (,ASS/ AIL _ — -)— 0 ION _� Resolution 2002-28 SECOND —_ Q Page 1 of 2 COUNT 0 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: L::Z�� Zd���tw' r Town Manager FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS E. Farrell, Town Attorney Resolution 2002-28 Page 2of2 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS EASEMENT ABANDONMENT EXHIBIT "A" PLAT 505-D BLOCK 2 LOT 28 PLAT 505-D \\ \\ I BOOK 158 \ \ I PAGE 14 \ \ 07 25 I � I \ I \ N 85'26 51 E \ _ 90.51' LOT 27 RETAIN 10' -7 P.U.E. & D.E. BLOCK 2 _ LOT 28 vim, \ ABANDON 20' P.U.E. & D.E. o _ p F R 45.00 L= 44.18' A; I �N 62. \ Oph OT 30 1/20' & D. E. ! ! ! r`',:G)NDED `�� LAN sG (MCR+ rj 7o19 \ !! / �� ��\FICArF��� 16545 0 o t R�_ 9'Z-13-03) v! RANDY L. ` HARREL A SCALE: 1 "=40' ! DATE: 5-22-02 l �pvA U• / (fit"), NVAE 2002-05; SRC Tract A.doc Chron 118 o � � a • 'PST. 10 that is Town of FOUNTAIN HILLS Public Works Department Engineering Division Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Town Council FROM: Randy L. Harrel DATE: June 21, 2002 RE: 1' Vehicular Non -Access Easement Abandonment 2002-05 Resolution 2002-29 SunRidge Canyon Tract A This item on the Town Council's agenda is a proposal to abandon a portion of the 1' Vehicular Non -Access Easement (VNAE) within SunRidge Canyon Tract A, located adjacent to Wildcat Court. IftoP *4w This area includes the existing and the future dirt access road locations to the North Heights Dam, and the access to the SRP substation site. N It is our normal practice to plat a 1' VNAE across all open space tracts to preclude unnecessary private driveways accessing through them. However, in this case, it is clear from the plat that the SRP future substation access, and the dam access were intended, and that the F VNAE simply was drawn too far. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 2002-29. bb att. cc: Tom Ward Quinn Johnson/SunRidge Canyon LLC SunRidge Canyon Community Association (c/o Capital Consultants) 16836 East Palisades Boulevard, Building C — P.O. Box 17958 — Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 — (480) 837-2003 — FAX: (480) 837-1404 When recorded, rehim to - Engineering Department Town of Fountain Hills P.O. Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 RESOLUTION 2002-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IT HAS IN A PORTION OF THE CERTAIN ONE (1') FOOT VEHICULAR NON -ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN TRACT A OF SUNRIDGE CANYON PARCEL D- NORTH, FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 434 OF MAPS, PAGE 50, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; AND LYING WITHIN THE 20' ACCESS EASEMENT AND THE SRP ACCESS EASEMENT, BOTH LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE WESTERLY CUL-DE-SAC BULB OF WILDCAT COURT. WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, as the governing body of real property located in the Town of Fountain Hills, may require the dedication of public streets, sewer, water, drainage, and other utility easements or rights -of -way within any proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Fountain Hills has the authority to acceptor reject offers of dedication of private property by easement, deed, subdivision, plat or other lawful means; and WHEREAS, All present utility companies have received notification of the proposed abandonment; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and Common Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona as follows: SECTION 1. That a portion of the certain one (1) foot Non -Vehicular easement, located within Tract A of SunRidge Canyon Parcel D-North, Fountain Hills, Arizona; as shown in Exhibit "A"; as recorded in book 434 of maps, page 50 records of Maricopa County, Arizona; and lying within the 20' access easement and the SRP access easement, both located adjacent to the westerly cul-de-sac bulb of Wildcat Court is hereby declared to be abandoned by the Town of Fountain Hills. SECTION 2. That this Resolution is one of abandonment and disclaimer by the Town solely for the purpose of removing any potential cloud on the title to said property and that the Town in no way attempts to affect the rights of any private party to oppose the abandonment or assert any right resulting therefrom or existing previous to any action by the Town. Resolution 2002-29 PASS/ AIL Page 1 of 2 !ON 3--� SECOND r,-.0UNT _%—U PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July 2002. ATTEST: Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APPROVED AS TO FORM: William E. Farrell, Town Attorny Resolution 2002-29 Page 2 of 2 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 1' VNAE EASEMENT ABANDONMENT EXHIBIT "A" SUNRIDGE CANYON PLAT "D-NORTH", TRACT "A" PLAT D-NORTH ' BOOK 434 I / PAGE 50 SRP SITE (EXCEPTION TO FINAL PLAT OF SUNRIDGE CANYON MCR BOOK 406, PAGE 23) / 'TRACT 'A' \SUNRIDGE CANYON i i \ RACEL "D-NORTk " MC%ROOK 434, PAGE-,50 i ACCESS EASEME T / i EXISTING SRP ABANDON 2� � 1' VNAE i / cl \ KEU LAND . � S \ � F ICATF C. cr�"Q` 16545 '10 �p \ i S' D 6'1 g6 \ RANDY L.EXISTING' 25 $ HARREL 20'1 ACCESS r, 'EASEMENT 2aVqr,r ®1 VEHICULAR NON-ACESS\� EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONDED \ \ �( EXISTING (C)i= COMPUTED DISTANCE AS 1' VNAE MEASURED PER PLAT D-NORTH, ! 1 MCR BOOK 434, PACE so. EXISTING Jr \ 8' PUE J \ \ TRACT 'A' SCALE: 1 =40 \DATE: 6-18-02 27 28 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MEMORANDUM TO: The Town of Fountain Hills Town Council FROM: Denise Ruhling, Plann r DATE: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution 2002-30 regarding abandonment of Plat for "Kingsdale Condominiums Unit II", a four -unit condominium project. Case number 2002-22. This request is to approve a resolutionregarding the abandonment of Plat for "Kingsdale Condominiums Unit H" approved at the June 20, 2002, Town Council meeting. This resolution is to allow the filing of abandonment with Mari.copa County. When recorded, return to: Community Development Town of Fountain Hills PO Box 17958 Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS RESOLUTION 2002-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, ABANDONING THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM FOR "KINGSDALE CONDOMINIUM UNIT 11" LOCATED IN FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE II, SECTION 208 OF THE SUBDIVISON ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, AS RECORDED ON BOOK 289, MAP 47, OF THE RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA WHEREAS, The Town of Fountain Hills adopted Ordinance #96=29, on September 19, 1996, which adopted the Subdivision Ordinance for the Town of Fountain Hills; and WHEREAS, Article II, Section 208, Abandonment of Recorded Subdivision, establishes the authority and procedures for abandoning recorded subdivision; and WHEREAS, A public hearing was held by the Fountain Hills Town Council on June 20, 2002. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Final Plat for "Kingsdale Condominiums Unit 11" subdivision, located in Fountain Hills, Arizona, as recorded in Book 289, Map 47 of the Records of Maricopa County, Arizona, is hereby abandoned. L lb E PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Mayor and Common Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, this 2°d day of July 2002. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: Jon Beydler, REVIEWED BY ATTESTED TO: Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: William E. Farrell, Town Attorney SRC N Hts Dam Transfer.doc Page 1 of 2 Chron AIN ©��T�l � 1 4 r• Zvi: r�► TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Randy L. Harr 1 J THROUGH: To DATE: June 11, 2002 Town of FOUNTAIN HILLS Public Works Department Engineering Division MEMORANDUM RE: North Heights Dam (Eastern Downstream "Half') (REA 02-01) Acceptance of ownership transfer to Town (from SunRidge Canyon LLQ In early 2002, the Town acquired the western (upstream) "half' of the North Heights Dam (previously known as Dam #11), an ADWR jurisdictional dam, from the North Heights Property Owners Association, through the Barclay Group, including the reservoir and upstream face of the dam. SunRidge Canyon LLC, the owner of the SunRidge Canyon Golf Course, has now asked to donate their ownership of the downstream "half' of that dam to the Town, including the outlet spillway and downstream face of the dam. The property is a portion of the SunRidge Canyon Master Plat's Parcel 2. By state subdivision law, a portion of an existing lot or parcel can legally be transferred by deed to a governmental entity, such as the Town, without triggering the need for re -subdividing the property. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)—the state regulator of all but very "small" dams —has continued to press for: ■ single ownership of all ADWR jurisdictional dams governmental ownership of those dams Currently the Town owns the following ADWR jurisdictional dams: ■ Fountain Lake Dam ■ Golden Eagle Park Dam (No. 4) ■ Aspen Dam (No. 6) ■ North Heights Dam (No. 11) — in total, if this item is approved ■ Stoneridge Dam (No. 19) ■ Hesperus Wash Dam (No. 36) SRC N Hts Dam Transfer.doc Page 2 of 2 Chron SunRidge Canyon LLC (SunCor) will continue to own SunRidge Canyon Dam (No. 7), which is wholly contained within the SunRidge Canyon Golf Course, between golf holes #16 and #17, an ADWR jurisdictional dam. Also, Firerock Country Club/Fountain Hills Sanitary District own Firerock Dam (No. 27-1), an effluent dam east of Firerock's proposed Parcel C (along the south side of Shea Boulevard'/2 mile east of Fountain Hills Boulevard), which is also an ADWR jurisdictional dam. Town staff (as the local floodplain administrator) has typically accompanied ADWR inspectors on the annual/bi-annual inspection of the privately owned ADWR jurisdictional dams within Fountain Hills. The North Heights Dam was inspected by ADWR on 2-15-02. There are no outstanding items requiring correction by SunCor. Staff recommends approval of the acquisition of this portion of the North Heights Dam property, subject to the following stipulations: ■ Set iron pin property markers on all new property corners, and on any existing unmarked property corners. ■ Subject to the approval of ADWR. 0 att. Special Warranty Deed Exhibit A — Parcel Acquisition Map Exhibit B — Legal Description Aerial Photo Cc: Tom Ward Ken Valverde David Stepanek File (for reference) REA 02-01 �J Now EXHIBIT "A " TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS PROPERTY ACQUISITION PARCEL REA 02-01 (SUNRIDGE CANYON PORTION OF NORTH HEIGHTS DAM) BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL "2" OF THE SUNRIDGE CANYON PLAT, MCR BOOK 406, PAGE 23, SECTION 9, T.3N., R.6E. PLAT 508 es 76 MCR BOOK 336, PAGE 2" 81 18 TRACT 'B' OWNER: TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS PLAT 508, TRACT "A" (BRISTOL WASH) PUE & DE N 66 MCR BOOK 336, PAGE 2 = ,D LAND SG ICATf f'L 16545Fo RANDY L A HARREL, ° S�9ned`!/ V S `i I W < 0) ao \Z SCALE: 1"=200' 31.97-, DATE: 6-18-02 P.O.B. ®TOWN DAM ACQUISITION / / y S PARCEL— APPROXIMATE ARE4( 1' TO BE ACQUIRED (8.04 Acres) LA. (R) =RECORD BEARING AND DISTANCE AS MEASURED PER SUNRIDGE CANYON PLA \ MCR BOOK 706. PAGE 23 EXCEPT AS NOTED.\ J � SUNRIDGE CANYON TRACT V PARCEL "I" 20' ACCESS MCR BOOK 456, PAGE 21 EASEMENT 1 *16'13" w SRP SITE (EXCEPTION) i 87 S, R MgOR R� SUNRIDGE CANYON PARCEL "E" MCR BOOK 453, PAGE 22 TRACT 'A' PER PARCEL "E" PLAT NSON 10Ge CIN E 23 G Sv YN 1500 '00W5e 10' ELECTRIC , EASEMENT PER DOCKET 16222� PG 328 MCR SUNRIDGE CANYON PARCEL "D-NORTH" MCR BOOK 434, PAGE 50 12 TRACT 'A' t3 ,a 14 15 PER PARCEL 1s t6 17 16.°.� "D—NORTH" --- �' 38 PLAT �' ALO 37 SRP ACCESS j PBRE-4 ��� 36 2s EASEMENT35 \ \ ��_ 2:PROPOSED TOWN ACCESS /i �u / EASEMENT (SEPARATE / Qc. DOCUMENT) 34�_� 46 TRACT 'A' 27 28 / 22 Qp _ ,� 47 .1� 21 Exhibit 9 NORTH HEIGHTS DAM ACQUISITION PARCEL A parcel of land being a portion of Parcel "2" of the SunRidge Canyon Final Plat, Fountain Hills, Arizona, as recorded in Book 406, Page 23 of the records of Maricopa County Arizona, the northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 6 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most southeasterly corner of Tract A of Fountain Hills Arizona Final Plat No. 508 Replat as recorded in Book 336, Page 2 of the Records of Maricopa County Arizona; said point also being a corner of the boundary of said SunRidge Canyon Final Plat, Parcel 2; Thence along said boundary north 8 degrees 43 minutes 47 seconds east, a distance of 797.24 feet; Thence along said boundary north 20 degrees 39 minutes 31 seconds east, a distance of 286.92 feet; Thence along said boundary north 44 degrees 45 minutes 11 seconds east, a distance of 120.00 feet to a point on the southwesterly boundary of Lot 87 of said Plat 508; Thence along said Lot 87 southwesterly boundary south 45 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds east, a distance of 250.00 feet to a point being the southerly corner of said Lot 87, said point also lying on the westerly boundary line of Tract A of SunRidge Canyon Parcel "E" as recorded in Book 453, Page 22 of the Records of Maricopa County Arizona; Thence departing the easterly boundary line of said Plat 508 and along the boundary of said SunRidge Canyon Parcel " B" plat, south 29 degrees 28 minutes 22 seconds east, a distance of 398.37 feet to the most southwesterly corner of said Sunridge Canyon Parcel "B"; Thence departing the westerly boundary of SunRidge Canyon Parcel "B" and the boundary of SunRidge Canyon Parcel 2, south 60 degrees 31 minutes 38 seconds west, a distance of 300.00 feet; Thence north 81 degrees 16 minutes 13 seconds west, a distance of 165.00 feet; Thence south 8 degrees 43 minutes 47 seconds west, a distance of 300.00 feet; Thence north 81 degrees 16 minutes 13 seconds west, a distance of 45.83 feet; Thence south 14 degrees 19minutes 16seconds west, a distance of 31.97 feet to the northwest corner of the SRP site exception to the aforementioned Final Plat of Sunridge Canyon; Thence along the boundary of said plat exception south 14 degrees 19 minutes 16 seconds west, a distance of 190.00 feet to the southwest corner of said SRP site exception; North Heights Dam.doc Thence continuing south 75 degrees 40 minutes 44 seconds east, a distance of 147.25 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of Sunridge Canyon Parcel "D-North" as recorded in Book 434, Page 50 of the Records of Maricopa County Arizona; Thence departing the southerly boundary of said SRP site exception and along the boundary of said SunRidge Canyon Parcel D-North, south 36 degrees 41 minutes 46 seconds west, a distance of 208.94 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of Sunridge Canyon Parcel "I" as recorded in Book 456, Page 21 of the Records of Maricopa County Arizona; Thence along said SunRidge Canyon Parcel I boundary north 31 degrees 7 minutes 38 seconds west, a distance of 248.05 feet; to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing an area of 8.04 acres, more or less. North Heights Dam.doc n r` 76 MCR O 336, PAGE 2 is F �1 87 '_ s - ` ,r TRACT 'B' -, ..•�,�'� S *,_ ,,"'� . 4 +ACCFS �p 1�0' �k iu r' x .D �' P SUNRI[GE CANYONS`�O� >y PARCEL E" ,.., " VCk ROOK 453, PAGE 22 PUE & DE / TRACT ,�, * { SPILLWAY APPROACH o �/ ss (GRASSED) CV / s. PER P4QEL i PLAL' OPOSED y' « •' D.AAACQUISITION OWNER: TOWN OF FOUNTAIN FALLS f PARCEL PLAT 508, TRACT,"A" y r; (BRISTOL WASH) ~... / 8.04 aC. .` , ,PP. N R BOOOK M6 PAGE- a s y a C� Sp r N 81*16'13" yy N(�I�G� "2Qp,G 2 . r J t3 } 165.00' Cad P{a p6, * - ► w MG"- GOB' e .. �. N R TH ^ o N�� HEIG TS DAM 10' OVERHEAD & 0. 11 �—� t UNDERGROUND °j PUE� s' cP 2 sUNRIDGE CAi T UTLE. pipe PARCEr ,,D-NOR 4 � SCALE: 1 "-200' ' 31.97MCR BO , P. «. z. 12 DATE: 6-5-02a 76'3..13 ` SRP SITE PER AKEL 19 te, t� �� " (EXCEPTION) "D-�N TH" 38 PLAT , r �" ' f N �S'40'q P Ft C PAL0 6RR— 37 1 1-ACOESS 14�.25. 4,. W R) 26 A MEN!T CT ' Sl3NRIDGE CANYON �,e RO AD PARCEL "I" a, o- f7oP TTOWN35 MCR BOOK 456, PAGE 21sd s. �� 2IAC 5 s ° •E ENT P. TE a t ` o �< pc T y' z y E 34 46 3 � q C cQ4, 'ai' TRACT..'A' 21 J lb. 48 ... a 27 12(3- A CESS 28 "?76J 33q�A SEMtNT ° r" .A;.. '` 30 v.. 32 5431 may. n , r When Recorded Return to: Engineering Department (W Town of Fountain Hills P.O. Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED GRANTOR: SunRidge Canyon LLC, an Arizona limited liability company GRANTEE: The Town of Fountain Hills, an Arizona municipal corporation FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable considerations, The SunRidge Canyon LLC ("Grantor"), hereby conveys to the Town of Fountain Hills, ("Grantee"), the following real property situated in Maricopa County, Arizona, together with all improvements thereon and all rights and privileges appurtenant thereto; A portion of SunRidge Canyon Master Plat, Parcel 2 as recorded in Book 406, Page 23, MCR; and lying in Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 6 East and G&SRB&M, Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona See Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for the legal description, and Exhibit "A" for the boundary map. EXCEPT all oil, gases and other hydrocarbon substances, coal, stone, metals, minerals, fossils, and fertilizers of every name and description, together with all uranium, thorium, or any other material which is or may be determined to be peculiarly essential to the production of fissionable materials, whether or not of commercial value; and EXCEPT all underground water in, under or flowing through the Property and water rights appurtenant thereto; and SUBJECT to all taxes and other assessments, reservations in patents or all easement, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights and rights of way, obligations and liabilities as may appear of record, and to all Federal, State, County, District and local laws, ordinances, regulations, zoning codes and the like as the same now exist and as may be hereafter established or amended. Grantor hereby waives, releases and relinquishes all surface rights to the Property, including without limitation the rights of ingress and egress on, to, over and across the Property for the purpose of testing, drilling, mining, removing, producing, storing, treating or transporting any of the above excepted substances, by pipeline or otherwise, or the performance of any mining operations, removal of earth, or for any other purposes. Provided, however, nothing herein contained shall be construed as waiving, releasing or relinquishing any right, title or interest of Grantor in and to the above excepted substances in and under and that may be produced from the property. Grantor hereby binds itself and its successors to warrant and defend the title as against all acts of Grantor herein and none other, subject to the matters above set forth. (r, L01 Dated this I ell day of TLA 2002. SunRidge Canyon L.LC, an Arizona limited liability company By: SunCor Development Company, an Arizona corporation, its Managing Member By: Duane S. Black Its: Vice President State of Arizona ) County of Maricopa ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 2002, by , / 1 J &0' OFFICIALSEAL tary Public "L6ANCHEZ ■0jW PUBLIC • STATE OF ARQOMA W1pN�A COUIM MyCdnm.E AM030.2008 My commission expires: C•. 4; li N 3 �l o� TOWN of FOUNTAIN HILLS - �4 Community Development Department `that is AP" MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Town Council THROUGH: Jesse Drake, Interim Director of Community Development FROM: Dana Burkhardt, Senior Plannerl�:� SUBJECT: Consideration of the preliminary plat and hillside protection transfer for "Sierra Madre Estates -Phase I", a nine -lot, two -tract, single-family subdivision; Case # S2001-16. DATE: June 28, 2002 This request by Rytan Management, LLC, is for approval of the preliminary plat and hillside protection transfer for "Sierra Madre Estates -Phase I", a nine -lot, two -tract, single-family subdivision. This subdivision is proposed for an unplatted parcel of land located along the north side of Siena Madre Drive, between Ashbrook wash and Lot 5 of Final Plat 511. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to approve this preliminary plat request at the June 13, 2002, Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing. Please refer to the attached Staff Report for additional details regarding this request. If you have questions, I can be reached at (480) 816-5138. 