Cave Creek Advances $405 Million Conservation Vision: Four-Decade Open Space Commitment Reaches 41% of Town Land

Good evening. It is now 6 PM on Thursday, September 17th, 2026, and I now call the planning commission meeting for the town of Cave Creek, Arizona to order. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Let's see. Looks like we have a few people here.

So, if you would if you wish to speak to the planning commission tonight, you'll need to fill out a request to speak form available near the entrance. If you have any items you'd like to be considered, please give them to the clerk along with your request to speak form. Copies of any reports, photographs diagrams charts maps or other materials presented to the planning commission must be given to the clerk for inclusion as part of the official town record.

The planning commission is the advising and recommending body for the town council on matters related to zoning, land use, the general plan, and town core plan. Our recommendations to the town council on matters are just that, recommendations. The town council is responsible for making the final determination.

Regardless of how you feel about any matters passing from the planning commission with a recommendation to the town council in favor, opposed or neutral, and you want your opinion considered, it is your responsibility to a town to attend town council meetings and express yourselves. Your responsibility does not end with the planning commission. I think we can start with the administration report. Luke, uh, thank you very much, uh, Chair Miller.

Uh, members of the commission, the I think the big news is today is officially, uh, planner Eric Baker's last day of employee with the town of Cave Creek. He is moving to the dark side, the private sector. Um, and we've been very lucky and fortunate to have had him here while we did uh just shy of four years with the town. Um, he's done incredible work. Uh, added a level of sophistication in in a lot of different aspects in what we do. So, he will definitely be missed.

Um, as far as uh what's going on in town, uh, Tuesday evening, uh, myself and R.J. Cardon, former Maroba County parks and rec director, gave a report to the town council regarding the status of the town's um action to acquire 4,05 approximately 405 acres of open space. Uh currently owned by the state land department. Uh those that process is ongoing.

Uh we are at a point now where we are awaiting the Alta survey of the 12 different uh tracks uh to add to our application which is on file with ASLD. They have gone through staff uh administrative review and approval given us kind of a punch list of what we need to prepare and provide next. the Alta being one of them, cultural resource, environmental, uh, phase one, class one, biological, um, and we've also obtained, uh, updated appraisal reports.

Um, so a bunch of things happening on that front. Uh, we're meeting with Maricopa County and and other potential stakeholders that might be involved in uh, our efforts to acquire the 405 acres. Uh last uh on that front is our uh group of volunteers, some of which uh served on the open space ad hoc committee uh that was formed about a year ago.

are working to launch a website that will inform uh the public um on the process of the open space acquisition as well as provide um the opportunity for uh private or company uh donors to um submit you know charitable contributions towards the funding of the open space. So, we're hoping to uh through a bunch of different efforts knock down the overall price obviously that the town would have to to finance. So, those those efforts are ongoing and very exciting.

Um lastly, turquoise circuit finals. I know there's some rodeo fans and attendees uh sitting on the deis. Uh turquoise circuit finals will be in November. It's the first week uh in November. So, I believe Halloween falls on Saturday this year. So, the turquoise circuit finals rodeo will be that following um Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Um I believe it's 5th, 6th, 7th plus or minus. Tracy uh Tracy does all of our rodeo calendar uh manages that and applications for rental and everything else.

So, that's why I kind of deferred to her sixth, seventh, and eth. Um, so if anybody uh needs tickets, go ahead and give me a give me a shout uh outside of the meeting. Um, that's all I have at this point, Mr. Chair. Be happy to answer any questions. Okay. No, I think um I think probably just on to probably confirming the next meeting on October 15th. At this time, we have no uh cases scheduled for uh next month.

And I will advise uh the commission chair and vice chair uh should anything change in the next week. But really once once we get into this point, if we don't have anything queued up ready for the next meeting, um I'll advise commission that we don't we won't have an October meeting at this point. Sounds good. So I think on to Yeah, go ahead. Can I say something about our colleague that's leaving? Has your microphone on? Yes. Can I say something about our colleague that's leaving?

You know, I I mean, we all know the great work you've done for us, but I just want to say for as being chairman of the Open Space Committee that the work and and the the expertise he put into art, attachments and exhibits, it was just wonderful. I mean, it really was just wonderful. And I I just want to tell you, I whoever got you is is going to be very happy. So, and thank you very much. Yeah, agreed. We'll miss you. Um, yeah. So, continued business here.

We've got two continued cases and seven new cases. Uh, the procedure for tonight's meeting will be that the chair will introduce the case. Staff will provide a summary. Commission members may question staff regarding the agenda item. Public comment will be opened. The chair will close public comment. Commission members may question staff regarding any issues genered by public comment. The chair will ask for a motion and second to proceed discussion by the commission.

The chair will close discussion and then the chair will call or vote. If you wish to make public comment on a case, we ask that when you come to the podium to address the commission that you clearly state your name and residency for the record. If there are any people in the audience who wish to speak at any time, submit a request to speak form to make efficient use of our time and conduct a full public hearing on all relevant issues. Please be respectful and courteous and non-confrontational.

The public comments should be concise, targeted, and relevant to the case. We will not entertain comments on matters that are not contained in the application subject to tonight's hearing. Three minutes will be allocated to each speaker. We will give each speaker a 30 second wrap-up warning.

So first item we'll begin with case A-26-01 amendments to the zoning ordinance chapter 2 residential zones section 2.2 single residence R zones related to adding accessory living quarters as an allowable use in R18 R35 zones. Applicant is the town of Cave Creek. Um staff report. Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair. And first and foremost, thank you, Commissioner Lamar, and thank you, Luke. Um, the town's in great hands with with these two people next to me.