16836 East Palisades Boulevard, Building C — P.O. Box 17958 — Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 — (480) 837-2003 — FAX: (480) 837-1404 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND STAFF REPORT July 2, 2002 CASE NO.: PROJECT MANAGER: LOCATION: REQUEST: DESCRIPTION: OWNER: APPLICANT: EXISTING ZONING: PARCEL SIZE: S2001-16 Dana Burkhardt, Senior Planner Located on the north side of Sierra Madre Drive, south and west of Ashbrook wash, east of Final Plat 511, Lot 5. Consideration of the preliminary plat and hillside protection easement transfer for "Sierra Madre Estates -Phase I", a nine -lot, two -tract, single- family subdivision. Rytan Management, LLC Bozidar Rajkovski "R1-43" Single Family Residential 11.10 acres SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: NORTH: Town owned Ashbrook wash and Aspen Dam #6 Parcel; zoned "R1-43" SOUTH: Sunridge Canyon Parcel "E", single-family homes; zoned "Rl-10A" EAST: Ashbrook Wash; zoned "R1-43" WEST: Final Plat 511, Lot 5 (undeveloped); zoned "R1-35" This request by Rytan Management, LLC, is for approval of the preliminary plat for "Sierra Madre Estates -Phase I", a nine -lot, two -tract single-family subdivision. This subdivision is proposed for a vacant parcel of land located along the north side of Sierra Madre Drive, between Ashbrook Wash, and Lot 5 of Final Plat 511. The applicant is also requesting Town Council approval of a hillside protection transfer that would provide approximately 34,581 square feet of Hillside Protection Easement on a portion of Lot 5, Final Plat 511, located adjacent to a portion of the west property boundary of the subject parcel, to fulfill the requirements of this preliminary plat. The application for this preliminary plat originally included the proposed subdivision of the adjacent Lot 5, Final Plat 511, in addition to the "R1-43" vacant parcel of land described in this report. Subsequent to the original submittal, the applicant has withdrawn their request to subdivide Lot 5, Final Plat 511 with this preliminary plat application. This preliminary plat request is to subdivide the "Rl- 43" parcel of land, which consists of approximately 11.10 acres, into nine lots and two tracts. The proposed density is .89 dwelling units per acre. Lots 1 & 2 are proposed to share a common driveway, accessed from Sierra Madre. Lots 3 & 4 are also 11 Page 2 of 7 proposed to share a common driveway accessed from Sierra Madre. Lots 5 through 9 will require that the developer provide a fully improved hillside local cul-de-sac street standard for access to the five lots. This new street is named "Princess Court" on the preliminary plat. The proposed average lot size is 48,662.55 square feet, with a minimum lot size of 43,561 square feet and a maximum lot size of 70,185 square feet. The lot size, the total disturbable area for each lot, and the total buildable area within the minimum building setbacks of each lot are as follows: Lot # Total Lot Area Disturbance Area Buildable Area (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft. Win setbacks) 1 47,897 24,010 7,812 2 46,640 14,335 8,370 3 43,561 17,731 8,537 4 43,639 23,534 8,481 5 44,207 15,659 4,519 6 47,377 18,246 7,365 7 44,866 24,322 11,160 8 49,591 28,220 13,001 9 70,185 48,450 17,130 The preliminary plat includes the dedication of approximately 251,315 square feet of Hillside Protection Easement to the Town of Fountain Hills. The property owners are also dedicating to the Town a Dam Access Easement located on Lot 1, Tract `B" for access and maintenance of the existing Aspen Dam property, as well as dedicating the proposed right-of-way identified as Princess Court. Water service for Lots 1 through 4 will be provided from the existing water main in the Sierra Madre Right -of -Way. Water service for Lots 5 through 9 would be provided through a main line extension from the Sierra Madre main line, through the Princess Court right-of-way, to the end of the proposed cul-de-sac street. The sewer service for lots 1 through 4 is proposed to gravity flow and tie into the existing sewer line in the Sierra Madre Right -of -Way. Sewer service for Lots 5 through 9 was proposed from a new eight inch sewer line located in the northern portion of the Princess Court right-of-way, which would tie into the existing eight inch sewer line located along the eastern portion of the Town owned wash parcel. Due to the prohibitions of the Wash Initiative, Section 9-3-3 of the Town Code, the developer has provided an alternate sanitary sewer plan. The alternate sanitary sewer plan, shown on Sheet 7 of 9 of the Preliminary Plat, consists of a single sewer pump lift -station to service lots 5 through 9, which would connect a new force main line in the Sierra Madre Right -of -Way to the existing gravity line located south of Lot 1. See the letter from Ron Huber dated March 4, 2002, sewer option #2, "Exhibit E" attached, for the Sanitary District comments on this proposed sewer configuration. o Page 3 of 7 Conformance with the Town Code, Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance: Staff has found this preliminary plat request in substantial conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The current preliminary plat submittal does not conform to the Town Code with regard to the proposed sanitary sewer line location. The proposed sanitary sewer line across the Town -owned wash parcel violates Section 9-3-3 of the Town Code: "No development of any wash shall occur except by an affirmative vote of town electors in any general election held by the town." [See "Exhibit G" attached] The developer has provided an "Alternate Sanitary Sewer Plan", which is in conformance to the Subdivision Ordinance and Town Code. The alternate plan, shown on Sheet 7 of 9 of the Preliminary Plat, consists of a single sewer pump lift -station to service lots 5 through 9, which connects a new force main line in the Sierra Madre Right -of -Way to the existing gravity line located south of Lot 1. The alternative sanitary sewer line location, as shown on Sheet 7 of 9 of the preliminary plat does conform to all Town regulations. Other alternatives to providing sewer service to each lot are in review, but will likely require right-of-way construction and the inclusion of a sewer pump lift - station to service Lots 5 through 9. Hillside Protection The applicant is requesting Town Council approval to utilize the Hillside Transfer and Protection Option in accordance to Article 504(G)(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to transfer a contiguous 34,581 square foot area of hillside from a portion of Final Plat 511, Lot 5 to this preliminary plat to maintain conformance to the required hillside preservation area of this plat. In addition to the on -site Hillside Protection Easements shown on the preliminary plat, the applicant is required to provide 145 square feet of area for slopes greater than 30%, and 5,554 square feet of area of slopes between 10 to 20% to conform to the Hillside Protection requirements. The designated transfer parcel exceeds the required preservation area of the Subdivision Ordinance. The transfer parcel is located on the southern most portion of Lot 5, Final Plat 511, on the north side of Sierra Madre Drive, between Lot 10A, Block 2, Final Plat 506-C and the proposed Lot 1, as shown on Sheet 10 "H.P.E. Transfer Exhibit" of the Preliminary Plat. Roadway and Access Analysis The proposed dedicated roadway, Princess Court, conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance for the maximum cul-de-sac length, the hillside local road standard dimensions, and will serve less than the maximum number of lots allowed service by a hillside local road cul-de-sac. The Princess Court cul-de-sac roadway is approximately 939.29 feet in length and serves five lots. The common driveway intersection at Sierra Madre Drive for lots 3 & 4, and the Princess Court cul- de-sac street intersection require grading of the existing slopes along Sierra Madre Drive for 0 3 Page 4 of 7 adequate vehicular sightlines. The proposed grading and sightline analysis is shown on Sheet 8 of 9 "Sightline Plan and Profiles" of the Preliminary Plat, and is based on a 30mph speed rather than the 25mph posted speed limit. Landscaping, revegetation, and perpetual service and maintenance are required of the developer and all future property owners over all areas graded through the subdivision improvements or separate grading permits. In response to a request from the Town Marshal's Department, a traffic speed and vehicle volume count was performed for a period of one week on a portion of Sierra Madre Drive, adjacent to the "Sierra Madre Estates Phase-1" subdivision project. Representatives of the North Heights Homeowners Association and other property owners in this area have requested that Staff require a vehicular sightline analysis for speeds greater than 30mph. Please see the attached memorandum dated June 4, 2002 from Randy Harrel regarding "Traffic Speed/Volume Counts" for Staff s recommendation on the traffic and speed count performed. [Exhibit B] The Parks and Recreation Commission and Town Staff are requesting stipulation #7 in the recommendation, which would allow a possible future, trail connection on the Town -owned parcel, accessed from the dedicated cul-de-sac street. [See Exhibit F] The Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff are aware that any development, including a trail, proposed in a Town -owned wash is required to conform to Article 9-3-3 of the Town Code. Neighhorhood Opposition Staff has received letters in opposition to this preliminary plat request from members and representatives of the North Heights Home Owners Association as well as property owners near this area [Letters attached in "Exhibit I"]. The primary concerns of the property owners and residents are: 1) The vehicular sightline and ingress/egress locations should be established for speeds greater than 30mph. Response: Staff has extensively reviewed the traffic impacts this project will create on the Sierra Madre Drive traffic. Please refer to Randy Harrel's memorandum Dated June 4, 2002, regarding "Traffic Spee&Volume Counts" for a summary of Staffs recommendation on the traffic count and speed count. (Exhibit B] 2) Who will maintain the vehicular sightlines and Sierra Madre Frontage Landscaping, and at whose expense? Response: Article 404(L) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires: L. Parkway Landscaping. Parkway areas along arterial streets and other streets, as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director, shall be landscaped in accordance with approved plans and standards set forth in Article VI of this Ordinance. In PUD's, where roadways are privately -owned, a statement shall be 0 4 Page 5 of 7 contained in both the deed restrictions and the owners association by-laws, that all landscaping, including that within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site, shall remain the responsibility of the owners association to maintain in perpetuity. A Municipal Improvement District(s) shall be formed prior to the approval of a Planned Unit Development for private streets to ensure perpetual maintenance of roadway landscaping. (Emphasis added) 3) Does the riprap embankment and the storm drainpipe proposed for the Town -owned parcel fall under the requirements of the Wash Initiative as established in the Town Code? Response: The applicant is not proposing construction within the Town -owned wash, including flood control structures or storm drainpipes. The applicant has revised the improvement plans to provide all flood control and drainage within his property, and within the Town right- of-way, as stipulated in the attached memorandum from the Town Engineer, Randy Harrel, dated June 4, 2002. [Exhibit C] See Sheet 6 of 9 of the Preliminary Plat for the proposed flood control and drainage infrastructure. 4) Clearing the landscaping in the median and along the north side of the Sierra Madre R.O.W. for vehicular sightlines will create an unattractive area void of landscaping. Response: Article IV of The Subdivision Ordinance requires all graded surfaces, including the proposed vehicular sightlines, to be landscaped or revegetated to specific standards. The applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan to address this concern. A complete revegetation and landscape plan is required in accordance with Article IV of the Subdivision Ordinance at the subdivision improvement plan stage as a part of preliminary plat approval. Most subdivisions in the Town have an identical landscaping, revegetation and the maintenance requirement that is enforced and upheld by the Town. 5) This proposed development is too dense for this area of Fountain Hills? Response: The preliminary plat meets the minimum Zoning District density allowed of one family per every 43,560 square feet for the "RI -43 "Single -Family Residential Zoning District, and would be one of the least dense plats in the North Heights area. The General Plan designation for this parcel is "Single-Family/Very Low[Density] " which allows for densities between .25 dwelling units per acre and one dwelling unit per acre. This preliminary plat proposes a density of .89 dwelling units per acre. 6) There is an existing entry monument feature maintained by the North Heights Home Owners Association on proposed Lot 9, which is located within a required vehicular sightline. How does the Town plan to address this? Response: All options have not been fully explored. The developer has provided a notation on the preliminary plat, which states, "the owner will relocate and/or remove the existing association monument and landscaping as required for vehicular sightlines. " The entry 0 5 Page 6 of 7 ® monument could be reconstructed in the same location, but lower in elevation in a manner that will not obstruct the vehicular sightline, as one option. Please see the attached Memorandum from Town Attorney, Bill Farrell, dated June 13, 2002, and letter addressed to Mr. Charles Maxwell, dated June 12, 2002, for further details regarding this issue. [Exhibit D] The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to approve this preliminary plat request at the June 13, 2002 hearing. The primary concerns of the Commission are the vehicular site visibility at the proposed intersections. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed their interest for this preliminary plat to be discussed by Town Council after the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes are approved and available for review by Town Council. Please see the attached copy of the approved meeting minutes from the June 13, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing. [Exhibit A] Staff recommends approval of the proposed hillside protection easement transfer from the "R1-43" parcel to a portion of Final Plat 511, Lot 5. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation for approval failed with a 3-3 vote. Staff recommends approval of the "Preliminary Plat Sierra Madre Estates -Phase I", Case #S2001-16, with the following stipulations: 1) The developer shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the "Alternative Sanitary Sewer Plan", or any other feasible design conforming to all Town Ordinances and Codes, with approval by Town Staff and the Fountain Hills Sanitary District. The request to locate the sewer line in the Town -owned Wash Parcel shall only be permitted after an affirmative vote of the town electors as required in Section 9-3-3 of the Town Code. 2) Prior to final plat recording, the applicant shall provide a Grant of Hillside Protection Easement with exhibits, and proof of ownership of the property to allow the transfer of hillside protection easement from this parcel to a portion of Final Plat 511, Lot 5. 3) Provide a note on the Final Plat, as well as a recorded copy of the deed restrictions and the property owner's association by-laws, that would require each property owner to maintain their Right -of -Way frontage landscaping and vehicular sightlines, including the Sierra Madre median landscaping, in a manner that provides safe vehicular sight visibility as required by the Town Engineer. 4) Provide grading and improvement plans for all common access driveways with a minimum 20' width for two-way access, and a vehicle turn -around prior to final plat. Common driveways and the dam access roads will be graded and rough -surfaced with the subdivision improvements. 5) Submit complete landscape, irrigation, paving, striping, grading and drainage improvement 0 6 Page 7 of 7 plans prior to final plat approval. 6) Construct a 5' sidewalk, for the length equivalent to the project's Sierra Madre lot frontage length, along the south side of Sierra Madre, or other mutually agreeable location(s) as agreed to by the Town Engineer. 7) Provide a note on the final plat that states "Any future public access from the publicly dedicated cul-de-sac, known as Princess Court, to the Town Wash Parcel for a trail connection shall be regulated by the Town Code of the Town of Fountain Hills, Article 9-3-3. 8) Add a note to the Final Plat that states "Back -out type driveways are not allowed at Lots 1 through 4 onto Sierra Madre. 9) Add a note to the Final Plat that states "The Town, may at their option, post any portion of Sierra Madre Drive for "No Parking", due to the narrow width, curve, and crest of the existing road design. 10) Construct a 5' sidewalk along one side of Princess Court, with handicap ramps connecting to the south side of Sierra Madre. 11) Construct a catch basin and 24" storm drainpipe and outlet within the Sierra Madre right-of- way. EXHIBITS: A) June 13, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes B) Memorandum dated June 4, 2002, from Randy Harrel, regarding Traffic SpeedNolume Counts C) Memorandum dated June 4, 2002, from Randy Harrel, regarding Riprap and 24" storm drainpipe in Town wash. D) Memorandum from Bill Farrell dated June 13, 2002. E) Letter from Ron Huber, Director of Sanitation, dated March e, 2002 F) Memorandum from Mark Mayer, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, dated May 29', 2002 G) Article 9-3 of the Town Code H) Preliminary Plat Application and Reductions I) Letters opposing this preliminary plat request 0 7 k TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF I,ft,. THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2002 A public meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning commission was convened and called to order by Chairman Howes at 6:30 p.m. June 13, 2002, in the Town Hall Council chambers located at 16834 E. Palisades Boulevard, Building B, Fountain Hills, Arizona. AGENDA ITEM #1 CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION, AND ROLL CALL. Chairman Howes called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. After the pledge to the flag Chairman Howes called for a moment of silence. Present for the meeting were Chairman Howes, Vice -Chairwoman Dragiewicz and Commissioners, Dennis Brown, Michael Downes, Rod Mooney, Bill O'Brien, and Jay Schlum. Also present was Interim Director of Community Development Jesse Drake, Senior Planner Dana Burkhardt, Planner Denise Ruhling and Recording Secretary Marilyn Grudier. AGENDA ITEM #2 CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 23, 2002. Vice -Chairwoman Dragiewicz made a MOTION to approve the agenda item. Chairman Schlum SECONDED and the motion carried unanimously. Commissioners Downes and Mooney were excused from the vote. Chairman Howes requested that agenda item #7 be moved ahead of the listed agenda items. No one objected. Commissioner Brown asked to be excused from discussion from agenda item #7. AGENDA ITEM #7 CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE 9-LOT 11.104 + ACRE, SIERRA MADRE ESTATES, PHASE I, LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF SIERRA MADRE DRIVE, SOUTHWEST OF GOLDEN EAGLE BOULEVARD, CASE NUMBER S2001-16. Mr. Burkhardt presented the case continued from May 9, 2002. Commissioner O'Brien questioned a stipulation noted in a previous memo from Mr. Hanel to Mr. Burkhardt. He stated that the memo discussed the design of the driveway and roadway intersections to be designed for 35 mph. Mr. Harrel answered that it had not been added to the listed stipulations but could be. Commissioner Downes asked it there were an existing sidewalk on the south side of Sierra Madre. He also asked if the plat was on an environmental sensitive area and if an Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2003 Page 1 of 9 S t environmental site assessment report has been done. Mr. Burkhardt replied that there was a sidewalk from Dove Dr. to Lorma Lane. He also stated that an assessment report had been done and there were no environment issues. Commissioner Downes asked if a stipulation could be added that requested that the HOA hold an insurance policy stating that the Town would not be liable if landscaping sightlines were not maintained. Mr. Harrel replied that it had never been done, but that it was possible. Commissioner Downes stated that the sightline and monument problem would be eliminated if the cul-de-sac road were between lots 5 and 6 and ended at lot 9. Mr. Burkhardt replied that alternatives had been reviewed and noted that there were steeper grades and slopes with the other options. Mr. Harrel added that the driveway at the common lot line between 5 and 6 had a steep slope. Commissioner Downes asked if a stipulation could be added that the riprap on rear lot line of lots 4 and 5 could be on the developer's property instead of town property. He also asked if the Sanitary District had seen the alternate layout. Mr. Harrel answered that the stipulation could be added. He also stated that the Sanitary District would make the final decision of the location of the sewer line. Vice -Chairwoman Dragiewicz asked if it was noted that Sierra Madre would be part of a homeowners association. Mr. Burkhardt relayed that according to the Subdivision Ordinance, it would be required and was noted in the staff report. Robert Sternfels, Attorney for the applicant, stated that only four homes would be visible from the North Heights area. Mr. Sternfels extended his appreciation to Mrs. Drake, Mr. Burhardt and staff for their efforts in working with them. He said that they had accepted all of the stipulations in the staff report. He stated that the easement where the monument sign was located had been granted to North Heights for landscaping only. He said that the owners of the land had owned the wall (the monument sign) and letters had been put on by North Heights. He also stated that there was a wall on the left side of the street and said a solution would be to move the letters from the right wall to the left. He noted that the wall on the right could be removed which would eliminate the site line issue or keep the wall at the location and lowering its height. Mr. Sternfels stated that on page 2.d. of the easement language, there was a requirement stating that North Heights had an obligation to cooperate to minimize the disruption the easement could have on the property and to eliminate the problem. He also stated that they had not or would not be part of the North Heights property association. He noted that the CC&R's were private rights and would need to be resolved privately. Mr. Sternfels stated that the owner of the entire property would declare what would be bound by the recorded CC&R document. He stated that MCO had not owned the Sierra Madre property when it had been recorded. MCO had owned various parcels in both areas and therefore decided to make North Heights a part of the association without consent. He stated that there had not been a signature from North Heights on the proclamation. Mr. Sternfels stated that they had agreed to the stipulations of the sewer issues and had requested that they add the terminology "in any other connections that both the town and sanitary district can agree and approve to". Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2003 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Downes asked why changes had not been made on the plans to include the previous stipulations. Mr. Sternfels replied that he had been on vacation. He stated that the developer had been working hard to meet the requirements. Commissioner Downes commented that the subdivision was unusual. He asked if the developer would reduce the subdivision by 4 lots. Mr. Sternfels replied that they would not. He said that the architect had done a great job in the layout of the plan. Commissioner Downes suggested that a stipulation be added stating that the planning commission would not determine where the sewer line would go but would be responsible to note that sewer would be provided. Mr. Sternfels stated that they had accepted the alternate plan provided by Mr. Burkhardt. He also said they would continue working with the Sanitary District and the Town in finding a better engineering solution, if available. He mentioned that the best solution would be to acquire an easement and go through the wash. Commissioner Downes objected to the solution and wanted to add the stipulation noting that going through the wash would not be an option. Chairman Howes clarified that for development to be able to go through the wash on a town vote would be required. Mr. Burkhardt added that they would not be able to approve the request because it would be against the town code. He stated an alternative would be to hook up the Sierra Madre Sewer line. Chairman Howes commended those who spoke and observed the rules at the last meeting He also stated that those who would be speaking for a group would be allowed more than the 3 minutes to address the commission. He asked that speakers not be repetitive and redundant, and not discuss the H.O.A. and CC&R rules which are not under Planning & Zoning's control. Janice Abramson, 5411 N Tepic Lane, stated numerous negative issues regarding the development of the subdivision. She stated traffic line of sight safety issues that would result in injury, loss of life, and litigation. She stated the sight line analysis had been extremely low and should have been done at 40 mph with 580' sight line rather than the stipulated 35 mph with 470' sightline. Ms. Abramson also pointed out the unresolved negative impact on the environment, the non-compliance with the wash ordinance and, the monument sign easement issue. Bob Prather, 15312 E. Sierra Madre Dr., spoke on the negative impact of traffic, safety, and sight line issues and noted there had been numerous violations per the Zoning Ordinance. He referred to the Zoning Ordinance sections 5.05 and 5.11. Richard Odison, 15327 Sierra Madre Dr., restated traffic, sightline, and monument sign issues. Marc VanBoeckel, 15440 Cabrillo Dr., discussed the negative issues regarding the wash, riprap, and drainage -flood control. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2003 Page 3 of 9 Nancy Henry, 15649 Golden Eagle Blvd., referred to (unsightly) negative issues of the retaining wall for lots 1 and 2 (showed simulated pictures on the overhead projector). She spoke on the sightline issues, plant removal destruction, and the ruined beauty of the area. Charles Maxwell, attorney for North Heights P.O.A., he stated he had been asked to speak about the monument easement. He said MCO had been the grantor of the easement, which sold the underlying land of the estate to Ritan on the notion that it would be one lot. He restated comments from a letter Mr. Farrell had written that referred to an area of concern, the existing monument sign. He stated that vehicles making a left turn on to Sierra Madre would have their line of sight impeded. He also said that Mr. Farrell's letter stated that the developer could move the monument sign. It also stated that the developer purchased the land and also purchased the right to revoke the easement. Mr. Maxwell said that he had written a letter to Mr. Farrell regarding the easement. He stated he had read the easement document and that it had stated nothing of what Mr. Farrell or Mr. Sternfelds stated it said it did. He stated that the easement document states it could only be revoked or terminated under certain conditions. He said his client would not agree to it. He stated that Mr. Sternfelds said in 2.d of the easement that they would have an obligation to make a change to accommodate Rytan, the owner of the underlying property. He said his letter states that the association would only be required to cooperate with the owner of the estate, Rytan. He stated that he had received a response letter back from Mr. Farrell that said he no longer claimed that the owner of the estate had the ability to move the monument. Mr. Maxwell stated that the North Heights P.O.A. would not move the monument sign. If the developer wanted it moved then they would either have to go to court or live with it. He stated that the plans should not be approved until the issue is solved. Chairman Howes stated that staff would make sure that the project would be safe and had met all the Zoning Ordinance regulation. He said that the litigation of the monument issue would be a separate issue and would not be addressed. Mr. Maxwell commented that staff had misinformation regarding the monument sign issue and stated that it should be addressed. Richard Stainaker, 15031 Los Mochos Court, Director of the Association, stated they had spent time, effort and money on the entryway and would fight to keep the monument in its location. He also restated safety issues. Brian Morgan, Attorney for North Heights P.O.A., stated, regarding the riprap on lot 9, that a pipe extending out into the wash would be in violation of the Wash Ordinance. John Resnick, 15427 N. Sunridge Dr., stated that the project had too many violations and safety issues. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2003 Page 4 of 9 Carl Garsole, 15045 N. Elena Dr., asked if the owners had been apart of the North Heights Association and had paid dues and why would they if they were not part of the association. Chairman Howes commented that that topic would not be a part of the approval process. Bill Leech, 15201 Lonna Lane, stated that the area had been a traffic area for coyotes and should be left undisturbed. He also stated that the undisturbed area had already been disturbed. April Forest, 15215 San Diego Circle, stated her dissatisfaction with the project. Larry Schmidt, 16255 Aspen Dr., expressed concern over access to the dam in case of an emergency. Mr. Harrel replied that there was an easement on lot 1 that would allow access to the dam. Phil Gazziano, 14946 Sierra Madre Dr., asked where cars would be parked on lot 3 if they held a party. He also stated his concerns over the traffic safety issues. Marshall Friedman, 15245 Carmalita Court, stated that the issues that had been brought up needed to be satisfied prior to consideration. 4 Vice -Chairwoman Dragiewicz asked about the danger of turning into lots 3 and 4 from Sierra Madre and asked if the median could be extended. She also asked if there could be no parking signs posted. Mr. Harrel responded that they could make it a right turn in and out of the driveway but then everyone would end up having to make a u-turn at the end of the median. He also stated that they would put in a median if needed. Vice -Chairwoman Dragiewicz stated that another stipulation should be added regarding the riprap. Mr. Harrel replied that a stipulation could be added that states the riprap and pipe would be put on the Sierra Madre right of way. Commissioner Mooney asked Mr. Harrel if the traffic report recommended 35 mph design criteria. Mr. Harrel replied that they had specified 30 mph but could be 35 mph. He also stated that they had not requested a traffic report for the subdivision. He added that the Subdivision Ordinance required a minimum of 30 mph. Commissioner Downes stated that the developer had met the requirements of the ordinance. He stated the commission was bound to follow the advice of the Town Attorney. He stated that they would not be involved with the CC&R issue. Commissioner Downes went on to say that the Commission needed to know what would be approved for the sewer line. Commissioner Downes made a MOTION to recommend to the Town Council approval of the preliminary plat with staff stipulations plus an additional stipulations #12 that said Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2003 Page 5 of 9 "inasmuch as vehicular sightlines are imperative for community safety" that a note be added to the plat requiring that the HOA to maintain the sightlines and that the H.O.A. would be required to submit a copy of an insurance policy that would hold the town harmless in the event of any litigation regarding the proposed sightlines. Commissioner Downes also added stipulation #13 requiring that the riprap and pipe be located on the northeast corner of the property on the owners' property. Commissioner Mooney SECONDED. Commissioner O'Brien stated that future problems would be an issue with the monument sign on an easement if given approval. Mrs. Drake added that the traffic study had not been required and had been done as a courtesy by staff. Commissioner Schlum stated he was concerned about the traffic speed and the accuracy of the traffic report. He questioned the Wash Ordinance of dispensing of drainage in one area, which would cause erosion in the wash. Mr. Harrel replied the riprap would minimize the erosion. He stated that the alternative stipulation would be to keep the pipe in the Sierra Madre right-of-way and tying into the box covert. Commissioner Schlum stated he would not be comfortable approving the preliminary plat. Commissioner Mooney stated that a stipulation should be added to include the 35 mph standard for sightline distances. Commissioner Downes made a MOTION to the amendment to add Stipulation #14 to design sightlines on Sierra Madre to 35 mph. Commissioner Mooney SECONDED. Commissioner Downes commented that until the monument issue was settled nothing would happen. He stated that the monument issue should not be an issue to base a denial on. Chairman Howes added that if the litigation resulted in the monument sign staying where it is then the project would need to be redone to solve the sightline issue. The results of the roll call vote were as follows: Commissioner Brown — abstained Commissioner Downes — aye Commissioner Mooney — aye Commissioner O'Brien — nay Commissioner Schlum - nay Vice -Chairwoman Dragiewicz — nay Chairman Howes — aye The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes to 3 nays. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2003 Page 6 of 9 Sierra Madre Traffic Counts.doc Page I of 3 Chron TAIN o ;I So ^tea that is Town of FOUNTAIN HILLS Public Works Department Engineering Division MEMORANDUM TO: Dana Burkhardt FROM: Randy L. Harrel DATE: June 4, 2002 RE: Traffic Speed/Volume Counts Sierra Madre Drive near Dove Drive (as related to the proposed Sierra Madre Estates Subdivision) Per Marshal's Sergeant Ken Martinez's request, Street Superintendent Tony Marchese has had traffic speed/volume counts performed on Wednesday (May 29, 2002) through Sunday (June 2, 2002) on Sierra Madre Drive. These counts were taken 300' west of Dove Drive, and 300' east of Dove Drive, per his request. Based on topographic maps of the area, the roadway grades are about 6% uphill to the west and 8% downhill to the east of Dove Drive The speed and volume counts show the following (the detailed data is also available if requested): SIERRA MADRE DRIVE NEAR DOVE DRIVE Location i rattic virection Volume (vpd) Average Daily Traffic AM Peak - Hour - Volume PM Peak — Hour - Volume Speed (mph) 15 %-i le 50%-ile 85%-ile 10 mph pace speed % in pace speed IL`1 ) Average weekday volume 300' West 300' East 561 581 674 693 11:00 7:00 11:00 8:00 44 52 51 61 5:00 12:00 5:00 12:00 48 44 57 51 29 32 27 30 35 39 32 35 41 45 38 40 30-40 35-45 25-35 30-40 65% 60% 65% 70% lad Sierra Madre Traffic Counts.doc Pau 2 of 3 Chron COMPARISON TO CURRENT STANDARDS Sierra Madre was constructed prior to the Town's incorporation and does not fit any of our current street standard sections. (It most closely resembles and functions like our collector street sections.) Per Table 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance, we would normally design for the following roadway traffic volumes and design speeds: Road Tye Limited Collector (for a dead-end only) Minor Collector Major Collector Actual: Sierra Madre (East of Dove Drive) Maximum Two-wayADT 900 5000 7000 1367 Minimum Design Speed 25 30 35 25 (posted) 30 (design per Subdivision Ordinance) 29 (15%-Ile) 34 (50%-Ile) 39 (85%-ile) Traffic engineering studies nationwide have consistently shown that most people drive reasonably and prudently for conditions, regardless of the posted speed limit. The safest speed to drive is usually the same speed as most other drivers are driving. An artificially low speed limit widens the difference in speeds between vehicles driving the speed limit, and those driving the speed that "feels" reasonable, and can contribute to an increased number of accidents. The intersection of Dove Drive with Sierra Madre has a sightline adequate for less than 35 mph (470' sightline) and will constrain the speed limit regardless of what vehicular sightline and design speed is used for the Sierra Madre Estates' Tract A roadway or the joint use driveways for Lots 1/2 and 3/4. The speed data taken on Sierra Madre provide a preliminary indication that the existing speed limit (as set by MCO and the former Road Districts) may be set artificially low. (However, additional speed locations and an evaluation of existing sightline obstructions and warning signage would be needed prior to actually considering raising the speed limit.) Also, our initial assumption would be that vehicle speeds are lower near the proposed Sierra Madre Estates private street intersection than at Dove Drive due to the narrow roadway and median, horizontal curve, and the approach to/from the stop sign at Golden Eagle Boulevard. In any case, the additional side -friction created by a new subdivision's street, turn pocket, and driveways frequently cause the roadway speeds to decrease in response to those new conditions. So, if Sierra Madre Estates is approved, we would not want to move forward with any raising of the speed limit at the present time. The actual vehicle speeds on Sierra Madre Drive are consistent with the speeds on many other collector streets in Fountain Hills. The preliminary plat is based on a 30 mph design speed, as previously stipulated by staff, and as specified in the Subdivision Ordinance for a Minor Collector. If, based on the measured existing Sierra Madre Traffic Counu.doc Page 3 of 3 Chnxt traffic speeds, the Commission and Council wish is to specify a higher design speed, staff would recommend adding the following stipulation to the plat: ■ Design all driveway and roadway intersections for a 35 mph speed (470' sightline) onto Sierra Madre. M cc: Tom Ward Art Candelaria Ken Martinez �01 Riprap--Sierra Madre Estates.doc Paee I of I Chron TAM so . �• RSf1999 ° that its is An" TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Dana Burkhardt e Randy L. Harrel 1 June 4, 2002 Town of FOUNTAIN HILLS Public Works Department Engineering Division MEMORANDUM Sierra Madre Estates Riprap on bend and 24" pipe outlet within Ashbrook Wash You have requested a statement regarding using the riprap and the outlet for a 24" pipe, both as shown on the preliminary plat at the east side of this subdivision, on the southwest bank of Ashbrook Wash. Technical review comments for Sierra Madre Estates required this riprap northeast of this project's access roadway, at the confluence of the Aspen Dam (Dam #6) spillway which parallels Golden Eagle Boulevard and the Aspen Dam outlet pipe channel (along the pre -Fountain Hills Ashbrook Wash alignment, which lies more or less parallel to and north of Sierra Madre Drive). The preliminary plat drawings include that riprap. The riprap is necessary to prevent scour -out of this project's access roadway in a very large storm or Dam #6 spillway event. The riprap and 24" pipe outlet are clearly flood control measures, which are allowed in a Town - owned wash as a permitted exception under Section 9-3-2A (Watercourse Preservation and Habitat Ordinance) of the Town Code, as follows: "Development" means any human alteration to the natural state of the land including its vegetation, soil, geology or hydrology for any use except flood control, fire control and matters of public safety or emergency, or easement use or maintenance, or maintenance of any existing structure or fixture existing as of the twenty-eighth day of May, 1996. However, if the Town Attorney, Planning Commission, or Town Council has concerns regarding a legal challenge to allowing the riprap and pipe outlet within this wash parcel, we would recommend adding the following stipulation: ■ Increase the radius of the access roadway at the northeast corner of Lot 9. Place riprap within Tract A to protect the corner of this roadway, and backfill over the riprap to existing grade. ■ Construct the 24" pipe outlet within the Sierra Madre right-of-way. bb cc: Tom Ward Jim Leubner Art Candelaria ail F-+ w Law Offices of William E. Farrell, P.L.L.C. Tel (480) 837-5750 William E. Farrell Fax (480) 837-5805 E-mail billfarrell().gwest.net MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Director FROM: William E. Farrell Town Attorney 0 DATE: June 13, 2002 RE: Sierra Madre Estates Questions from P & Z Commissioners and General Public Building A. 16838 E. Palisades Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 This office has received three requests for information concerning or in connection with the Sierra Madre subdivision. The first is a series of three questions with subparts coming from the Commission members themselves. The second is an e-mail received from a group known as the Committee for Responsible Development Board and the third being a letter from Charles E. Maxwell, attorney for the North Heights Property Owners Association. For the convenience of all of the parties I am attaching all three requests for information to this memorandum. I will attempt to deal with the issues in as direct and accurate a manner as I can. I will follow as a guideline the request from the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and attempt to answer those questions which I believe will provide answers to the questions asked by the Committee as well as Mr. Maxwell. The first set of issues concern the Fountain Hills Sanitary District and the use of the existing wash as a method of providing sewer connections for the proposed lots. First and foremost, without an existing easement from the lots across the wash to the point of connection the Town and the Developer can not force an easement to be created in the wash without a vote of the public. The Fountain Hills Sanitary District can not create an easement in the Wash where one does not exist. The obligation of the developer to provide sanitary connections to the nine (9) lots can be met with more expense by using an alternative route other than the wash. The question of the acceptability of that route falls with the Sanitary District and not the Town. The plat map should be approved or denied on the basis of its application against the ordinances of the Town not the rules and regulations of the Sanitary District. The Planning and Zoning Commission should consider only the land use applications and the planning requirements. No building permit will be issued until the applicant can demonstrate that each house will be able to be served by a hook-up to a sanitary sewer Lsystem. M Memorandum Re: Sierra Madre Estates Questions from P & Z Commissioners and General Public June 13, 2002 Page 2 There is a possibility that the developer could ask the Fountain Hills Sanitary District Board to consider an eminent domain or condemnation action against the Town in order to obtain the easement that would be needed to go through the wash to connect to the existing sewer line. The Town would resist that condemnation action and a court would decide whether or not preservation of the washes is a higher or better use of the property than a sanitary sewer system. The court would then determine that either the Sanitary District could have an easement and then compensate the Town for that easement or in the alternative it would deny the Sanitary District the ability to use the wash. The Planning and Zoning Commission should not, in my opinion, delay their vote on any matter pending the outcome of how sewer service is provide. The provision of sewer service is a valid condition but the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town for that matter have little or no business attempting to dictate public policy for the Sanitary District. There are five (5) elected members of the Sanitary District Board and it is their responsibility to determine how they chose to provide services. A turn -down of a preliminary or final plat by a Town based on the inability of the applicant to satisfy the requirements of the a sanitary district would be the grounds for a lawsuit against the Town which I believe would be difficult to defend. It is not our job to determine where the sanitary district lines go. We have continually informed the Sanitary District that absent a validly existing easement that they do not have any superior rights in the wash as compared to any other user of the wash. The second area for concern is an existing monument on privately owned property which will need to be either lowered or removed as a consequence of the approval of the subdivision plat. Vehicles wishing to make a left turn existing on to Sierra Madre will have their line of site impeded to their right by the monument. The rights conveyed to the North Heights Property Owners Association through the easement can be modified by the grantor who is also the applicant. A map and a copy of the easement are also attached to this memorandum for your convenience. The question was asked as to whether or not the developer could remove the monument and the answer is yes. When the developer purchased the land he also purchased the right to revoke the easement; however, I believe the decision on either lowering or removing the monument should be made in consultation with the traffic engineers and every efforts to preserve the monument either by lowering it or by moving it to another location would be desirable. The third and final area for concern is that of the conditions, covenants and restrictions on the property as a result of its inclusion in an existing subdivision. I am attaching to this memorandum an excerpt from a treatise on municipal law known as McQuillian on Municipal Corporations. The excerpt is from Volume 8, Section 2509 and begins on page 35 and ends at the top of page 39. The excerpt clearly states the law regarding the relationship of deed restrictions and zoning. It is the opinion of this office that the Planning and Zoning Commission should ignore the existence of the Memorandum Re: Sierra Madre Estates Questions from P & Z Commissioners and General Public June 13, 2002 Page 3 deed restrictions as they apply this subdivision application against our subdivision ordinance. Failure to approve or deny the subdivision solely based on the deed restrictions would also be the basis for unfavorable litigation against the Town. You should approve this application if it meets all of the criteria of the subdivision ordinance. The home owners association has every right to seek redress of their deed restrictions in court and not at the Planning and Zoning Commission level. I hope this answers all of the concerns and questions that you have regarding this matter and I look forward to your vote on this matter on June 13`h, 2002 and your recommendation being forward to the Mayor and Council for their final disposition of this item. U QUESTIONS FOR BILL FARRELLRELA1iVETo STERRAMADRE SUB. CDear Jesse: Please ask Bill Farrell about the legalities of the following items: 1. Wash Area A. Can Sanitary District approve easements over any property? B. Does Sarµtary District have the right of eminent domain? 1. Even over Town -owned property? C. Can Sanitary -Distract Torce-Town to allow easement over its property which only benefits a private Developer? 2. Sight Links A. Can Town legally approve a plat where sight line safety does not meet normal Town standards? B. Can Town force a third party (North Heights Sub.) to remove its private monument sign for the benefit of a private Developer? 1. Developer was aware of the monument and the easement for that monument )Vbenhe purchased the land. My purchasing the land, he is acknowledging the existence of the easement and the sign. 3. CCR's 1. Even though we can't enforce the CCR's, it seems ridiculous for the Commission -to recommend approval of a plat which wrll eventually be litigated. The outcome of that litigation will probably alter the plan of the ljlat. A. If this goes to court, the Town will probably be named in the suit. If we recommend approval, the sub(ThWion will name us. If we recommend denial, the Developer will name us. If we wait for the case to go to court without any recommendation, nobody can name us. 2. Is the property a part ofNorfh'neights Subdivision? A. It appears that MCO applied for a transfer of this piece into North Heights onNov. 21.'ne County actually recorded the property sometime near the end of December. In between the filing of the transfer and the actual stamped date of recording, MCO sold the property to the new Developer. When does tie transfer take effect - date of appTication or date of recordation? B. Would the new Developer be required to request a withdrawal of the transtr from the County in order to stop the recording process? C. Or is the recordation null and void because of the sale of the property before the actual recording date? 14 Pagel of 2 Bill Farrell From: <JLA711 @aol.com> To: <biIIfarrelI@uswest.net> Cc: <bob.howes@rocl.rc.state. us>; <swbsinc@msn.com>; <ONEHABITAT@aol.com>; <msdownes@earthlink.net>; <wobrien884@juno.com>; <RODMOONEY@aol.com>; <jschlum@uswest.net>; <smorgan@fh.az.gov>; <Ifraverd@fh.az.gov>; <shutcheson@fh.az.gov>; <jkavanagh@fh.az.gov>; <sralphe@fh.az.gov>; <Seeanotherpoint@aol.com>; <kathleennicola@msn.com>; <CJA@gwest.com>; <rmelendez@fh.az.gov> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:28 AM Subject: Proposed Sierra Madre Estates Subdivision To: William Farrell Town Attorney From: Committee for Responsible Development in Fountain Hills RE: Preliminary Plat for Sierra Madre Estates Phase I This is to request written clarification of your May 8, 2002 Memorandum regarding Phase I of Sierra Madre Estates. In your May 8 memo, you stated that there is no legal basis for allowing the sewer connection without an easement. Then you stated that the issue is one between the land owner and the Sanitary District, and that the Town should not be involved until the building permits phase. We are concerned about this issue, because the Sanitary District has erroneously concluded that the Wash Ordinance does not apply to the Sanitary District. We encourage you, as Town Attorney, to advise the Sanitary District - as well as P&Z and the Town Council- that the Wash Ordinance does indeed apply, and that there are exceptions in the Wash Ordinance for sewer servicing. Specifically, the Wash Ordinance states, " No development of any wash shall occur except by an affirmative vote of Town electors in any general election held tw by the Town." The Wash Ordinance sets forth several exceptions, including "easement use or maintenance" and other activities. Significantly, none of these exceptions includes the provision of sewer services. Accordingly, the Wash Ordinance applies with equal force to the Sanitary District. If the Sierra Madre Estates developer pursues the option of sewer development in the wash, the Town Council is required, pursuant to the Wash Ordinance, to deny plat approval until the electors have the opportunity to vote on this important issue. Similarly, because P&Z approval of the plat would require a wholesale disregard of the Wash Ordinance, it would seem appropriate for P&Z to deny plat approval until the electors have addressed the issue. Finally, in a March 19, 2002 memorandum, the Fountain Hills Engineering Department asked you to provide legal counsel regarding this issue. We have reviewed this memo and believe that the Engineering Department's conclusion - that the Sanitary District has the "right" to make the proposed sewer connection - is legally indefensible, because it entirely ignores the Wash Ordinance. The Wash Ordinance clearly takes precedence over any contractual agreement between MCO and the Sanitary District, regardless of when the ordinance was enacted. Moreover, the Sanitary District has no inherent "responsibility" to provide sewer service which overrides or supercedes the properly -promulgated Wash Ordinance. In sum, we believe the Wash Ordinance is clear on its face, and that the proposed sewer connection cannot be approved by the Town until it has been subject to voter approval. Indeed, Dana Burkhardt's Staff Report, provided to P&Z, reaches the same conclusion and recommends that "the applicant shall request a vote of the town electors in a general election prior to final plat approval." We would appreciate a written clarification of your position before the June 13th P&Z meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. t, Respectfully, The Committee for Responsible Development Board 5/29/2002 Page 2 of 2 Nancy Wells Henry 15649 Golden Eagle Redritr@hotmail.com John Rezek 15427 Sunridge Dr JRRezek@cox.net Ann Becker 15830 Eagles Nest Dr desertbunch@msn.com Robert Prather 15312 Sierra Madre sierralimited@yahoo.com Janice Abramson 15411 Tepic jla711@aol.com Rob Allen 15361 Golden Eagle Roballen@get.net E 5/29/2002 May-28-02 04:21P Law Offices 480 969 8267 P.02 LAW 01 1-ICUs or CHARLES E. MAXWELL, P.C. Charles E. Maxwell Entrada Executive Plaza Brian W. Morgan' 1423 S. Higley Road 'telephone: 480.833AMI Mark E. Lines Suite 119 Facsimile: 480.969.8267 •ALso a Member u(rhe t:rah (far Mesa, Arizona 95206 E-mail: lo"-I1I )C#9WeSt.11et www. homeowner-assuctanons.eom Representing Over 400 Horneotvners Avoc�iation.r May 28, 2002 Sent via Telefacsimile: (480) 837-5805 and First Class Mail William E. Farrell, Town Attorney Law Office of William E. Farrell, P.L.L.0 16838 East Palisades Blvd., Building A Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 1 RE: North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc. Case S2001-16 Preliminary Plat for Sierra Madre Estates Phase I - Dear Mr. Farrell: As you are aware from prior communications, I represent the North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc. ("Association"). In particular, I have been involved in representation of the Association with respect to the proposed development of Sierra Madre Estates Phase I by Rytan Develop,lient (or its successors and assigns). ,'1s you are or should be aware, the property for the proposed Sierra Madre Estates Phase I development was annexed into and is subject to the recorded restrictive covenants of North Heights, including Association architectural approval requirements. The annexation and Rytan Development's knowledge of the annexation has been reaffirmed by MC Properties. Both MCO and the Association are opposed to the proposed development and both support strict enforcement of the operative documents governing the use of said property. The Association has not approved any development, let alone the plans currently being considered by the Town of Fountain Hills. Due to the numerous problems related to the proposed development, the Association cannot understand why the Town appears to be taking an aggressive approach towards approval, when approval is purely advisory at this stage due to the failure of the developer to pursue approval from the Association. While it is understood the Town is not required to withhold approval due to an owner's failure to comply with restrictive covenants or failure to pursue approval from an architectural committee, the Association believes Rytan Development's failure to pursue approval in this case should be given appropriate consideration by the Town. In A Firm Devoted Exclusively to Homeowner Association Law and Litigation. May-28-02 04:21P Law Offices 480 969 8267 P-O3 L May 28, 2002 Page Two other words, the Town should not be pursuing what appears to be an aggressive plan towards approval, when the proposed development has so many significant issues remaining outstanding and approval appears to be only advisory at this stage due to lack of any approval from the Association. The Association and many of its members are perplexed regarding the Town's approach to this relatively insignificant attempt at development by a single owner, in apparent disregard to the interests of numerous voting taxpayers within the North Heights community. The Association has also asked that I reaffirm your prior legal opinion regarding the proposed sewer line crossing the Town owned wash parcel. The Association agrees with your interpretation that Section 9-3-3 of the Town Code requires that "No development of any wash shall occur except by an affirmative vote of town electors in any general election held by the Town." For reasons unknown, however. various department within the Town have attempted to circumvent your opinion. The Association believes no approval should be given by the Town until the location of the proposed sewer line is resolved. To the extent the Developer intends to cross the Town owned wash parcel with the sewer line, approval should be withheld pending the required general election. The Association is also confused regarding the Town's perceived approach regarding the entry (W monument. To avoid any confusion, the proposed development is the cause of any safety problem, not the Association's monument. The Association has no intention of moving its monument, which monument is highly valued by the Association and its members. The Association has a legal right to continued maintenance of xhe monument in the precise location it currently stands and where it has stood for many years. The Association believes approval should not be considered unti I an acceptable alternative plan is submitted to the Town regarding the roadway and line of sight issues. (The Association agrees with your prior correspondence that safety issues should be of paramount importance to the 'Town and its citizens. Approval of the proposed development plans without resolution of the monument issue will surely not bode well for the Town in the event of a subsequent accident. Prior communications will surely be used against the Town if a death or damage claim is subsequently pursued.) The Town is encouraged to reconsider its apparent approach towards development approval in light of numerous outstanding issues, including those identified above. Under the circumstances, the Association believes the Town should reject approval at this time and refuse to reconsider approval until all outstanding issues are resolved. The Association believes no legitimate Town purpose is furthered by the perceived attempt to push through development approval at this time. L_J May-28-02 04:22P Law Offices 480 969 8267 P_O4 May 28, 2002 Page Three If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or any other matter related to development within the North Heights community, do not hesitate to contact me. ery t ly y rs, Charles E. Maxwell CEM:wls cc: Mayor, Town of Fountain Hills Town Council, Town of Fountain Hills Town of Fountain Hills, Planning and Zoning Commission Acting Town Manager. Town of Fountain Hills I ] Unofficial Documents When recorded, return to: MCO Properties Inc. 16838 E. Palisades Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 ATTN: Tim Terrill, Vice President GRANT OF COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT THIS GRANT OF COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT is made this 21st day of September, 1995, by MCO Properties L.P., a Delaware limited partnership d/b/a MCO Properties Limited Partnership ("MCO") (the "Grantor") and the North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc., an Arizona corporation, (the "Grantee") with reference to the following: A. Grantor is the record owner of certain real property located in Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona described collectively on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Easement Area"). B. MCO intends to convey to Grantee common area landscaping easement No. 3 over, across and through the Easement Area, on the terms provided herein. Easement No. 3 (V contains a masonry entry wall and landscaping. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Fasernent. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee and its successors and assigns non- exclusive common area landscaping easements upon and across the Easement Area, for common area landscaping purposes. 2. Conditions. The grants of the common area landscaping easements are subject to the following conditions and limitations: a. Grantee and its successors and assigns agree to be bound by all existing terms, provisions and conditions of any easements, restrictions, covenants, conditions, reservations, or other encumbrances or agreements now in existence and affecting all or any part of the Easement Area. b. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall maintain the Easement Area. c. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall indemnify Grantor and its successors and assigns to ownership of the Easement Area and hold them harmless from any liability or loss arising out of the rights and responsibilities granted Grantee hereunder ►2 including without limitation Grantee's use and maintenance of the Easement Area, unless Grantor's misconduct or gross negligence in any way causes such liability or loss. d. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall in all events cooperate as reasonably requested by Grantor and its successors and assigns to ownership of the Easement Area so as to minimize any disruption of the use of the Easement Area caused by exercise of Grantee's rights hereunder. 3. iC:harnnt .r of reement a Unofficial Document scanin a P A� cL�g�.sem�nrc. This agreement, and rights, obligations, and common area landscaping easements granted hereunder are perpetual and binding on the parties. The rights and obligations contained herein are intended to and shall run with the land, and burden the Easement Area. a. This agreement and the common area landscaping easements granted hereunder shall not be terminated by vesting of rights to the Easement Area and the ownership thereof in the same person or person, but only as provided herein. b. This agreement and the common area landscaping easements granted hereunder may be terminated by the agreement of the parties, or their successors -in -interest. Such termination shall take effect upon recordation of a written memorandum of such agreement, signed by all such persons. c. This agreement and the common area landscaping easements granted hereunder shall each terminate automatically upon the cessation of the use of each of the common area landscaping easements by the Grantee and its successors and assigns and shall forthwith revert to the Grantor and its successors and assigns insofar as the Grantor owned the real property prior to the grant hereunder. UNIX=1.• .. a. Entire-Agreemen . The instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect excepting subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged, or as otherwise provided herein. b. Attomev's Feet, In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties relating to this agreement or the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party actual attorney's fees, court costs and litigation expenses incurred in connection therewith. C- 2 - LANDSCAP.AG:09/28/95 c. Seve`rahiliittq. If any clause, sentence, or other portion of the terms, fir• conditions, covenants, and restrictions of this agreement shall become illegal, null or void for any reason, or be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be so, the remaining portion shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the day and year above written. "Grantor" Unofficial Document 'Grantee" MCO Properties L.P., a Delaware North Heights Property Owners limited partnership Association, Inc. By: MCO Properties Inc., a Delaware corporation, general artner By: Name: TimoYhy L. Terrill Title: Vice President E By:.- `? -) S Ces., Name: Greg Bielli Title: President By: me: Vincent A. Pellerito Title: Secretary - 3 - LANDSCAP.AO:09/28l95 STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thof 1995 byTLI It , as If/nP 4 of MCO Properties Inc., on behalf of MCO Properties L.P. arDel war rporatio , general partner. Unofficial Document L.P. (i > oOFFICIAL SEAL LISA Notary NOTARY ANN BURKHARDT NOTARY PUBLIC—ARIZONA``*NotPublic in and for the MARICOPA COUNTY State of Arizona ' My Comm, expires Apr, 30, 1998 STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24ay of 1995, by(�Q FiE1i and as wand _tikrl o of the North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc. on behalf of the corpora 'on. o< ` * OFFICIAL SEAL > LISA ANN BURKHARDT ` NOTARY PUBLIC—ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY S MY comm. expires Apr. 30, 199b Notary Public in and for the State of Arizona - 4 - IANDSCAP.AG:09/29/95 �Ir. Exhibit "A" SIERRA MADRE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT A portion of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 6 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona more particularly described as follows: EASEMENT No. 3 Unofficial Document Commencing at the monument line intersection of Golden Eagle Boulevard and Sierra Madre Boulevard as shown on Fountain Hills Arizona Final Plat No. 505-A, recorded in Book 158, Page 40 of the records of Maricopa County, thence South 48 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West along the monument line of Sierra Madre Boulevard a distance of 262.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 500 feet; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 23 degrees 09 minutes 34 seconds an arc length of 202.10 feet; thence North 18 degrees 15 minutes 26 seconds West on a radial bearing a distance of 35.00 feet to a point on the northerly right of way of Sierra Madre Boulevard, the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence departing said right of way North 18 degrees 15 minutes 26 seconds East on a radial bearing a distance of 30.00 feet to the beginning of concentric curve concave northerly and having a radius (W of 435.00 feet; thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 04 degrees 22 minutes 26 seconds an arc length of 33.21 feet; thence South 13 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds East on a radial line a distance of 30.00 feet to a point on curve on the northerly right of way of Sierra Madre Boulevard, said curve being concave northerly and having a radius of 465.00 feet; thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve and said right of way through a central angle of 04 degrees 22 minutes 26 seconds an arc length of 35.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This easement contains an area of 0.0237 acres more or less. Amended 9-20-95; E L.N. 814-B 8-24-95 GWN Page 1 of 2 0 Exhibit "A" Unofficial Document 0 = 04'22'26" R = 435.00' L = 33.21' 0 — 04 22'26" R .. = 465.00' L = 35.50' S � ERA M '•: 0 N u L.N. 814-B 9-20-95 GWN Page 2 of 2 I L IKI County Parcels 17622720 1761730OZ 1761730OW 1762 17622674 `# 17617001 4' 17617002 17617003 17617004 17617005 [ I 1761700! \1 176 17618726 17618725 176"1 17618724 17618723 17618722 7618009G 17618727 17618754 17618728 17618753 17618729 17618730 17618750 17618749 761 176187 http://www.maricopa.gov/assessor/gis/maps/assessor.mwf Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:51 PM z�c �Q C w m w J m Q ~ C W ED C Z Z Cv J W J I� F— c J c 0 _D c 3 U- 3f= r- J W > V Z J U I \ �� 'da 3AOa ti'ICIPAL CORPORATIONS obje*rves of zoning yen zoning and plan- abodiment of policy zoning ordinances as those principles.13 .ion according to dis- n that it looks to the d and buildings only rough regulation of iajor engineering to :n slum clearance. Is the preservation of property values and the safeguarding of )nsideration esthetic ion or controlled by I harmonize with any )y a municipal plan- Ioreover, changes in ielton v. Bellevue, 73 135 P2d 949, citing this �n nf Clearfield v. 01 L 10, 440 NW2d " .learance and urban ant, see §§ 24.563.10, 2.61. tate v. Matthews, 362 i SW2d 934, citing this vn of Clearfield v. i0 Wis 2d 10, 440 NW2d A zoning, see § 25.17 et c considerations, see 31. ;itizens of Goleta Valley upervisors, 197 Cal App Cal Rptr 339 (abuse of ZONING § 25.09 zoning may be limited not so much by a determination of whether such change is arbitrary and capricious, but rather whether the zoning change is in conformance with the comprehensive plan in effect.19 When a comprehensive plan is the controlling land use plying instrument for a city, the zoning decisions of the city gener- ally must be in accord with that plan.20 However, under some circumstances) the zoning laws are the controlling factor and the comprehensive plan is only a guideline. 21 Where this rule prevails, ordinarily the zoning ordinances need not strictly conform with the zoning plan. 22 § 25.09 Deeds restrictions compared and contrasted. Restrictions under zoning laws and those under deeds or contracts do not have common purposes.I Restrictions under contracts or deeds have private ends in view, and although they may in some instances be directed to secure the public welfare or the good of a discretion by county officers in approving development plan). ]Ky. Erlanger v. Hoff, 535 SW2d 86 (Ky) (invalidating ordinance not compatible with comprehensive plan). Mass. In re Opinion of the Jus- tices, 234 Mass 597, 127 NE 525. Zoning plans, see §§ 25.78, 25.79. 19Iowa. Statute which pro- vided for municipal zoning required zoning regulations to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Velie Outdoor Advertising of Sioux City, Inc. v. Sioux City, 252 NW2d 408 (Iowa). Or. Fasano v. Board of County Comm'rs of Washington County, 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23. Amendments and repeal of ordi- nances and regulations, see § 25.65 et seq. Zoning plans, see §§ 25.78, 25.79. 20 Fla. Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So 2d 629 (Fla App). Or. Baker v. Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772. Zoning plans, see §§ 25.78, 25.79. 21 See §§ 25.78, 25.79. 22 See §§ 25.78, 25.79. [Section 25.09] 1 Me. Whiting v. Seavey, 159 Me 61, 188 A2d 276. Md. County Com'rs of Anne Arundel County v. Ward, 186 Md 330, 46 A2d 684. N.J. Houston Petroleum Co. v. Automotive Products Credit Ass'n, 9 NJ 122, 87 A2d 319 (contract has no place in zoning plan, even contract between city and property owner). N.Y. Huntley Estates, Inc. v. Town of Eastchester, 121 NYS2d 504 (Misc). City could modify covenant in deed executed by it for grantor's ben- efit, for purpose of implementing valid change of zone. Leitman v. Yonkers, 10 AD2d 950, 201 NYS2d 182. Ohio. Willott v. Village of Beachwood, 87 Ohio L Abst 143, 16 Ohio Op 2d 423, 176 NE2d 337, quoting this treatise. Okla. Jackson v. Williams, 714 P2d 1017 (Okla). Page 35 § 25.09 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS residential or other property development, they are, nevertheless, privately conceived, controlled and directed. But zoning legislation is governmental and the public interest must predominate if it is to be constitutional and valid.2 Accordingly, restrictive covenants that are appropriate in contracts and deeds between private parties, may be wholly inappropriate in zoning regulations, which must be predi- cated upon a public interest. 3 Permitting nonconforming uses or the change of a nonconforming use to a higher use or a use of the same class and prohibiting the change of a nonconforming to a lower use are matters peculiarly related to zoning and have nothing to do with restrictive covenants. 4 Furthermore, zoning officials have no power or discretion to refuse a building permit on the ground that the proposed building violates a restrictive covenant, as this is not a matter for them tp decide. 5 Similarly, the granting of an exception for a particular property use is not invalidated merely because a restrictive covenant prohibits such use. 6 On the other hand, a valid private agreement, in the form of a covenant or otherwise, can be made in relation to and dependent in some of its terms upon the adoption, amendment or repeal of a zoning restriction or law. 7 2 Balancing of public interest in zoning with private interests in property, see § 25.40 et seq. As to restrictive covenants gener- ally, see Tiffany Real Prop § 848 et seq. (3rd Ed). 3 Md. County Com'rs of Anne Arundel County v. Ward, 186 Md 330, 46 A2d 684. 4 Mo. Matthews v. First Chris- tian Church of St. Louis, 355 Mo 627, 197 SW2d 617. Changes in nonconforming uses, see §§ 25.202-25.205. 5 N.Y. Forte v. Wolf, 225 NYS2d 858 (Misc), citing this treatise. 6 Me. Whiting v. Seavey, 159 Me 61, 188 A2d 276. 7 Ala. A decision to rezone prop- erty to allow a particular use was not invalid because prompted in part by the property owner's agree- ment to dedicate a right-of-way to Page 36 the public. Haas v. Mobile, 289 Ala 16, 265 So 2d 564. Md. Covenants imposing resi- dential restrictions on a subdivision, and providing that restrictions be effective until enactment of an appropriate zoning ordinance, were not canceled by enactment of ordi- nance providing for a municipal planning and zoning commission and the appointment of such a com- mission, without enactment of zoning legislation regulating use of the property covered by the restric- tive covenants. Concord Co., Inc. v. Matherly, 216 Md 453, 140 A2d 900. Wis. Landowners may make a contract which may legitimately be recognized by the zoning authorities as a motivation for rezoning but such zoning must meet the test of all valid zoning and should not consti- 0 51 ZONLNG § 25.09 Zoning does not and cannot, as a rule, effect or abolish restrictions on the use of lands arising from deeds or contracts. a That is to say, a zoning measure cannot constitutionally relieve land within a zoned district from lawful restrictions affecting its use. 9 Accordingly, the zoning of land for business has no effect on existing restrictions confining the use of land to residential purposes.10 Moreover, cove- nants and deeds can make restrictions as to the use of property conveyed in addition to restrictions imposed by zoning ordinances applicable to the area or district where the property is located." However, the violation of neighborhood restrictions is a matter of no legal concern to the municipality.12 It is a matter for resolution between the parties to the agreement. Similarly, a municipality by changing a residence zone to a business zone does not assume to pass upon the effectiveness of a restrictive residential covenant in a deed tute spot zoning. State v. Schimenz, Or. Ludgate v. Somerville, 121 46 Wis 2d 22, 174 _W2d 533. Or 643, 256 P 1043. a Ala. Allen v. Axford. 285 Ala R.I. Sundlum v. Zoning Board of 251, 231 So 2d 122 (limiting use to Review of Pawtucket, 50 RI 108, 145 detached residences). A 451. Ky. Richlawn v. McMakin, 313 Ky 265, 230 SW2d 902. S.C. Talbot v. Myrtle Beach Me. Whiting ✓. Seavey, 159 ale Board of Adjustment, 222 SC 165, 72 61,188 A2d 276 (contractual restric- SE2d 66. tions in deed not abrogated or Tex. Gatesville v. Powell, 500 enlarged by zoning law). SW2d 581(Tex Civ App). Mass. Snow v. Van Dam, 291 Nlass 477, 197 NE 224; Jenney v. "Mass. Snow v. Van Dam, 291 Hynes, 282 Mass 182, 184 NE 444 Mass 477. 197 NE 224. (existing building restrictions not 11 Ala. Allen v. Axford, 285 Ala affected by zoning laws). N.C. Shuford v. Asheville Oil 251, 231 So 2d 122. Co., 243 NC 636, 91 SE2d 903. M. Boschelli v. Villa Park Trust Ohio. Olberding v. Smith, 34 & Savings Bank, 23 Ill App 3d 82, Ohio L Abst 84, 34 NE2d 296 (use 318 NE2d 527. limitations based on restrictive cov- enants not altered by zoning Ky. Meyer v. Stein, 284 Ky 497, ordinance). 145 SW2d 105. Tex. Clesi v. Northwest Dallas Tex. Gatesville v. Powell, 500 1mP• Ass'n, 263 SW2d 820 (Tex Civ SW2d 581(Tex Civ App). App). 12 N.J. Maplewood Tp. v. Mar- Mass. Brackett v. Board of golis, 102 NJ Eq 467, 141 A 564. Appeal of Bldg. Dept. of Boston, 311 Mass 52 39 NE2d 956. Ohio. Willott v. Village of N.J. Soussa v. Denville Tp. Beachwood, 87 Ohio L Abst 143, 16 Planning Board, 238 NJ Super 66, Ohio Op 2d 423, 176 NE2d 337, 568 A2d 1225 (1990). quoting this treatise. Page 37 § 25.09 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS to property within the zone.13 Likewise, a covenant excluding funeral homes from certain premises may be effective, although the property is in a district zoned for commercial uses which include funeral homes.14 Hence, appropriate relief may be obtained against the violation of such a restriction in a deed by a use permitted by zoning, and the fact that a zoning measure permits a use in a district is immaterial in a proceeding based on a covenant in a deed restrict- ing the use of the lot. is While zoning generally has no'effect on private restrictions and agreements as to land, it is true that such private restrictions and agreements are not to be considered and are immaterial in determin- ing the validity of a zoning ordinance,16 neither do they have any influence or part in the administration of a zoning law.17 Although a zoning ordinance, generally, ciannot nullify restrictions previously put on property by those who platted it,1S such restric- tions in deeds or contracts must yield to a reasonable exercise of the police power through zoning where they stand in the way of reasona- ble use of the zoning power to promote the public safety, health, morality or welfare.19 Furthermore, where covenants impose restrictions which are less severe than the restrictions of a zoning ordinance, the provisions of the ordinance will control and become 13 Ohio. Szilvasy v. Saviers, 70 Ohio App 34, 44 NE2d 732. 14 Ky. Meyer v. Stein, 284 Ky 497,145 SW2d 105. 1s Ga. David v. Bowen, 191 Ga 467, 12 SE2d 873. 16 Cal. O'Rourke v. Teeters, 63 Cal App 2d 349,146 P2d 983. Mass. Sylvania Elec. Products, Inc. v. Newton, 344 Mass 428, 183 NE2d 118. N.H. Chasse v. Town of Candia, 132 NH 574, 567 A2d 999 (1989) (equitable servitude unenforceable against town). Ohio. Central Motors Corp. v. Pepper Pike, 63 Ohio App 2d 34, 409 NE2d 258. Okla. Jackson v. Williams, 714 P2d 1017 (Okla). Tex. Gatesville v. Powell, 500 SW2d 581(Tex Civ App). Page 38 77I11. Boschelli v. Villa Park Trust & Savings Bank, 23 Ill App 3d 82, 318 NE2d 527. Me. Whiting v. Seavey, 159 Me 61, 188 A2d 276. Okla. Jackson v. Williams, 714 P2d 1017 (Okla). 18 Or. Ludgate v. Somerville, 121 Or 643, 256 P 1043. R.I. Sundlun v. Zoning Board of Review, 50 RI 108, 145 A 451. 19 Okla. Jackson v. Williams, 714 P2d 1017 (Okla). Private property as subject to zon- ing power, see § 25.41; as subject to police power, see § 24.22. Contracts as subject to police power, see § 24.20. Methods of termination of restric- tive covenants, see Williams Am Land Plan Law § 154.10. MC'AL CORPORATIONS a covenant excluding effective, although the :ial uses which include nay be obtained against by a use permitted by =its a use in a district 2nant in a deed restrict - private restrictions and private restrictions and mmaterial in determin- Ather do they have any oning law. 17 nnot nullify restrictions fitted it,18, such restric- asonable exercise of the d in the way of reasona- e public safety, health, ere covenants impose restrictions of a zoning Arill control and become Boschelli v. Villa Park avir - Bank, 23 Ill App 3d E2L VhitiltK. Seavey, 159 Me 2d 276. Jackson v. Williams, 714 (Okla). Ludgate v. Somerville, -3, 256 P 1043. undlun v. Zoning Board of 0 RI 108, 145 A 451. a. Jackson v. Williams, 017 (Okla). property as subject to zon- , see § 25.41; as subject to ver, see § 24.22. cts as subject to police e § 24.20. :s of termination of restric- nants, see Williams Am Z Law § 154.10. ZONING § 25.10 superior in force to the less restrictive provisions of the covenants. 20 § 25.10 Zoning relationship to other police regulations and to eminent domain. Zoning laws in their usual form are an exercise of the police power in a particular field to secure the public health, safety or welfare. I But zoning laws are only one of several types of regulation of prop- erty by local government, all of which are expressions of the police power, 2 as discussed in detail in a preceding chapter. 3 The several separate regulatory police measures are not necessarily inconsistent with each other.4 Zoning law is differentiated from other laws enacted as an exercise of police power in that the latter usually contain adequate specifications which apply to all property and on that basis are determined to be constitutional; however, zoning ordi- nances may be unconstitutional as to particular property when it 20 Ill. La Salle Nat. Bank v. Vil- Power to zone under police power, lage of Palatine, 92 Ill App 2d 327, see § 25.34. 236 NE2d 1. Purposes of zoning as serving pub - Tex. Gatesville v. Powell, 500 lic health, safety or welfare, see SW2d 581(Tex Civ App). §§ 25.19-25.22. Subordination of property to zon- 2 N.J. Monmouth Lumber Co. v. ing, see § 25.41. (Section 25.101 Ocean Tp., 9 NJ 64, 87 A2d 9. 1 Ala. Jefferson County v. Bin 3See ch 24. mingham, 256 Ala 436, 55 So 2d 196. Ariz. Ranch 57 v. City of Yuma, 152 Ariz 218, 731 P2d 113 (Ariz App). Cal. Terminals Equipment Co., Inc. v. City & County of San Fran- cisco, 221 Cal App 3d 234, 270 Cal Rptr 329 (1990). Fla. West Palm Beach v. State, 158 Fla 863, 30 So 2d 491. Ill. Chicago v. Provus, 115 Ill App 2d 176, 253 NE2d 182. Neb. Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb 676, 442 NW2d 182 (1989). Tenn. Davidson County v. Rog- ers, 184 Tenn 327, 198 SW2d 812, Tex. KLN Associates v. Metro Development & Housing Agency, 797 SW2d 898 (Tenn App 1990). Wis. State v. Gurda, 234 Wis 290, 291 NW 350. 