Uh, the best staff in the world, and you guys have been an honor to to work with. Um, I know the town's going to be in great hands moving forward. Um, as far as this item goes, it's up to you, chair or vice chair, um, if you want a full presentation or if you'd rather um, cliff notes just want to go right into questions because as you guys know, this is our I think fourth time going through this presentation. So, I have the presentation prepared if you'd like, but it's totally up to Yeah.

I mean, like you say, I think we've beat this one up quite a bit, but um maybe just a quick quick recap of it just even for the audience and you know, people here. Absolutely. I'll get the presentation up here right now. Okay. Okay. So, um accessory living quarters is an R18 and R35. This um we've had like I said back and forth discussion about this starting back in March.

And what this stemmed from was the town received interest from property owners in Arlington R35 zones looking to develop accessory living quarters on their properties. And currently they're only allowed in our desert rule zoning districts. And so looking through the town's history, prior to 2005, they actually were allowed in R10 R35 through a special use permit. Um that language was amended in 2005 and since 2005 um accessory living quarters are not allowed.

So um like I said it was introduced in March. Um we held an additional workshop in April and then it went to the May planning commission public hearing but at that time the chair requested additional workshop in June and um after that workshop it got placed on this agenda. So now we're here today and um I went through this slide last time. I won't I won't go through it in full detail, but there's a lot of aspects of the 2021 general plan that support accessory living quarters in R18 R35.

Um such as if you look at the screenshots on the lefth hand side, um one of the big keys about this potential text amendment is it will encourage residents currently on septic connect to sewer. Um, a lot of the properties in R1 and R35 currently are on septic and so when you think about, you know, when they're doing addition, that could encourage more of the sewer connections, which the town really needs uh for our wastewater system as a whole.

And then the other aspect that was hit on in many as portions of the general plan was the concept of we're needing more housing for um our older residents as well as just a more diverse range of housing um given you know the different needs of our residents. So looking at the map um I again I know you guys have seen this map a bunch of times now. This is kind of looking at the location of all the properties.

The orange are the R18, the yellow are the R35, and it's about 600 properties um that would be impacted by this text amendment. 90% of the properties currently have a residence on them. So um only 57 of the lots actually are vacant. And then one thing that I just wanted to highlight is if you look at the map, the vast majority are really within the town core area.

um when you're thinking about you know from a planning perspective um where our if you want to say the word density kind of lies in our R10 R35 it really is more towards the town core area and so um I won't go through this slide in total just showing the access the current accessory living quarters requirements and our desert rule zones are that the gross floor area can exceed 50% of the primary residence.

So, if your primary residence is 3,000 ft², the accessory living quarters can exceed 1500 ft². And then the other requirements are it has to be sorry served by the same driveway and um single common water and electric meters and it needs to meet the setbacks and lock coverage as well. So, we looked um in depth through the workshops at other municipalities and what we found was we're we are the outlier.

We're the only municipality that does not allow accessory living quarters currently in our R18 and R35 zoning districts. Looking at the other cities and then as I highlighted at the previous workshops, municipalities over 75,000 are now required by state law to require a minimum of one accessory living quarters on all single family residences.

So that even applies to a 5,000 foot lot, 6,000 foot lot, cities like Phoenix and Scottsdale and every pretty much every city to the south south of us falls under that requirement. So one of the concepts that we discuss in the greatest of detail is the concept of the gross floor area ratios. If you remember um the current desert rule zones have a 50% requirement uh for that size ratio between the primary and the guest house.

And then looking through the different cities that neighbor us, um there's kind of a a wider range. They fall at the lowest 30% at the highest 50% and then some cities have an additional percentage or square foot requirement. And so um going on to this next slide, that's why we have kind of two options. We have option A, which would be to allow accessory living quarters under the exact same regulations that desert rule zones follow.

So the big one to think about that is the gross flow area can exceed 50% of the primary residence and I'll have a chart on the next table that kind of shows that in more detail. Option B was what we discussed at our last workshop which was coming up with that bullet point three at the very bottom in bold which is coming up with an or option which is the gross floor area can exceed 30% of the primary residence or the minimum gross floor area can exceed 1,200 square feet whichever is less.

So when you look at a chart um the the top chart shows the size of the primary residence on the left um and how each the maximum size of the grow of the accessory living quarters would change given each option. So for example if you take a a lot with a 3,000 ft house on it and gross floor area if you go with option A the maximum would be 1500 ft². If you go with option B the maximum would be 900 ft².

And I think it's just important to remember that there's still lot coverage, there's still building setbacks, there's still disturbance and other requirements that will limit the feasibility and developmentability of a lot. And I mean that's that's my presentation. So happy to turn it back to you or answer any questions.

And if I could just footnote that last slide a little bit, uh the feasibility of even, you know, anything above a 30,000 square ft primary residence within an R18 or R35 zone is is going to be very difficult. um especially with our height requirement, the ability to only be twotory uh with the setbacks and and everything else on those zones that I think uh two of you are in R35 now. So imagine you know your house at a much bigger scale.

It unlikely with all the development restrictions that Eric alluded to with the setbacks and the height and the disturbance requirements. So the the lower third or lower half of that table is a not not very feasible. We're we're more in in those zoning categories looking at 2,00 to 2500 foot as a primary residence footprint. Mhm. Yeah. Thanks. Anyone have questions? Okay.

I think we can open it up to public comment if um there have no other questions if anyone there being no further public comment I will now close the public hearing. Do I have a motion for either option? Or should we have a discussion about the tip before?

Yeah, I would have a motion if I I'm going to make sure I understand that the only real difference between option A and option B is that in some cases option A would be a little more generous with the size of the second the the additional living quarters. Correct. But not necessarily in all. Well, I guess always it would be a little bit more generous. Correct.

Option B, however, because as Luke was saying, it's going to be hard to put very big house on that that you they could end up with the only allowable accessory living quarters could be 600 square feet, which is like not even a studio apartment basically with maybe one room with a bathroom that has a curtain on it. Am I have I got that correct? You're you're spot on.

I've got a I've got a motion for option A um to allow necessary living quarters um in R18 and R35 and limit the gross floor area ratio of the AO ALQ to 50% of the main reference of the main residence. Motion to recommend approval of case amendments to the zoning ordinance chapter 2 residential zones section 2.2 single single residence zones as depicted in exhibit A. Do I have a second? I'll second it. We can now open it for commission discussion. I mean or go ahead.

I I have a a a question discussion sort of thing. There's approximately 600 lots that this would apply to. Say in the next 10 years we get 25% of them asking for it. Maybe that's about 10 or 15 a year. If we had that, that turns out to be about 150 units in 10 years. If we had a development that wanted to drop 150 houses in our neighborhood, we would require them to bring water. Where's all the water going to be for these new places going to come from?

Just one thing I'll say is um I skipped over this slide. Um, I we looked at desert rule zones and we looked at how many guest houses per year are permitted in those zoning districts. Um, granted we have significantly more desert rule zone property than R18 and R35. And I'm talking at least double, probably even a higher number of desert rule zone properties. And since 2021, we have averaged five guest house permits per year.

Um and staff would anticipate that that number would be less in R18 and R35 just due to a the smaller number of properties as a whole and b less land to work with get so as a result there'll be tighter development constraints as far as the water component goes. Um, I mean that's that's not something that really would be in our in our realm of discussion um given that um you know these we're really looking at it from more of the zoning and planning perspective.

But Luke, you're you can chime in on that if you want. Yeah, from a a water use um standpoint, we don't see in at least in the application of guest homes in in desert rural zones, we don't see a huge difference. They're they're still going to be served by the same water meter and still have the uh annual use restraints that the town code requires. So, uh additional water use would be would be negligible.

I mean, you've you've been a part of this community for a long time and sat on different boards and councils um and probably have a pretty good understanding that the vast majority of water use in general is outdoor water use. Uh indoor water use is is really low. We actually see on average even multifamily development you know more density actually uses a less water per capita than you know larger lots um based on based on those factors of indoor versus outdoor water use.

So uh we don't see it this is something that our utilities director has looked at also and we don't see it moving the needle much in overall water use and demand. Okay. Thank you. anything as for tying into um you're looking for the tie into sewer. Is this the main drive to push this forward? Um are you looking to create more revenue or what? Because I know there's limited sewer um to quite a few of these properties as well.

So would they be paying for this infrastructure or the town be paying for that infrastructure? That's a very great question and this is this is not something new. I mean obviously with with Eric and Steven it's been under fresh eyes but this is not something that staff has looked at for the or staff is looking at for the first time. This has been brought up you know over several different intervals over the time um over at least the last 20 years or 2005.

Um, and the big push for that was being able to extend sewer in areas that are, I hate to use the term lowhanging fruit, but more densely populated where the cost of infrastructure is is more spread out. Um, as as opposed to trying to run sewer into remote parts of town where there's five houses in a quarter mile area, right?

So that's been um a key contributing factor in looking at these two zones and their proximity to existing sewer infrastructure and the town's infrastructure um uh master plan document that was just finished last year. It might have may have been 18 months ago now, but talks about extending sewer where there's more bang for the buck and either the town uh footing the front end cost and doing an improvement district with the neighborhood um to pay that back over time that infrastructure.

So really all these different options um or you know if they can create an improvement district and tax themselves to do it. There's been all sorts of different discussion around this very topic. So, this is this would be the first step. I mean, it makes it equitable from a residential standpoint if you lived in uh one of those Black Mountain neighborhoods where it justifies, hey, my my home is quite old. My septic system is is quite old. I'm going to have to replace my my septic at some point.

This is kind of that carrot of oh, I can, you know, at least construct a guest home now. Um it makes it pencil for them a little bit better. Yeah. And we're not forcing them to connect, but inherently, you know, there's a a you know, a capacity that your system, your existing system can handle. So if you're going to add so much square footage, you need to prove that the current system could handle it. And if it can't, it kind of throws you into that.

But I think I mean there there is already quite a bit of sewer in that neighborhood, right? And there parts of it uh sent a visit over there. There's one home place the R18 there. There's one home and is that at Suri and correct. So there's one residential home that's tied into it right at the corner of Suri and Cave Creek Road. Um but that would kind of be the the building blocks of being able to extend off of that.

M um and the for better or for worse that uh platted those platted subdivisions along the kind of the slope of Black Mountain there were all actually platted with an obscenely wide I mean in some cases wider than the uh right ofway that we have in Cave Creek Road. Um you know 80 foot plus rights of way on a with a 16 foot wide road going through there. So there's plenty of room to do that infrastructure.

If if it came down to it in the future, we wouldn't have to eminent domain properties or anything else. It would be um from a lift standpoint a pretty easy lift. I mean financially probably not, but yeah. So I think I mean the I think the talking point is really just the 30% or the 50%. I mean my thinking you know you're already so hindered with setbacks, you got lot coverage. I mean, you'd be surprised if you could even get 50% on some of these.