4 Mo. Zoning regulations are distinct in character from building regulations but such regulations are not necessarily inconsistent with each other and both sets of regula- tions may remain in full force at the same time. Fleming v. Moore Bros. Realty Co., 363 Mo 305, 251 SW2d 8. Nev. The regulation of land use by zoning does not preclude and is not inconsistent with independent regulatory limitation or distribution of business pursuant to independent statutory authority. Primm v. Reno, 70 Nev 7, 252 P2d 835. Building regulations, see § 24.504 et seq.; building permits, licenses, etc., generally, see § 26.200 et seq. and as related to zoning ordinances, see § 25.12. Page 39 Tel (480) 837-5750 Fax (480) 837-5805 E-mail billfarrell(cDgwest.net Law Offices of William E. Farrell, P.L.L.C. William E. Farrell June 12, 2002 SENT VIA FACSIMILE (480) 969-8267 Mr. Charles E. Mxwell Charles E. Maxwell, P.C. 1423 S. Higley Rd. Suite 119 Mesa, AZ 85206 Re: North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc Sierra Madre Estates Phase I June 10, 2002 Letter Dear Mr. Maxwell: Building A. 16838 E. Palisades Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 I am taking the liberty of faxing this to you on Wednesday afternoon because of the short amount of time available before the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. It would be fair to say that we may be looking at separate documents based on your letter of June 1 Oth. I am therefore attaching six (6) pages that represent the work of the Community Development in providing the Town Attorney with the easement in question. There is no question that we are in opposition to one another on the powers of the current owner of the fee. I agree, that MCO was in fact the grantor in 1995 when the easement was given to your client. My suggestion, without any knowledge of the transfer document from MCO to the current applicant, is that the current applicant owes the fee and therefore would be considered the successor to the grantor and in fact be the grantor for purposes of the easement document at this point in time. LZ:\WPDATA\FH\CMaxwellResponseLTR.wpd Mr. Charles E. Maxwell Re: North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc Sierra Madre Estates Phase I June 10, 2002 Letter June 12, 2002 Page 2 The monument that you refer is in fact a masonry entry wall referred to in Paragraph B of the Landscaping Easement. The monument you refer to in the legal description is not in fact the masonry entry wall but rather a brass or copper pin in the street at the intersection of Golden Eagle Boulevard and Sierra Madre Boulevard. I am attaching copies of photographs taken by town staff depicting the masonry entry wall and the brass cap monument. I agree with you that the masonry entry wall predated the easement; however, I disagree that the written landscape easement and agreement somehow makes the masonry entry wall the personal property of your client and therefore something for which the current owner of the fee simple title to the land has no control over when confronted with a legitimate request by the Town of Fountain Hills in connection with preliminary plat approval. I am concerned over the liability to the Town of Fountain Hills for approving a subdivision that meets our subdivision ordinance in all aspects and still allowing a private party to maintain a masonry entry wall that would give vehicles making a left -turn a line of sight problem. It is therefore, my recommendation to both Planning and Zoning and the Mayor and Council that the masonry entry wall be moved or eliminated if an accommodation can not be made with your client. I also wish to make it very clear to you that I do not believe nor would I advise the Mayor and Council that the existence of a masonry entry wall and landscaping on private property adjacent to a public right-of-way is a sufficient bar to turn down a preliminary plat that meets the Town's written codes in all other aspects. Perhaps, your client has a valid cause of action against either MCO or the current owner of the property. I am sure you are well versed in that area of the law. I am not and will not; however, be the accidental foil or policeman for the homeowners association over this particular issue. The rights of the homeowners association should be protected through your actions against either the developer or MCO and not the Town when faced with a valid application. Please let me know if the easement I am working from differs in any way from the easement in your possession. Also, please be kind enough to provide me with the deed from MCO to the current owner that may have reserved some rights in MCO or attempted to limit the rights of the current owner as I would be very interested in seeing such document. Very truly yours, William E. Farrell Town Attorney Town of Fountain Hills Z:\WPDATA\FH\CMaxwellResponseLTR.wpd LJ DR Mr. Charles E. Maxwell Re: North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc Sierra Madre Estates Phase I June 10, 2002 Letter June 12, 2002 Page 3 WEF:tpf cc: Community Development Director Planning and Zoning Commission Mayor and Council Z:\WPDATA\FH\CMaxwelfResponseLTR.wpd A a^ 1E` 8 6 � Y E ��•i i at 1�F tsR•~w _ .7 Va Ow71, �� �,� ?7 ' � y Ph. �. a .:� Rai •� � � - r ��.. � e+ 1�.4��'A„ °Ti,3' a�,,Ts t II Ss' *7Ka:9s QN Y' 0, s 'w►�r',Tr, r¢� All r, �► �.k l:. .:sy tY Kf i f'• '�l i; When recorded, return to: MCO Properties Inc. 16838 E. Palisades Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 ATTN: Tim Terrill, Mice prPcident Unofficial Documents GRANT OF COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT THIS GRANT OF COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT is made this 21st day of September, 1995, by MCO Properties L.P., a Delaware limited partnership d/b/a MCO Properties Limited Partnership ("MCO") (the "Grantor") and the North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc., an Arizona corporation, (the "Grantee") with reference to the following: A. Grantor is the record owner of certain real property located in Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona described collectively on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Easement Area"). B. MCO intends to convey to Grantee common area landscaping easement No. 3 over, across and through the Easement Area, on the terms provided herein. Easement No. 3 contains a masonry entry wall and landscaping. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I. Fascmen . Grantor hereby grants to Grantee and its successors and assigns non- exclusive common area landscaping easements upon and across the Easement Area, for common area landscaping purposes. 2. Conditions. The grants of the common area landscaping easements are subject to the following conditions and limitations: a. Grantee and its successors and assigns agree to be bound by all existing terms, provisions and conditions of any easements, restrictions, covenants, conditions, reservations, or other encumbrances or agreements now in existence and affecting all or any part of the Easement Area. b. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall maintain the Easement Area. c. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall indemnify Grantor and its successors and assigns to ownership of the Easement Area and hold them harmless from any liability or loss arising out of the rights and responsibilities granted Grantee hereunder i2 including without limitation Grantee's use and maintenance of the Easement Area, unless Grantor's misconduct or gross negligence in any way causes such liability or loss. d. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall in all events cooperate as reasonably requested by Grantor and its successors and assigns to ownership of the Easement Area so as to minimize any disruption of the use of the Easement Area caused by exercise of Grantee's rights hereunder. 3. Character of AgreemP.nt aUnofficial Document (JSc� Easuu=1S. This agreement, and rights, obligations, and common area landscaping easements granted hereunder are perpetual and binding on the parties. The rights and obligations contained herein are intended to and shall run with the land, and burden the Easement Area. a. This agreement and the common area landscaping easements granted hereunder shall not be terminated by vesting of rights to the Easement Area and the ownership thereof in the same person or person, but only as provided herein. b. This agreement and the common area landscaping easements granted hereunder may be terminated by the agreement of the parties, or their successors -in -interest. Such termination shall take effect upon recordation of a written memorandum of such agreement, signed by all such persons. c. This agreement and the common area landscaping easements granted hereunder shall each terminate automatically upon the cessation of the use of each of the common area landscaping easements by the Grantee and its successors and assigns and shall forthwith revert to the Grantor and its successors and assigns insofar as the Grantor owned the real property prior to the grant hereunder. u - Manwalml a. Entire -Ag Pp-ment. The instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect excepting subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged, or as otherwise provided herein. b. Atto a '-, Fes. In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties relating to this agreement or the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party actual attorney's fees, court costs and litigation expenses incurred in connection therewith. L- 2 - IANDSCAP.AG:09n8l95 c. SevP`rahility. If any clause, sentence, or other portion of the terms, conditions, covenants, and restrictions of this agreement shall become illegal, null or void for any reason, or be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be so, the remaining portion shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the day and year above written. "Grantor" Unofficial Document 'Grantee" MCO Properties L.P., a Delaware North Heights Property Owners limited partnership Association, Inc. By: MCO Properties Inc., a Delaware By: corporation, general artner Name: Greg Bielli Title: President By: Name: Timo y L. Terrill Title: Vice President �Yame: : �— Vincent A. Pellerito Title: Secretary - 3 - LANDSCAP.AG:09128/95 I'% - STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thi �' `may of 1995 byi1_m2ll� L, ' b( , as llnP _ 1�k-n 4 of MCO Properties Inc., on behalf of MCO Properties L.P. a.Del war rpo�� general partner. Unofficial Document > , OFFICIAL SEALno P i LISA ANN BURKHARDT Y NOTARY PUBLIC—ARIZONA Notary Public in and for the MARICOPA COUNTY ' M State of Arizona y comm, expires Apr. 30, 1998 STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24ay of , 1995, by�_F�,2, I and LWA2y � as and 5 44rC o of the North Heights Property Owners Association, Inc. on behalf of the corpora 'on. Yo< OFFICIAL SEAR LISA ANN BURKHARDT 1 ' NOTARY PUBLIC—ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY } My comm. expires Apr. 30, 1993 Notary Public in and for the ` State of Arizona 0 - 4 LANDSCAP.AG:09128195 Exhibit "A" SIERRA MADRE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT A portion of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 6 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona more particularly described as follows: EASEMENT No. 3 Unofficial Document Commencing at the monument line intersection of Golden Eagle Boulevard and Sierra Madre Boulevard as shown on Fountain Hills Arizona Final Plat No. 505-A, recorded in Book 158, Page 40 of the records of Maricopa County, thence South 48 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West along the monument line of Sierra Madre Boulevard a distance of 262.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 500 feet; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 23 degrees 09 minutes 34 seconds an arc length of 202.10 feet; thence North 18 degrees 15 minutes 26 seconds West on a radial bearing a distance of 35.00 feet to a point on the northerly right of way of Sierra Madre Boulevard, the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence departing said right of way North 18 degrees 15 minutes 26 seconds East on a radial bearing a distance of 30.00 feet to the beginning of concentric curve concave northerly and having a radius of 435-:00 feet; thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 04 degrees 22 minutes 26 seconds an arc length of 33.21 feet; thence South 13 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds East on a radial line a distance of 30.00 feet to a point on curve on the northerly right of way of Sierra Madre Boulevard, said curve being concave northerly and having a radius of 465.00 feet; thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve and said right of way through a central angle of 04 degrees 22 minutes 26 seconds an arc length of 35.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This easement contains an area of 0.0237 acres more or less. L.N. 814-B Amended 9-20-95; 8-24-95 GWN Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "Ai - Unofficial Document A = 04 22'26" R = 435.00' L = 33.21' R = 465.00' L = 35.50' MADRE g��0 S�ERR� 0 N u L.N. 814-B 9-20-95 GWN Page 2 of 2 FOUNTAIN r11LLS SANITARY Dlo fRICT 16941 E. PEPPERWOOD CIRCLE FOUNTAIN 111LL5, AZ 85268-2901 (480) 837-9444 fAX (480) 837-0819 March 4, 2002 Randy Harrel, P.E. Town Engineer Town of Fountain Hills P.O. Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 Re: Sierra Madre Estates Dear Randy: This is a follow-up to our meeting last week concerning the sewering of five lots in Sierra Madre Estates. There are three ways in which these lots can be sewered. I. Construct a gravity sewer within the plat and extend it easterly across Ashbrook Wash approximately 140 lineal feet to tie into an existing sewer line in the wash. This existing sewer line was constructed when MCO owned the wash property. There is a 280' PUE in Ashbrook Wash north and south of this site but not on the wash (W parcel immediately adjacent to the Sierra Madre Estates subdivision. However, the District believes that it has a prescriptive right for its sewer in the area of Ashbrook Wash over which it does not have a PUE. The District also has an effluent easement within the entire Ashbrook Wash parcel for construction, operation, and maintenance of effluent transmission and disposal facilities. 2. Construct a pump station to service the five lots. With other options available, the District will not assume the ownership, operation, maintenance, and all of the headaches and expenses associated with a pump station. The District will not approve this method of sewering the five lots. It is not in the best interest of anyone. 3. Construct individual on -site pump stations for each of the five lots. Ownership, operation, and maintenance of these facilities would be the responsibility of the lot owners. However, this option would require that the sewer line in Sierra Madre be extended to the east approximately 1,300 lineal feet, causing the developer to cut into some of the Town's newer pavement. r From the Sanitary District's perspective, the only viable alternative is option number 1; I'm sure there are some neighboring homeowners who will disagree w 4 with me. However, despite neighborhood protests, it is the District's position that the "Wash Ordinance" does not apply to the District in carrying out its primary governmental purpose of providing sewer service. x w Randy Harrel, Totvn gir. Tozvn of Fountain Hills Page 2 (W The practical reality is that impacts to the wash will be non-existent after two years. To further minimize the impacts to the wash, the Town can require a stipulation which would severely limit the construction impacts and require extensive, natural revegetation. Should you have any questions concerning the above, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Ronald D. Huber, P.E. General Manager / cjm Town of Fountain Hills Memo To: Dana Burkhardt, Senior Planner Community Development From: Mark C. Mayer, Director Parks and Recreation Department Date: May 29, 2002 Subj: Sierra Madres Estates development At the May 13th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, Chair George Williams, brought up the subject of this development and the existing trail through the wash that currently ends on the south side of Sierra Madre Drive. This trailhead is across from this proposed development. The Commission expressed its desire that consideration be given in reviewing the plans to help ensure the possible extension of the trail, if deemed appropriate in the future. Cc: Jesse Drake, Acting Community Development Director Parks and Recreation Commissioners U w PARKS AND RECREATION Section 9-3-1 Purpose and Intent Washes owned by the town are valuable natural resources that contribute to the quality of life for the residents of the town. Such washes assist in natural groundwater recharge, support wildlife habitat and provide natural open space. The washes are an integral part of the town's unique Sonoran Desert heritage. The washes are our legacy to the citizens of the town. These regulations are specifically intended to accomplish the following: A. Maintain the natural state of any washes now owned by the town or to be acquired by whatever means by the town. B. Provide for natural groundwater recharge. C. Provide for wildlife corridors. D. Provide open space areas in a natural and unaltered desert environment Section 9-3-2 Definitions A. "Development" means any human alteration to the natural state of the land including its vegetation, soil, geology or hydrology for any use except flood control, fire control and matters of public safety or emergency, or easement use or maintenance, or maintenance of any existing structure or fixture existing as of the twenty-eighth day of May, 1996. B. 'Wash" means any natural watercourse as existing on land owned or to be owned by the town including the immediately adjacent banks of any such wash. Section 9-3-3 Development of Washes No development of any wash shall occur except by an affirmative vote of town electors in any general election held by the town. Section 9-3-4 Voter Approval of Development Any proposed development of any wash, submitted for voter approval, shall be submitted only after comprehensive studies including, but not limited to the following, have occurred and have been made available in their entirety to the public in at least three open meetings, preceded by at least seven days notice, and at least thirty days prior to any general election: A. A comprehensive inventory and study of, and impact on all vegetation, wildlife and existing recreational uses to be impacted by any proposed development. B. Comprehensive recommendations to mitigate any impact to vegetation, wildlife and existing recreational uses. C. All alternatives to such development. D. Review and analysis of capital costs of any proposed development, including projections of �Q any maintenance expenses projected out at least five years. 72.4 Rev.10/96 W OJSTAIN a� TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT' -APPLICATION I I I D O qi a y of Date Filed Fee Paid e rew i April 24, 2001 $2D00 due-$1000pd 2/13/00 Plat Name/Number SIERRA MADRE ESTATES Parcel Size 1,766,087 sq. ft. 40.544 acres Number of Tracts 0 General Plan Land Use Designation Sincle family residential Density Requested (Dwelling Units Per Acre) .5 acres (1.93 ave Applicant Bozidar Rajkovski Address Jekel , Howard & Sternfel s C/0 16303 E. Palisades Blvd. Owner Rytan Mangement. LLC Address C/O Jekel, Howard & Sternfels ed By Number of Lots 20( see enclosed letter) Zoning RI-43/Rl-35H acres per lot) Day Phone 816-1861 City ST Zip Fountain Hills AZ 185268_ Day Phone 837-7496 City ST Zip Fountain Hills AZ 185268 Attachments (Please list) Preliminary Plat, Drainage Report Slope Analysis, & Residences Configuration (as Amended) Signature of Owner I I HERBY AUTHORIZE (Please Print) Rytan Management LLC Bye, Y Bozidar Rajovski Date April 24, 2001 ' TO FILE THIS APPLICATION. �l iam Cherway lore Subscribed d swornrefore me this .z�� day of My Commission Expires _OX,,,,4� ,Z003 Notary Public Fee Schedule Attached Rpg: IRN ELS 22 (Seal) TFH Case Number 50-0C1—) �, s 1 !i1 i ow Ji�i r PL �{ ,�tjjtlt { lift SM Jat d Y TM r� �o (Ili 3,*OJ N Al kS 0 z z O 4 N J b x aQ z D O LL- A A al ffi LIU oll z al om a � l I co /f 1 ; r �r- I! a � e g � t y Jill 08808000000 MATCH SMELT a a? a z 7) O m �pEQ�R sEg6��Ql66E Q 0800 006 0000000 Z O N 0 I � ` 1 L 3 t Y� 0 c � fD� I f eeeeeeeee 0 t C r, Z, / / / / 1 l I i I .1 NORTH HEIGHTS PROPERTY � ROSSMAR & GRAHAM 9362 E. RAINTREE DR SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260 May 7, 2002 OWNERS ASSOCIATION Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Bob Howes, Vice -Chairwoman Judy Dragiewicz, Commissioners Dennis Brown, Michael Downs, Rod Mooney, William O'Brien and Jay Schlum 16836 E Palisades Blvd. Building A PO Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 Re: Sierra Madre Estates Phase I Ladies and Gentlemen: On May 9, 2002 you will be asked to approve preliminary plats for Sierra Madre Estates Phase I (SMEI). Phase I consists of 11.1 acres immediately north of Sierra Madre Drive and West of Golden Eagle. From the inception of this proposed development the North Heights Property Association (Association) has had real and ongoing concerns with the project. In keeping with this position Association representatives have attended Town Staff technical meetings reviewing project development plans. We have also met on site with Town Engineers to discuss traffic concerns and other matters. Through its participation in the planning process the Association has identified several issues/concerns it believes merit strong consideration during the evaluation/approval process. The Association offers the following for your consideration By Declaration dated November 21,1997 MCO Properties L. P. annexed the 11.1 acres into North Heights as a single lot (see Exhibit 1 attached hereto). As part of North Heights the property is subject to the Association's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R'S). As shown by attached Exhibit 2 Section 3.24 of the Associations CC&R'S prohibit the subdivision of a lot into smaller lots or parcels. Our Association has formally notified the developer of the CC&R constraints. However they continue to propose splitting this single lot into nine home sites. Notwithstanding the above paragraph the Association offers the following additional comments. 