You You're probably going to just end up with 30% anyways. Um, so I, you know, it's a I don't know what more to say about it, but it's a I mean there's probably a few outliers to it, but um you're still being held to the same setbacks, lock coverage. Um, yeah, like option B. Excuse me. I said I like option B personally. You have a motion on the floor. Do if there's no other comment, do you want to either take a vote or Yeah. I mean, do we have any other discussion on it?

I mean, are we, you know, I'm good. Okay. Well, we can close the discussion to take a vote on voting for option A. You want to do roll call? I will do roll call. Commissioner Lamar, yes. Commissioner Spitzer, no. Commissioner Wedge, no. and Chairman Miller. Yes. Okay. Um, oh no, this is like Luke with that Robert's rules 101 and it's totally blanking right now. Luke, can I chime in? Yes. With that, um, Commissioner Wedge mentioned that he'd like option B.

Can we move to motion to approve option B? Yes. instead. Is there another motion that the chair would entertain? Motion to approve option B. Look, I I don't have strong feelings about either. Vote yes for option B if it gets everybody on board. Yes. Agreed. Because as a practical matter, I don't think it matters much except in the outlier situation. That's my opinion. You're not going to break my heart. I will second the motion there again. Thank you.

Luke, does the motion have to be read or does it have to just just option B? Okay. Do you want to hear? I think we got it. I got a motion, chairman. Okay. Uh to allow accessory living quarters of R18 and R35 uh and limit the gross floor area ratio of the of the ALQ to 30% of the main residence or 1,200 ft 1,200 square ft whichever is less. Motion to recommend approval of case 22601, amendments to the zoning ordinance. Chapter 2, residential zones.

Section 2.2, single residence zones as depicted in exhibit A and ex and appendix A, glossery terms and definitions. Section B definitions as outlined in exhibit B. Do I have a second? Second. I'll close the discussion because I think we've gone over it. So, let's go to the vote. Commissioner Spitzer, no. Commissioner Wedge, yes. Commissioner Lamar, yes. And Chairman Miller, yes. By a vote of 31, the planning commission's recommendation of option B passes.

Moving on to the second continued agenda item, case A-26-03, zoning text amendments to chapter 7, Hillside from the town of Cave Creek zoning ordinance. Applicant is the town of Cave Creek. Like Stephen, do we have a staff report? Vice Chair, members of commission, do have a staff report. I was going to give a shout out to Eric, but he left. So, I'll do at the end. Uh, so we've been over this quite a few times as well, discussion all I can go through a quick presentation.

Um, or are there any items I need to touch on this? Vice Chair, I think just a quick one again for everyone to Okay, so the rationale behind text amendment with the hillside ordinances. There's been some language in there that just needs to be cleaned up a little bit to further clarify what is what our guidelines are for or the requirements are for chapter 7 hillside. There's been quite a few times where we've had to explain the language rather than having the contractors take it for what it is.

So or applicants. So just for an example where the current ordinance states all portions of a lot parcel or parcel having a natural undisturbed slope of 15% slope or greater 50% or greater shall be subject to the regulations set forth in this chapter. A lot of questions we get is so if it has a 15% slope or greater then it's automatically hillside lot and that is not the case. Meaning that 80% of the lot could be less than 15% then then 20% is 15% or greater.

We're not going to have them adhere to the hillside ordinance. It just wouldn't make any sense unless they disturb that area. So that's why we're trying to clean the language up where it says a lot or parcel shall adhere to the regulations set forth in this chapter when a natural undisturbed slope of 15% or greater is disturbed because that is how the intent of that ordinance is just not written that way currently.

Um and it's another I wouldn't say issue that we have it's just more that we have to go into further clarification of how to measure a property to determine if it's hillside. So currently it reads for purposes of this ordinance the percentage of a slope of an area of a parcel shall be calculated by dividing the natural vertical rise in feet by an underlying 100 ft horizontal run rise in feet divided by 100 ft equals percent of the slope. So we get questions where do we measure that?

Where does that begin? How what what are our what are what are the parameters? So our common practice has been taking 20 foot intervals as close to perpendicular to natural grade and elevation and then just taking it from there to see what the 15 or where if a 15% slope or greater occurs. So I'll read what the language we are proposing is for the purpose of this ordinance.

The percentage of a slope of an area within the proposed disturbance development envelope of a parcel shall be calculated by dividing the natural vertical rise in feet by an underlying 100 ft horizontal run rise in feet divided by 100 ft equals percentage of the slope at 20 foot intervals as close to perpendicular to natural grade elevation change as practical for the purpose of the plan.

for the purposes of plan review, a separate slope exhibit may be required which depicts slope uh through the development envelope. So that way that they know we're going to require a slope analysis. We're going to require uh additional information to confirm and and really have them prove that this is either 15% slope or greater or it is not because we have had people say I don't think that we are at 15% slope or greater. Well, it's like, well, they provide us additional information.

At least in this case, they're prepared to know what additional information they're going to have to provide. So, that's just one area that we're trying to clean up a little bit. And here's an example. Um, unfortunately, I just can't get that one uh image to pop up further, but that's how the measurements measurements would be taken, and it just makes the most sense from a development standpoint and and such.

So I mean if there is a question of whether and Luke you could chime in but of whether it may be 15% slope or maybe not it's not really you know no one can go and tell is this a hillside property from a glance but there's others where the topography is so busy that you know it's going to be a 15% slope greater and you're going to have to adhere to those hillside ordinances. This one's just a a cleanup area as well. Um, just further outlining when when this applies.