1. The plans show two shared driveways serving the upper four lots and one private cul de sac serving the lower five lots all ent-ering Sierra Madre. The Association has serious safety concerns with the additional traffic access. The private cu_I de sac is of concern because it enters Sierra Madre at an area with limited visibility to oncoming traffic. The shared drives area concern because the line of sight for these drives adequate to allow safe access to the street even at posted speeds. Lower Sierra Madre is hilly and curving median divided street with narrow lanes. Clearly It was not designed, nor intended, to safely accommodate multiple access points. The safety issues become even more critical if the increased volume of traffic, to be generated by Eagles Ridge development, is factored into the safety analysis. Town Staff has also expressed their concern about the traffic safety issue in at least two technical review meetings with the developer. To the Association's knowledge no serious traffic studies have been conducted in connection with this project. Perhaps this is a situation where we should look beyond the normal traffic engineering guidelines. 2. The private cul de sac drive accesses eastbound Sierra Madre Via a new major cut in the median. The median is Town right-of-way but the Association pays the cost of both landscaping and maintenance. Although median cuts occur quite often throughout the Town few cuts appear to be made to accommodate a very small dead end residential streets. In addition to the median cut the line of sight analysis includes a proposal to relocate the North Heights entry monument. This monument is part of a three-piece array, with matching elements in the median and on the south side of Sierra Madre. Trying to relocate just the main piece would destroy the entire effect of this very attractive monument. The Association owns the monument and has an easement for its location. The Developer has not requested nor received Association permission to alter or move the monument In fact, under the circumstances, the Association has no reason to voluntarily participate in the destruction of its entryway by agreeing to move the monument. 3. From an aesthetic standpoint this project has the real potential to trash a significant portion of the beautiful main entrance to the 384-lot North Heights subdivision. Cutting the median, narrowing the median by one-half for a left turn lane, relocating the monument and removing enough landscaping and dirt to meet line of sight safety guidelines will effectively destroy the look of our entrance. Is this responsible development? 4. It was evident from the technical review meetings that SMEI is a difficult piece of property to develop. While engineers can figure out ways to build on almost any piece of land there can be properties that are unsuitable for development or, at best, only light development. By its actions MCC has shown that light development (one lot, one residence) was its intended use for this acreage. 5. The plans show SMEI's sanitary lines crossing the Ashbrook wash. It is the Association's opinion such a crossing is in violation of the Town Wash Preservation ordinance. Any waiver of the ordinance for this development could have far reaching consequences for the Town at large and should only be done by a vote of the electorate. 6. Finally it is the Association's position SMEI should fully comply with Town street safety considerations (with minimal damage to the environment) and all other applicable Town ordinances. The circumstances surrounding SMEI are unusual because it is a subdivision that was never meant to be. Given the issues raised consideration should be given to rejecting this project as submitted. Should you have any questions regarding the Association's comments please contact: John Rezek 480.837.5001 Richard Stalnaker 480.837_7236 Very truly yours, �� ..Pi-/ Richard Stalnaker For The North Heights Board of Directqrs CC: Fountain -Hills Town Council Sharon Morgan, Mayor John Kavanagh, Vice Mayor Council Members Leesa Fraverd, Sharon Hutcheson, Rick Melendez and Susan Ralphe North Heights Board of Directors Fountain Hills Community Development Department Charles Maxwell, P.C. N�. .iE? =_1r BEAO'0..'1 - :" 4U TEP HTTORNF.Y -1-- GE When Recorded Mail To: Scott Brendcmuhl Fountain View Realty P.O. Box 18450 Fountain Hills„ AZ 85269 n C, h�i II Of .3 f OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER HELEN PURCELL 99-0572880 06/15/99 04:55 /IAA IA 1 N 1 NORTH HEIGHTS Fountain Hills, Arizona AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR NORTH HEIGHTS INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS ADOPTED THROUGH MAY, 1999 11 Exhii,, t NO -,-z- 3.19 Health, Safety and Welfare. In the event additional uses, activities, and facilities are deemed by the Board to be a nuisance or to adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of Owners, Lessees and Residents, the Board may make rules restricting or regulating their presence in the Project or on Lots as part of the Association Rules, including as part of the Architectural Guidelines. 3.20 Residential Use. All Residential Units shall be used, improved and devoted exclusively to residential use by a Single Family. No trade or business may be conducted on any Lot or in or from any Residential Unit, except that an Owner or other Resident of a Residential Unit may conduct a business activity within a Residential Unit so long as (i) the existence or operation of the business activity is not apparent or detectable by sight, sound or smell from outside the Residential Unit, (ii) the business activity conforms to all applicable laws and zoning ordinances or requirements for the Project, (iii) the business activity does not involve persons coming onto the Lot or the door-to-door solicitation of Owners or other Residents in the Project, (iv) the business activity is consistent with the residential character of the Project and does not constitute a nuisance or a hazardous or offensive use or threaten security or safety of other residents in the Project, (v) the business actually conducted on a Lot or from a Residential Unit does not involve any employees, other than family members residing in the Residential Unit, all as may be determined from time to time in the sole discretion of the Board. The terms "business" and "trade" as used in this Section shall be construed to have ordinary, generally accepted meanings, and shall include, without limitation, any occupation, work or activity undertaken on an ongoing basis which involves the provision of goods or services to persons other than the provider's family and for which the provider receives a fee, compensation or other form of consideration, regardless of whether (i) such activity is engaged in full or part time, tt such activity is intended or does generate a profit, or (iii) a license is required for such activity) The sale or lease of a Residential Unit by the Owner thereof shall not be considered a trade or business within the meaning of this Section. 3.21 No Commercial Use. No store, office or other place of business and no hospital, sanitarium or other place for the care or treatment of the sick or disabled, physically or mentally, shall be erected or permitted on any Lot. 3.22 Machinery and Equipment. No machinery or equipment of any kind shall be placed, operated or maintained upon or adjacent to any Lot, except (i) such machinery or equipment as is usual and customary in connection with the use, maintenance or construction (during the period of construction) of a building, appurtenant structures, or other Improvements; (ii) that which the Association may require for the operation and maintenance of the Project. 3.23 Signs. No signs whatsoever (including, but not limited to, billboards or other commercial signs, political, "for Sale", "for rent" or similar signs) which are Visible from Neighboring Property shall be erected or maintained on any Lot except pursuant to Association Rules. 3.24 Restriction on Further Subdivision, Property Restrictions and Rezoning. No Lot shall be further subdivided or separated into smaller lots or parcels. No further covenants, conditions, restrictions or easements shall be recorded by any Owner, Lessee, or other Person against any Lot without the provisions thereof having been first approved in writing by the 8 _Pu 0 3 o f 3 Architectural Committee. No application for zoning variances or use permits pertaining to anv Lot shall be filed with any rn govemental authority by any Person unless the application has been submitted to the Architectural Committee and has been approved by the Board and the proposed use otherwise complies with this Declaration. 3.25 Vehicle Parking: All vehicles located on a Lot must be kept inside garages, except as may be provided in the Association Rules, and no vehicles are permitted to be parked, kept, maintained, constructed, reconstructed or repaired on a public street. 3.26 Garages and Driveways. Garages shall be used only for the parking of vehicles and shall not be converted for living or recreational activities. Except when entering or leaving the garage, garage doors shall be kept closed. 3.27 Drainage. No Residential Unit, structure, building, landscaping, fence, wall or other Improvement shall be constructed, invaded, placed or maintained in any mariner that would obstruct, interfere with or change the direction or flow of water in accordance with the drainage plans for the Project, or any part thereof, or for any Lot as shown on the drainage.plans on file with the county or the Town in which the Project is located. 3.28 Rooftop Air Conditioners and Solar Equipment Prohibited. No evaporative coolers, air conditioning or heating units, solar panels or other solar heating devices or any appurtenant equipment may be mounted, installed or maintained on the roof of any Residential Unit or other building so as to be Visible From Neighboring Property without the prior written approval of the Architectural Committee. 3.29 Lighting. Exterior lights will be permitted on Lots and on Common Areas only to the extent authorized by the Architectural Committee and as permitted by the ordinances of the Town. 3.30 Variances. Provided that it does not conflict with Town ordinances, the Board may, at its option and in extenuating circumstances, grant variances from the restrictions set forth in this Article 3 if the Board determines in its discretion: (a) That either (i) a restriction would create an unreasonable hardship or burden on an Owner, Lessee or Resident and the burden or hardship was not self-imposed by the Owner, Lessee or Resident, or (ii) a change of circumstances since the recordation of this Declaration has rendered such restriction obsolete; and (b) That the activity permitted under the variance will not have any substantial adverse effect on the Owners, Lessees and Residents of the Project and is consistent with the high quality of life intended for residents of the Project. 3.31 Grandfathered Conditions. Any constructed improvement in existence on an}, Lot as of the date of the recording of this Declaration, shall not be in violation of this Declaration or any rules, regulations or guidelines adopted pursuant to this Declaration, except L for such conditions for which the Owner of a Lot has received a notice of violation from the Association. Any replacement of the above items shall be required to conform to this COURM- Ij t. . Vl� 10 MU L4 ��. When Recorded Return MCO Properties L.P. P.O. Box 17795 Fountain Hills, AZ Attn: Linda Lyman to. 85269 Nc / f j 1 i OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER HELEN PURCELL 97'09117p3 12/30/97 11:15 ANN O1 1f1 NORTH HEIGHTS DECLARATION OF ANNEXATION OF tMPLATTED PROPERTY ADJOINING SIERRA MADR$ DRIVE MCO Properties Inc., a Delaware corporation owner of the real property described in Fountain HillsOFinalsplthe at 508, Maricopa County, Arizona " 328 of Maps, Page 28 of the Official Records)of rMaricopaed aCouunty (the "Records"), subjected the Property f Reservations, North Heights, Fountain ills a Declaration of Arizona dated January 6, 1989 and recorded Maricopa County, the Records on January 6, 1989, Recorder's File No. 89-007564, as amended by that certain Amendment to Declaration of Reservations dated Decembei 7, 1989 and recorded in the Records on December 7, 1989, Recorder's File No. 89-564872 (as amended, the "Reservations"). MCO Properties L.P., a Delaware limited partnership d/b/a MCO Properties Limited Partnership (the "Declarant") is the successor in interest to MCO. In accordance with Section VIII (D) of the Reservations, the Declarant has elected to exercise its right to annex into the coverage cf the Declaration, additional land owned by it as described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Annexed Property"). THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby subjects all of the Annexed Property to the Declaration and the Guidelines (as defined in the Declaration): from the date of this Declaration of Annexation the Annexed Property shall become a part of North Heights and shall be covered by the Declaration in the same manner as the Property, and the Annexed Property shall be deemed a Lot, as defined in the Declaration, and subject to architectural control, liens and assessments, and the other provisions of such Declaration. Upon subdivision of the Annexed Property pursuant to the provisions of the Declaration into separate parcels of land designated as lots EV: 11/21/9; 2!06 P".. I *AW -xh, br p� j e 2 f and common areas, if any, those parcels shall res ec i deemed Lots and Common Areas as defined in the Decla ation e_y be Dated Z 1 � 1997. DECLARANT MCO Properties L.P., a Delaware limited partnership By: MCO Properties Inc., a Delaware corporation By: Name • 14 Its: c e STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF IMARICOPA ) Subscribed and sworn b fore m this JjAt- day of 1997, by ,-��►t� !,l.4 -'4'"• t of MCO Properties, Inc. , ' a Delaware corporation on behalf of that corporation, as general partner on behalf of MCO Properties L.P., a Delaware limited partnership d/b/a MCO Properties Limited Partnership. (SEAL) OrPICL%L SrAL LINDAF. LYMAN NOWY PubGs - &AW etMb om MAI"COPA COUNTY My °° -Pbr JW. 4 2000 F, Notary Public in aU for the State of Arizona LfNpA F. 1U.(4AAi Printed Name My commission expires 4-X3-food G:11'SERS\LAURA\`r7P\RY':AN\V755ANN7.EAE 11/21/97 2:06 pn, —2— EXHIBIT "All t /Vo 3 cF 3 A portion of the North half of section 9 Township North, Ran Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, more gpartEast of described Gila and follows: bed as Comencing at the most Southerly corner of Lot 16, of Maps ,page Block 3, FOUNTAIN HILLS ARIZONA FINAL PLAT NO. 505-A, according to Book 158 Ma County, Arizona, said corner being on the Northwesterly right-qf-way of Sierra Ma Drive; Thence South 48 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West along the said dre right-of-way, a distance of 110.32 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Northerly having radius of 465.00 feet; Thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 07 degrees 51 minutes 42 seconds and an arc length of 63.80 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing along last said curve through a central an of 51 degrees 56 minutes 18 seconds and an arc length of 421.52 feet; Thence North gle 71 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 1207.50'feet t6 the Southeast corner of FOUNTAIN HILLS ARI7ONA FINAL PLAT NO. 511. according to Book 366 of Maps page 6, records of Maricopa County, Arizona; Thence departing Sierra -Madre, North 1 8 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds East along the Easterly line of said Ff�UNTAIN ARIZONA FINAL PLAT NO. 511, a distance of 245.00 feet to the most Southerly corner of Parcel C ,of FOUNTAIN HILLS PLAT NO. 506-C, according to Book 159 of Maps, page . 31. records of Maricopa County, Arizona; Thence along the Easterly line of said Pa peg "C", of FOUNTAIN ARIZONA FINAL PLAT NO. 506-C, North 18 degrees 23 minutes OQ seconds East along the Easterly line a distance of 159.80 feet; Thence departing said Parcel "C", of FOUNTAIN HILLS ARIZONA FINAL PLAT NO. 506-C, South 46 degrees 01 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 75.00 feet; Thence South 52 degrees 55 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 212.00 feet; Thence South 61 degrees 41 minutes seconds East a distance of 818.74 00 seconds East a distance of 247.00 feet; Thence South 81 degrees 17 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 337.29 feet �to the Tr eoPThence t30 degrees 40 minutes 00 Poi nt of Beginning. Except all oil, gases and other hydrocarbon substances coal, stone, metals, minerals, fossils and fertilizers of every name and description, together with ail uranium, thorium, any other material which is or may be determined to be peculiarly essential to the or production of fissionable materials, whether or not of commercial value, and except all underground water in, under or flowing through said land, and water rights appurtenant thereto, as reserved in instrument recorded in Document No. 930921340 and Correction Deed recorded in Document No. 940226669 , records of Maricopa County, Arizona. A- I��CL ustom PKOPERTIES April 22, 2002 Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Bob Howes, Vice -Chairwoman Judy Dragiewicz, Commissioners Dennis Brown, Michael Downs, Rod Mooney, William O'Brien, and Jay Schlum 16836 East Palisades Boulevard Building "A" PO Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 Re: Sierra Madre Estates Subdivision Dear Chairman Howes, Vice -Chairwoman Dragiewicz, Commissioners Brown, Downs, Mooney, O'Brien and Schlum: MCO Properties opposes the Sierra Madre Estates (SME) subdivision. The SME application includes Plat 511, Lot 5 ("511-5") and a previously unplatted parcel adjacent to 511-5. Even though MCO limited development in Plat 511 and the adjacent land to estate lots, the applicant is attempting to subdivide these properties into nineteen lots. 1. Consistent with MCO's vision, Plat 511 was originally planned, filed, and approved with five multi -acre single family lots. Architectural control within this area was assigned to the Neighborhood Property Owners Association. The CC&R's for Plat 511 require that the Neighborhood Committee of Architecture issue a variance before further subdivision. No variance has issued.. Additionally, when MCO sold 511-5, the purchase agreement specified that development would be limited to one single family home to be constructed on the northwest portion of _the lot. MCO continues to oppose further subdivision of 511-5 and, to that end, supports strict enforcement of the NPOA CC&R's. HAWF%MISC\NP0AVR2,WPD4,"22/02 2:3116930 E. Palisades Blvd. • Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 • 480-837-9660 31pmpm Fax: 480-837-1677 • mmwmcoproperties.com Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission April 22, 2002 page 2 2. At the time of sale of the unplatted property, MCO required that it be develc the North Heights CC&Rs, and this parcel