So, how it's currently written is just a little bit contradicting, but we're just trying to clean it up to state when an area of a site containing natural undisturbed slopes of 50% or greater is is disturbed in the entire lot or parcel shall be limited to the amount of the maximum permitted disturbance allowed indicated within the land disturbance regulation tables as contained within this chapter. So it doesn't it gets a little bit confusing on how it's currently written.

So we're just trying to make it a little bit more easier to read on that end. Okay. Are there any are there any questions on the language here? cuz this is a lot of the a lot of gobbly uh for lack of a more succinct term in the top really with that top and this is what we where we get into you know existential conversations with homeowners or or surveyors or civil engineers.

Um because really what the top shows is you could essentially have two different uh classifications on the same lot and we're trying to really streamline what that means and how if you're not touching the hillside portion of a lot we the town is not going to make you force you to adhere to all the hillside requirements. You can disturb what you're permitted to disturb on the non-hillside section as long as you're not touching the 15% slope or greater.

So that's that's really what we're trying to achieve in this. Yes, sir. And I assume from the suggested motion from you all that you believe this is the best, most workable and easiest way for staff to do that in the best interest of the town. Yes. This removes um the the the constant effort of us trying to talk people through chapter 7 of the ordinance. This this puts it in black and white. Essentially giving them news they don't want to hear.

Well, this Yeah, this is this is it's great news for us because it makes it very simple to convey what constitutes a hillside property and what does not. Okay. And just to clarify or be clear about it, this is no change to what you guys have been, you know, um, instructing people, I guess, you know, from the original text here. Um, there's no change to anything that we've been doing. You're just clarifying this situation code to it. Yeah. Yep.

So this is this is just the most uh the newest item that we're trying to implement in is because that this is what we've been doing through a determination. This came about probably when my first year second year here as far as a driveway. We've had we had a few applicants come in where they were struggling to meet requirements just because the parameter of the site had 15% slope or greater. But in in the middle of the site, it had areas that were less than 15% slope.

So it was more flatter ground. But there was no way to avoid disturbing an area of 15% slope or greater to develop develop on flatter land.

Uh so we took time consideration to think about it uh around that time and in this case what I had indicated to them is we do need a thorough slope analysis for you to to show us that you don't have any other areas to to put a driveway in that that for certain that it is 15% slope around the entire perimeter of the property that you have no other options and that as long as you're going to develop on flatter land and not disturb any other areas that are 15% slope or greater then we would allow you to disturb that and not have to adhere to the hillside ordinance.

Uh but in essence we also asked them to provide us what is the percentage of the lot that is less than 15% 15% or greater which is in this case I do recall this one it was like 35% so that was going to be their limitations anyways they're limited to disturbing 35% of the property at that point. So, um, in this case, it I I really want it to be understood that we're not just going to allow it just because it's a preference to put their driveway in a 15% slope or greater area.

If there's a if there's a case where the surveyor says no, you have an area that is a 10% slope or greater and they say that's not the preference to put the driveway, then really the hillside, we would say then you have to adhere to the hillside ordinance. have an option that will work and that is just something you're not willing to willing to take. So, we're trying to work with them on that end. So, that's just the best example I could give at at this moment.

Is there any are there any questions on maybe just to put it plainly or to sum it up? I mean, this is an out or a loophole, whatever you want to call it, to going back to the previous one, you're putting your house on a non 15% section. you have to traverse an area that's 15% to get there. Uh only if it's a last option and you can prove that it's the last option.

Um my only question would be do we have any other um stricter guidelines that would be in place in this section where we're traversing a 15% slope? Like I mean are there different wall heights or sight wall elements or any sort of site guidelines that are different differing where we should implement these within this traverse? Um no and I don't know that there needs to be um in our grading and drainage guidelines.

It's it's very restrictive on wall heights, retaining wall heights, uh terracing setbacks, um native stone, cobble or finish or stuckle paint. Um so from a from a wall or or aesthetic component, I think our our retaining wall section is actually very much in tune with that. Mhm. Um I will say I think the practical application of this that we've seen at staff level is someone accessing a property and they almost have to get through.

It's not a it wasn't a uh recorded floodway, a FEMA regulated floodway or flood plane, but there was a substantial kind of dip crossing where in that section it was 15% just in the change of grade to to basically fordge a drainage channel. um where we looked at it and said, "Well, yeah, I mean, that's the only way to get onto your property.

We're not going to further restrict you to build a house um because you've got to be able to get to your house." So, that's kind of really the rationale for this added section. Yeah. And to add on to that, there are cases where they would say, "Well, I want to pull my utility line from this area where this is encouraging them to put both the the utility lines under the driveway. So, there limits the disturbance. So, it's not like, you know, we're going to allow them to disturb any areas.

It's not it's not a freebie. It's not a way out. It's more of us understanding that, hey, we still want you to have a backyard. We still want you to have the ability to put a pool because that driveway may eat up all of their their disturbance that is allowed for because it does decrease. It goes if you're in a DR 190 zone, you go from 65% to 5%.

So, if the driveway eats up all that 5% disturbance, then you're not able to have a a pool, you're not able to have um any other what I would say is a luxury of your property because the driveway ate up everything. So, the only way they'd probably be able to do a pool is if they put a huge uh uh romato over it or anything. That's just, you know, we just have to kind of understand the uh the homeowners perspective as well when it comes down to the, you know, their property rights.

So, were there any other questions on this item or No, I think so. I know the fear was probably the scar of the mountain, but we do have requirements that do that that force the applicant and and the contractors to match the natural terrain of what is currently there. So, it's not just going to be a scar of of a uh dirt or anything like that. It's going to it the requirement is to match natural terrain of what is there.

So, This section here is just eliminating the first sentence just because it it it seems that it doesn't serve a purpose and is just there. Uh so it's the current language is all building permits for sites having natural slope areas of 15% or greater shall be limited in the amount of maximum total disturbance area for those parcels with areas containing slopes of 15% or greater. The permitted total maximum disturbance is as indicated in table 7.1.

We just eliminate the first sense and just state for and just keep it simple. For those parcels where disturbance occurs within areas containing natural slopes of 15% or greater, the permitted total maximum disturbance is as indicated in 7.1. So there any questions on that one? This one was taken out because site plans are no longer to be reviewed by uh site plan cases are no longer to be reviewed by planning commission town council.

So we're just trying to update that to be consistent with the state statute. Amen. And similar to this one, we eliminated the town council, town staff is just more of that. This would give us the discretion to uh of of the site plan review. So what town council would review if it had to go to that extent, it gives staff discretion. Now just to be consistent with the with the state statute as well, this one has to be consistent of how we're taking permits in currently.

We don't require twoft uh intervals on the civil site plan or topography. Uh we require one foot. So we're just trying to update it to be consistent. Yeah, that's good. So with that, um are there any other items I can touch on or do we have a motion? Motion. Yeah, I think I've got the right one. Um, I have a motion to recommend approval of case uh 2603 zoning uh text amendments to the zoning ordinance chapter 7 hillside as outlined in exhibit A. Wait, hold on. I apologize.

I I don't want to do anything wrong here. Do I need to open it up to the So, Mr. Chair, would you like to to public comment at this time? Yes. Yes. Um let's see here. Any speakers? Yeah. Do we have any public comment? There's no request to speak. We will close that then and um leave Commissioner Lamar had a motion. Now you can continue. I'll urge the motion that I have on the record. Do I have a second? Second the vote. Another discussion. Okay. Commissioner Wedge, yes. Commissioner Lamar, yes.

Commissioner Spitzer, yes. And Chairman Miller, yes. By a vote of four to zero. The motion passes. So, I probably won't have another opportunity to speak, but Eric missed my shout out when he went to the restroom, so I'll go ahead and do it again. So, uh, vice chair, members of commission, Luke, uh, just want to let everyone know how valuable Eric was to not only our department, our division, but to the town in general. Uh, I told him plenty of times and I'll say it for the record.

He he is better than us at this. And I mean that with everything I have in and in in my heart and everything. He just he has what it takes to become a heck of a planning director, heck of a town manager to lead and to to guide people. He made me better as a planner. He I firmly believe he made all of us better. He has all the tools to to keep us in line and to keep us afloat as well.

He came in and and really astounded all of us with with his passion and what he had uh work ethic wise which and I I'll say this honestly is you don't see that much in in young adults these days anymore. That drive and that passion and wanting to actually serve in government like this. So, I do appreciate the time that I've had with them. I hope that we do cross paths again, but um you know, it's it's going to be tough uh losing a key asset to town, but I wish him nothing but the best.

So, thanks for everything, man. Plus, he's a nice guy. I guess we got that, too. But just uh just to speak on his passion, his pride. He didn't have to be here to present all these cases. takes pride in his work. He's going to finish what he started. And you know, and again, I being a part of sports for a long time, you don't ever admit that the back what they would call is the backup is better, but he definitely deserved to be in a different seat than just as a planner role.

So, I want to make it clear that he is a director status in my eyes. So, thanks for everything, man. All right, we've got a few of these new ones. Um, Mr. Chairman, your face. This is the happiest meeting we've ever Sorry. Sorry you brought so much joy to the meeting tonight. I'm sorry. Oh, um, okay. We're gonna get through these.

Um, first case, commission discussion and possible recommendation of approval of case Z-26-02- A reszone application to amend the zoning of APN216-06-013D from DR89 to open space conservation OSC on about 2.2 acres. Uh, the applicant is the town of Cave Creek. And can we have the staff report? Yeah, I'll get I'll try to get through these. Um, so it's six total. Wait, let me double check. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven total um items.

I'm going to do one presentation that outlines all of them. And then at the end, we can go through um all the motions at the end uh just because they all are under the same realm of um our resonings to open space. So um this was introduced back in March um where the town has acquired or been dedicated um land for the purpose of open space and on many of these properties it's actually all the properties we're resoning uh today the zoning was never changed to accurately reflect the intended use.

So, um, when you think about the process per state law, um, in order to reszone a property, it first must conform with the general plan. And so, some of the properties do require a general plan amendment to amend the land use, um, in addition to amending the zoning. So, um, general plan, land use, think about it as the policy, the long range vision of the town. The general plan is a adopted document that's approved by the town every 10 years.

And then zoning is the legal rules that determine what can be developed on a property. And then in addition to town owned properties, there's a few properties owned by the Desert Foothills Land Trust that they um we reach out to them to reszone them on uh their behalf as well, which we'll be doing tonight. Um so we have three total open space zoning districts. Um they're very similar.

uh they just have slight variations in the allowable uses and we have a whole chapter in our zoning ordinance which is was honestly one of the coolest things about the town of Cave Creek. I don't know how many cities um have three open space chapters just dedicated towards open space.