was annexed into North Heights, i maintain this area as a cohesive low density community. MCO contini application of the NHPOA CC&Rs to this property. Sincerely yours, -7 - Hank Lickman Vice President cc: Fountain Hills Town Council Sharon Morgan, Mayor John Kavanagh, Vice Mayor Councilmembers Leesa Fraverd, Sharon Hutcheson, Rick Melendez, and Susan Ralphe Fountain Hills Community Development Department North Heights Property Owners Association Neighborhood Property Owners Association/Neighborhood Committee of Architecture Greg Bielli H:\WP\MISC\NPOAVIU.WPD 4/22/02 2:31 pm -2- COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN FOUNTAIN HILLS STATEMENT TO SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY In Fountain Hills there has been it history of opportunistic lot splitting in areas with lots that have been approved for single (amity homes. As a result of residents concerns about these lot splits, the Town Council amended the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to make any future lot splits fair to surrounding property owners. Currently there is a developer that is threatening to subdivide a lot in a manner that is significantly non -compliant with the amended Ordinances. We the undersigned want to protect the property rights of all residents by insuring that future development takes into account the neighborhood and the potential impact on other property owners. We want to insure that any proposed subdivision is consistent density with existing homes in the area, does not negatively impact neighbors property values, does not negatively effect the neighbors quality of life, and does not unnecessarily destroy the environment. To achieve the above, we ask: The Town Council of Fountain Hills to strictly enforce the recently amended Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; and The Neighborhood Property Owners Association to deny any variations to subdivide properties if the proposed subdivision would be detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity or would detract from the appearance of the property. SIGNATURE PRINT NAME Frank J. Keenan 15227 N Zapata Dr. ADDRESS AMWW Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 PHONE INTEREST IN FUTURE MEETINGSIMORE INFORMATION x' L COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN FOUNTAIN HIL STATEMENT TO SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY In Fountain Hills there has been a history of opportunistic lot splitting in areas lots that have been approved for single family homes. As a result of residents concerns about these lot splits, the Town Council amended the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to make any future lot splits fair to surrounding property owners. Currently there is a developer that is threatening to subdivide a lot in a manner that is significantly non -compliant with the amended Ordinances. We the undersigned want to protect the property rights of all residents by insuring that future development takes into account the neighborhood and the potential impact on other property owners. We want to insure that any proposed subdivision is consistent density with existing homes in the area, does not negatively impact neighbors property values, does not negatively effect the neighbors quality of life, and does not unnecessarily destroy the environment. To achieve the above, we ask: The Town Council of Fountain Hills to strictly enforce the recently amended Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; and The Neighborhood Property Owners Association to deny any variations to subdivide properties if the proposed subdivision would be detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity or would detract from the appearance of the property. iZ, SIGNATURE � " PRINT NAME ADDRESS 27T PHONE INTEREST IN FUTURE MEETINGSIMORE INFORMATION 09 Dear Town Council and Planning & ZoningCommission ion Person: This is to express my concerns and objections to the proposed Sier Madre Estates subdivision. Sierra Madre Dr., Cerro Alto, and the Ashbrook Wash bound the proposed subdivision. It is comprised of Plat 511 Lot 5 (511-5) and a parcel of open land that has been annexed to North Heights (NH Parcel). This subdivision would destroy the natural environment, be detrimental to property owners in the area by resulting in loss in property values and quality of living, create safety problems, and increase density beyond that presently allowed by the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The developer is asking for about twice as many homes on plat 511 lot 5 than the amended FH Zoning Ordinance would allow. The Council unanimously approved the amended ordinance designed to insure that further subdivision of an existing lot is consistent with the same zoned adjacent properties. I am asking the Council to strictly enforce the amended Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. �., Additionally, the planned development of 9 lots on the previously unplatted parcel of land, annexed into North Heights, (I understand that the North Heights' CC & R's include a prohibition against splitting lots) poses potential traffic control issues, as well as having potential negative impact on the Ashbrook Wash, due to construction issues and __the p ntial of a sewer line crossing the wash_ I wouI sk that you not ' approve plans with safety and environmental problems. Sincerely, Robert L. Prather 15312 E. Sierra Madre sierralimitednvahoo.com Page 1 ot, 1 swbSinc From: THOMAS COLMAN <T_COLMAN@email.msn.com> To: <swbsinc@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:08 PM Subject: Proposed Sierra Madre Estates Development Dear Ms. Dragiewicz I am currently a home owner at 15548 E. Robin Drive located in North Heights, and adjacent to the property known as plat 511, lot 5, and also the property along Sierra Madre, annexed to North Heights and I believe known as lot 11. It is my understanding that the owner of this property has proposed to subdivide these two parcels into developments of approximately 20 total homesites, and is asking for variances to the current amended FH Zoning Ordinances and the North Heights Property Owners Assn CCR's to accomplish this. As a homeowner, I am opposed to the variances that are being sought and am asking the Council to strictly enforce the existing zoning ordinances. Further subdivision of these parcels will only serve to create undue stress on the natural environment, increased traffic and safety issues, and decreased quality of living for all residents. Further subdivision would help erode the very things that still make Fountain Hills such a desimble place to live. Thank you for your attention and consideration of this matter Sincerely, Tom and Dolores Colman 2/9/02 �05!_9/29�.;2 15:55 489�3759�5 w FAR LL �+ur,—lu—U2 02-30P Rc PLLC Law pf7'ices 480 969 8267 P.02 Cha. Me:unrli CAARLES E. A��'ELL, P.C. or Briann Wes w'.M(u;aq* En(n;ls �idrk : ittr_S EX=unL;: plsla 1423 5. ItIS!=y Roams Reprevcrr;in,� 0j,Cr q(Xj Nnmerowrtrr.e ii,c,,nriwiaxa June 10, 2002 Sent via Telefacsimile: (480) 837-5805 and First Class yiail William E. Farrell, Town Attorney +- Law O°tice of \&'illiam E. 16838 East Palisades Blvd., Buillding A C Fountain Hills. Arizona 85268 RE: horlh Heights Property Owners Association, inc. Cast S2001-16 Preliminan.- Plat for .Sierra 1N12dre Estates Phase I Dear Mr. Farrell: M'v'K-. (IQ:1}_II`+•re r•i«occ�;�;,r..:nn, 0n behalf o the North Heights Property 0%Aner, A,suc;ation. Inc. been asked to provide follo,v-up correspondence to your Memorandum to file Planning . Commission dated .June 13, 2002, ) 1 lung ng and 7ouinb The Association and its members continue to be disappointed in the Tovvn's apparent to push through approval ofthe above -referenced matter, despite serious problems and the c _ oftaxpayl ne residents. Your June 13 correspondence is no exception. My clie grecs -attempt ;-concerns June 131h an 31s sis. This correspondence, however, will only address them client disaorecs with your that concerning your positioat regarding the monument. ost disturbing analysis - - Please provide m)• office with a copy of the easement agreement upon which you ur or relied in concl-!ding the developer of Sierra Madre Estates has "the right to revol« the ea P c ted13 the right to remove the monturtent". 1 am unaware of any such document. 1 am only easeme t recorded October;, 1995 at Document 95-060406.E ("Easement,,).erne'tt"and aware of the First, rile grantor is not the developer of Sicrra Madre Estates. The g Easement %vac 1`iC0 properties L.P. The same entity that sold the property to the developer brcntor under the the understanding the same could not be subdivided and the same entity that annexed file into the North Fei � witJt s hts Properry Owners Association. property Second. 'he Easement can only Ce terninated by abandonment or a speci i is �{ ritten a�� terminating the Eas,}rnent, signed by all tllE parties to the Easement. Undeniably, �rcement not abandoned t}>e easement area nor has i t signed any agreement terminating the Eas rJent (1ti suchS the developer can neither "re�•oke the easement' nor `'remove the monument-, A Firm Devoted Lxclusirely 40 Homeowner A�ssoc;ation La ti and Litigation. 06/10/2002 w FARPELL PLLC O2 55 48083 7 5805 -- O2 ' 31 P Law ces W FARPELL PLLC OFf •f r,- 48p 969 8267 -- Jude 10. ?00-, Wage Two Third, contrary to 0 relocated or S" ur analysis, the develo lo" ered for develo Per cannot even Te u're , Easement. The Association is onlyPrnenr Purposes. This is supported bui the monurncrn to be developers ,.sc, as to required to cooperate with the o,t, ParaK�apE1 "minimize any minimi� any disruption of the use of �ci) of the disrtt do nerofthc servient estate {tlte hereunder,,). P tl of the use of servie;tt estate caused a 1=asement :' rca• , Proceeding.) Maintaining the monument in by the {`s oPPosed to the Easement itself is the the exact location it eKerctsc 07 C'r`nIce's I-ights Association is on1 re Primary purpose for the Ease has existed for underl��inry } required to minimize an rnent in the first insta �r . year,,; sen"ient estate or adjacent y use disruptions of the ea The � parcels, Se'nent area itself; real the Fourth, it is understood the Association In fact, the mo►twiient pre-existed the 1asement bma , reference point for the Lase Lasement primarily for use ofthe monument. That the ntonurnent was not ment propem; descriPtionn Years. The monument u�as e�.en ttscd as the Or. at a rn, Permitted by the Ease huu`e<<er, an ar`►ume nirnum, a prescriptive easement. Ne�erthelessethesoclat�nn has o nt could he asserted to accommodate the ext tiny primar . ad"�erse rights monument cannot he possessor -- monument. not in spite of the Same. 3 purpose of F.•ase ,. t►nilatcral ri • moved without a specific �triitrtt agrecmenTo avoid 1t1 mNnt „as �hts exist.� y contitsiun, the fined by the Associatipit• Vo Based upon the fore oin Easement. � l;, I can only assume if this is the case, p)pSe You referenced a document other than relvinb immediate) Provide me with a co an explanation n o Y 'Pon receipt of this correspondence, p no such dOf the og m ant `+' t►tc }our June 13 conclusions direct) contracJictin hlcl� tlPott You are Y ell exists, 1 bill expect [ iook forward to 6 the F_as£ment. Your follow-up hereto. Very Char. CEM: wJs cc: M- ")'O", T"" of Fountain Hills To'.vn C()uncil, Town of Fou Town of ('ountzntain Hills Acting in Hill.. Planning and 7()nin6 Commission Tov;n Manager.nagrr. To" Of Fountain Hills N P_p3 Bender, Bev From: marspam@att.net Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:03 PM �o: Town Clerk's Office subject: Sierra Madre Estates Development Hearing To: Town of Fountain Hills Mayor and Town Council Subject: Sierra Madre Estates Development Plan I would have liked to make my presentation personally, but I will be out of town for your July 2 public hearing. I am sending you this message to provide you with my thoughts and ideas for consideration prior to the Council hearing and meeting. I did attend the P&Z hearing. I have seen and reviewed the development plans, heard the presentations before P&Z, heard the expressed concerns by the public and the P&Z Commissioners, and heard the many conditions applied by P&Z before they voted on their recommendation. As I see the situation, the development was ill- conceived and does not properly consider the charactor of the neighborhood and town in it's overall development plan. It is not really being developed as a homogenious subdivision. Lots 1-4 are not even linked with lots 5- 9. The tract being considered is only part of the total tract to be developed. An overall plan linking �ie total development together with a continuity of a 11ngle subdivision should be required. There are severe problems with the proposed new road and driveway curb cuts that will create dangerous driving conditions for those using Sierra Madre Drive. Visibility will not be adequite for drivers to see oncomming or turning traffic. Existing traffic flow on Sierra Madre, both east and west bound, will also be increasing as new development takes place west of Sunridge Drive. The developer's plans should be revised to take into account the total developable tract, to have a single entrance off Cerro Alto for the entire development, and to eliminate the new road and curb cuts on Sierra Madre. This will eliminate some of the inherent dangers of the existing concept, enhance safety for those driving on Sierra Madre, and could also help protect the Town from potential liability for authorizing development in a hazardous or dangerous mannor. Although there are many other defects, I feel the traffic issue is dominent. The opportunity for you to do what is right exists before development, not after. I trust you will exercise your best judgement for the benefit of both the Town and the citizens of Fountain Hills. Marshall & Pamela Friedman 15245 E. Carmelita Ct. untain Hills, AZ 85268 80)836-7187 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Honorable Mayor and Town Counc" Julie A. Ghetti, CPA, Accounting S Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Tentative Bi June 28, 2002 During last week's review of the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 the Council made changes to several departmental requests. The changes and the effect on the projected fund balance for next fiscal year are summarized below: Proposed General Fund Balance 6/30/2003 $1,495,498 Expenditure Reductions: Reduce Tourism ($20,000) Reduce Conferences, Travel, etc. ($40,736) 40 Reduce Electricity (correction) ($29,300) Reduce Legal Fees ($27,400) Expenditure Increases: Chamber of Commerce $4,500 Drug Prevention Program $8,000 Senior Services $40,000 Boys & Girls Club $100,000 McDowell Mtn Preservation Comm $500 Rental Property Tax $100,000 Comm. Development Admin Asst $14,100 Add Chief Building Official $73,600 Fourth of July Program $13,000 Veteran's Memorial $15,000 Administrative Assistant (Marshal) $42,600 Revised General Fund Balance 6/30/2003 $1,201,400 4 Additionally, the proposed expenditure of $15,000 of Marshal Development Fees has been eliminated. Since the available resources are based on estimates it will be especially important to monitor the monthly expenditures according to what revenues the Town has actually received in order to avoid deficit spending. The expenditures can only be made after the revenues have been received. This might require that funding for the supplemental requests be deferred until the funds become available. The Town code requires that all purchases over $20,000 will be presented to the Council prior to their expenditure. The Accounting Department will constantly monitor the revenue stream and provide the Council with a report after the first quarter of the fiscal year comparing the actual versus budgeted revenues for the General Fund. Once the proposed budget is tentatively adopted it will be published twice in the local newspaper and also be made available on the Town's website. If you have any questions please feel free to see me. M .` FOUNTAIN IM-IS BOYS & GIIIIS CUM A Branch of the DONS & GIRLS CL M OF SCOTTSDALE MEMO Date: 7/2/01 To: Mayor Jon Beydler & Town Council From: Rich Schultz — Sr. Branch Manager Re: Agenda Item Boys & Girls Club on July 2, 2002 Dear Mayor & Council: Thanks again for all that you do for the Fountain Hills Boys & Girls Club. We respectfully wish that you table this agenda item tonight. So we can get sit down with staff and get clarification on the questions proposed in our letter to Jesse Drake on June 19, 2002 Thanks Rich Schultz Sr. Branch Director Fountain Hills Branch Fountain Hills Branch —17300 Calaveras, Fountain 1911s, AZ 85268 (480) 836-0620 (480) 836-0628 Town of Fountain Hills Memorandum DATE: June 28, 2002 TO: The Mayor and Town Council FROM: Jesse Drake, Interim Director of Community Development iJ d SUBJECT: Request for fee waiver The Boy & Girls Clubs of Scottsdale is in the preliminary permitting process for a new facility proposed for the southeast corner of Del Cambre Avenue and Calaveras Avenue, adjacent to Four Peaks Neighborhood Park. A part of the request for funding at the Town budget hearing held on June 24`b and 25`h was for construction of this new building. $50,000.00 for operating costs, and $50,000.00 for capital improvements was approved as a part of the preliminary budget. In addition to the above funds, the Boys & Girls Club has also requested a waiver of fees for the project. A preliminary estimate of the required fees are as follows: Plan Review $4340.00 minimum Permit fee $6675.00 Development fees $6670.00 Engineering fees $2175.00 TOTAL $19,860.00 This amount does not include any Town participation in the parking lot extension and related costs. (number 2. on the attached letter) which are estimated to exceed $20,000.00 as a minimum. N F A fF ` BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SCOTTSDALE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OFSCOTTSDALE Administrative Offices Virginia G. Piper Branch 10515 East Lakeview Drive Scottsdale, Arizona 85258-4965 Tel 480-860-5520 Fax 480-860-4708 www.becs.org OFFICERS John C. Heitel Chairman Durrell W. Hillis Vice Chairman Richard Robinson Vice Chairman Ken Zadoorian Vice Chairman Edi Remaklus Secretary Paul S. Gerber Treasurer Rick Baker Hartley B. Barker Thomas E. Blanchard David Cohen Rickie D. Currens na Ducote g Hadges a Hansen Steve Haws Lauri Hensley Steven J. Hilton Becky Jackson Peter Ladigo Patrick Lamb Mark Letendre Daniel N. Lewis Don B. Lindner James Madson Mary Ellen McKee Jim Monroe Michael B. Nelson Geno Ori Gordon W. Petrie Richard Reinken Jan Rowe Stephen Y. Schwan Peter Stesiak Ted Stump Stephen L. Tooker Bonnie J. Trowbridge Frank Verderame Elizabeth Williamson Jim Stratton icA United Way Agency 'Ws Bell Bollinger e Brossart Alan L. Bunnell James M. Burns Kristina Burgoz Chris Christian Tim Cowdrey June 19, 2002 Ms. Jesse Drake Community Development Town of Fountain Hills POB 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 Dear Ms. Drake, Thank you for meeting with the project team from the Boys & Girls Clubs of Scottsdale. We are extremely excited about our plans to build a permanent facility for the youth of Fountain Hills. As a follow up to our meeting you had requested that we send you a list of those issues that we identified in the meeting as needing some clarification. As a result of out meeting, three items were identified: 1. What is the legal jurisdiction of our project with respect to the oversight of the town planning and zoning issues and building code review? 2. Will the town participate in the parking lot extension and related costs? I Will the town consider waiving fees for this project? I would appreciate any help you could extend to us that would clarify the position of the town of Fountain Hills on these issues. Please advise me as soon as possible as to the town's position on these issues. On behalf of our committee I would like to thank you for the cooperative spirit that you brought to our meeting. We are all looking forward to the day when the Boys & Girls Club facility in Fountain Hills becomes a reality. President & CEO Boys & Girls Clubs of Scottsdale cc Rich Schultz Tina Curran Ethel DeMarr Marney Edwards David Estrada Tina M. Ezzell Bertram Feingold Brett Flanagan Buck L. Ford David Forwood Bob Frost Donn C. Frye Barry Fuller Greg Gee Bucky Haver Paul Jorgenson Larry Klassen Ron Landsborough Dan Mahoney Loren McFarland Greg Moore Mathew C. Munn Wally Nichols John Parker Kevin Patrick Pam Philips Leigh Rogers John Stull W. Allen Thompson Michael Thorell Judy Todd Michael R. Tooker Michael B. Tully Kathy Utzinger Robert Winter