Um the thing we need to know for um tonight is that all of these zoning districts do allow for non-motorized trails and all the reszones are actually going to be to open space conservation which is the least dense of the three open space categories. So here's a general rundown of the location of all the properties. So I'll just go from top to bottom. First is Z26-02, which is the Sarro Hill property. Um, the town owns about an acre and DFLt owns about an acre.

Um, if you ever been to the Desert Foot Hills Library, there's a little trail that goes up on the path for um the library and then actually will end if you go up that trip that path and to the east that goes to these parcels. So, it's a little bit of a hillside property in the town core. Um the second is cases AGP 2601 and Z2603. This is known as the Roseness parcel. And this one is it's pretty isolated. It's at more of the northern portion of town.

Uh the nearest crossroads are 48th Street and Kahava Ranch Road. You have to take Kava Ranch Road um down and across the creek um and then you get to the 48th Street alignment. And this property was given to the town last year by Mr. Roseness and it's about 25 acres. Um, next we have the Kava Springs track parcels. Kahava Springs is that planned subdivision on the west side of town that was approved 20 25 years ago.

There's two tracks um at the bottom that are still zoned desert rule 190 and so it's about 130 acres. We'll be reszoning that to open space conservation. Then we have two of the desert photos land trust properties. First is probably the most wellknown of all of these is the PA sites preserve. That's about 272 acres and that's uh back there by Go John um and kind of uh encompasses all the way back here behind town hall a little bit.

And then the last one is a 5 acre parcel that's owned by the DFL on the base of Black Mountain. Um actually part of the Black Mountain Trail goes through that property. So two of the properties need the land use changed uh on the general plan.

That's the Roseness parcel currently has a desert rule 190 designation and so the case AGP2601 is trying to address that change by amending the land use to open space and then on the DFL black mountain preserve parcel this one still has a land use designation of desert rule 2 which is our DR89 and so there's a case for that to amend the general plan to open space all the other ones already have a general plan land use designation of open space so it just needs a reszone um which I'll show on the next slide.

So, just to go down through all of them, all of them currently are zoned DR89 or DR190, which are residential zone properties, meaning currently a house could be built on those properties. And so, all six of them we're going to be reszoning, uh or we're proposing to reszone them to open space conservation. And so, um I can quickly go through some quick maps. Um this going all the way back to the start. Sorry, there's a little thing on the top that kind of blocks it, but um this is Sarro Hill.

The left side shows DRD9 existing. The right side shows what the proposed zoning would look like uh changing to open space conservation in the blue. Um second, we this is the land use for um the Rosenous property AGP26 uh-01. The left shows it having a residential land use category. The right side shows it being uh the land use being changed to open space. What's really awesome about this property is it's directly adjacent to part of the 45 acres that the town is looking to acquire.

So if you look just to the west, part of the green is actually one of those ASL properties. So that'd be a really cool addition to kind of connect our open space from Kic Regional Park all the way up to Spur Cross. And that's that's basically what this slides slide shows in more detail. Uh you can kind of see uh there's an ASLD open space property and then to the south you go down to Cayford Regional Park and again it's cut off but to the north it takes you up to Spur Cross.

And so this is that same property just showing how the zoning will be changed from DR190 to OSC. Moving on to the Cava Springs property, you can see that the two properties on the bottom or the south side of what that future subdivision will be um where it's DR190 and then that proposed zoning will take it to open space conservation. This one actually is also parallel to additional open space on both the east and the west.

The green on the eastern hand side is an open space recreation parcel and the west is part of the 4,05 acres. The blue the blue part is I should say um that's ASLD currently. Uh next we have the this is PA sites preserve. So again this one is already adjacent to um K regional park to the west and then there's already a part that's open space conservation for um I believe that's go John Preserve. Um and so or Watts Preserve. Yeah. And so uh again going from DR190 to open space conservation.

And lastly, we have uh the Black Mountain parcel, which again, this is the land use map. So, it has a current land use designation of desert rule 89, and we'll be proposing that to be changed to open space. Again, to the south, it's already um abudded to open space land use. So, um none of these even are, I guess you could say, spot zoned except for the Sarro Hill property where it's kind of it's kind of just an outlier there being on the hill. Um and again that just shows the proposed zoning.

And so basically to round it all together um should we approve these land use um changes for just the two general plan amendments that will change 30 acres from desert rural to open space. And so that'll bring the town's total amount of open space land that's designated as open space to 41%. And that doesn't even factor in everyone's property has additional open space on it on a lot of them too in the vacant lots.

So it's again it's it's pretty amazing that 41% of the town's land area is already dedicated for the specific purpose of an open space land use designation. And then from the zoning side um this will change 434 acres from desert rule 89 or desert rule 190 to open space conservation. And that um oh sorry I should go over public notification. This was quite a beast for public notification. Um 1,600 letters in total were sent because we have to do a half mile radius for each property.

So that was uh that took up a lot of time, but um it was it was definitely worth it. Um second, we had a neighborhood meeting that was held on August 6th. We actually had a pretty good turnout on that meeting. We had about 20 residents in attendance, and the minutes from that meeting are attached in the staff report. Um I don't know if you guys got around to reading that.

I know there were a lot of exhibits attached, but um yeah, it was it was really just a lot of residents at that meeting just really asking kind of what this is about. Um there were no no concerns from that meeting or any any opposition to any of these cases. Um and then we had to do notices in the utility bill and as well as the newspaper and then obviously we put signs on all the properties. And that concludes it. Happy to answer any questions. No questions. Yeah, pretty thorough.

I do have motion. Um, and I want I want to say this and whether you like it or not. Yeah, I was going to say hold on hold on. Don't ask me for a motion. I'll have it. Do we have any public comments? Inquir. I'll throw that in first. All right. U first of all, just wanted to say thank you so much. You guys have all been fantastic and I really love the town of Cape Creek. Lived here most of my life. Steven's been a great resource for me as well.

Um mainly I was just curious about are there going to be any planned if it becomes open space conservation, especially the PA seats preserved. Is there any planned improvements on the uh the trails? Is that something we can That's a good question. You guys Yeah. U Mr. Chair, usually staff doesn't interact with with public comment, but for this purpose, no, no worries. We'll make exception. Uh the PA seats is actually um owned and managed by Desert Foothills Land Trust.

any anything that they would do on their property uh would be under their purview as far as you know trail upgrades or improvements. Uh the land that is kind of sandwiched between the uh seats and Cave Creek Regional Park the town is in the process of trying to acquire part of that 45 acres. There are some um we do have a trail easement through there now that is ours to manage and it's kind of really in that riparian area and then up as it goes into Cape Creek Regional Park.

Um but at this time to answer your question very long windedly we don't have any plans um for any additional trails or improvements at this point. Future there will be okay there could be. Yeah. Um big fan big support. Uh yeah I'm resident over there as well right next to it. So yeah no that was it. Thank you. Cool. Thank you. Yeah. And then I did receive um a public comment via email, but that is for agenda item number four and we're on number three.

So I will read that into the record when we get to four. Okay. Anyone else? Any other comment? I will close public comment and just uh chair if I can just chime in real quick. I think for the motion all you'll have to say is motion to approve the case number. So it just be motion to approve case number Z-W whatever the number is instead of having to read the entire snippet just the case number should do I have a motion or a Mr. Ch.

But first, let me say that um in 1986 um I had been here six months and um got talked into being on the planning commission and ended up through rather robust uh debated general plan that led to uh one of the biggest priorities of this town being committed to open space, not only for uh just the the beauty of it and the fact that it preserves the cornerstone of why Cave Creek's Cave Creek uh you know, but for equestrian and and biking and trails and um and to sit here in uh 2026.

I had black hair back then, by the way. It was kind of like looked more like him than I do now. on it. This is just to say we have 40 41% of our land and open space is just wonderful to me and to almost 90% of the citizens when the council pro approved going forward with the the 4,000 acres and Luke can attest to this uh where's a standing ovation from this town and we've taxed ourel to get it in spur across. And so I'm happy to move to recommend approval of case uh Z2602. Second.

We have any further discussion? I think we're good. I think we can take a vote. We all in favor? I I think I I makes it much easier, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. I think that one's an easy one. Do we need to go through all each um case on these and just make a motion for each motion for each one?

Well, yeah, let me do I I will be we did have public comment uh submitted via email on item number four, which is the uh commission discussion and possible recommendation of approval of case AGP2601, a minor general plan amendment application to amend the land use designation of APN 211039 from desert rural 1 to open space on uh plus or minus 25 acres. That is the Rosinus parcel that was covered in the last presentation that was uh gifted to the town last year.

Uh we did receive a comment card via email from uh Stacy Daniel uh who indicated that she is in support of this uh application for a minor general plan amendment and she made the following comment. The property owner who gifted the town this 25 acre parcel at the end of 2026, I believe that's a typo, is a person who believes in conservation, open space, and the protection of wildlife. Updating our general plan and reszoning this parcel to OSC status to reflect his ideals is wonderful. Thank you.

It's great. Can you tell us who that donor was? Uh, his name is Alan Roseness. um own the owned the property for a very long time. Um we we began speaking with him uh last year as as he's getting on in age a little bit and he was starting to divest some of his assets and uh originally reached out to Desert Foothills Land Trust.

Uh Vicky Preston, then the chair or the the president of DFLt uh reached out to me because their protocol for accepting uh land is a very kind of drawn out uh process and we the town as odd as this sounds bureaucracy was able to move at a much faster pace to meet uh Mr. Roseness's deadlines to get um the tax credit in a certain tax year. So, he was able to divest that asset to the town uh which council accepted um about a year ago. So, thank you. Yep. Yeah. Was a He's a great man by the way.

We did everything uh via FedEx overnight back and forth to do signatures because he didn't want to do the the email print, the docy sign, none of that. It was all put in a tube and sent on a plane overnight express. So, it was it was worth every penny for the uh advanced postage. Yeah. Does he live here or have he is actually in um California? Okay. Yep. All right. Do I have a motion? Uh motion to recommend uh the approval of case number uh AGP 2601. Second. I don't think we have any discussion.

So, uh all in favor I I record reflect uh vote of 420 to recommend approval. Okay. Third case, um Z-26-02. Do we have a motion? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I move to recommend approval of case number Z 2602. Second. No comment. All in favor? I. Fourth is case number Z-26-04. Do I have a motion? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a motion to recommend approval of case number Z2604. Second. All in favor? I like fifth. We're on a hot streak. Case number Z-26-05. Do I have a motion? Yes, we do, Mr.

Chairman, to recommend approval of case number Z2605. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Uh, sixth case here, AGP-26-02. Do I have a motion? Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman, to recommend approval of case number AGP262. Second. All in favor? I I I. Okay, last one here. Case Z-26-06. Do I have a motion? Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman, to recommend approval of case number Z26. Second. All in favor? I. Motion to adjurnn. Yeah. Motion to adjurnn. So move. Great. Thank you. Thank you, chair and commission.

Thank you staff. Thank you. I have you our pleasure.