Cave Creek approves Hidden Canyon 48-lot subdivision despite 165-resident opposition, grants five exceptions
CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA — November 2, 2021

Cave Creek approves Hidden Canyon 48-lot subdivision despite 165-resident opposition, grants five exceptions

Cave Creek town council approved controversial Hidden Canyon 48-lot subdivision with multiple exceptions despite organized opposition from 165 residents citing general plan conflicts, fire safety concerns, and rural character preservation.

Cave Creek Council Approves Hidden Canyon 48-Lot Subdivision Despite Organized Opposition Over Fire Safety and Density Concerns

Cave Creek's town council voted to approve a controversial Hidden Canyon residential development west of town hall on November 1, 2021, clearing five subdivision ordinance exceptions that will allow private streets, flag lots, and extended street blocks on a 76-acre parcel. Despite a petition signed by 165 town residents and sustained public testimony on fire safety, water availability, and rural character preservation, the council approved each exception by 5–0 margins (with two members recused from voting). The preliminary plat for 48 custom homes was also approved.

The project consolidates years of negotiations between the applicant's counsel, town staff, and the New Wilson Trust (property owner). It will preserve 27 acres of dedicated open space—35 percent of the site—and construct a public non-motorized trail system linking to the Gojon Trail and Cave Creek Regional Park. However, the cascade of exceptions, the density relative to surrounding development patterns, and specific fire code compliance questions animated a public hearing that lasted over two hours.

Key Speeches

"We have 165 of your citizens stand in opposition to this applicant's exception request…our subdivision ordinance provides and I quote the standards and restrictions established by this ordinance shall be held as the minimum requirements for the promotion of our general plan. Five exceptions eight of them flag lots can hardly qualify as minimum." — Anna Marcelo, Cave Creek resident and petition organizer

"Our goal here is to maximize the amount of open space and hillside area that we preserve on this property and concentrate development on the lower sort of less steep areas…we have a certificate of assured water supply that was renewed last year that is sufficient for 63 lots on this property we are proposing 48 and that's a density of 0.63 units per acre." — Susan Demet, Gammage & Burnham, PLC (applicant counsel)

"I believe you as the chair need to say everyone is allowed to speak but to the extent you've already spoken you need not speak again…you have accepted a variety of comments during this first item one I think when we get to the second third and fourth fifth I think you as the chair need to say everyone is allowed to speak." — Town Attorney (speaking to Mayor on multi-item testimony management)

"I will support it with the hope that uh we recognize that the uh you have two roads that are going to be next to one another they'll be your road and they'll be also odom and there needs to be shielding along there in terms of vegetation." — Councilmember Tom McGuire, supporting private roads exception with conditions

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: Approximately 13–15 speakers explicitly opposed to exceptions or plat; 165 signed petition opposing exceptions.

Main concerns (organized by theme):

  1. General plan conflict: Subdivision exceptions, approved only three months after general plan adoption (August 2021), undermine general plan credibility and implementation. General plan explicitly discourages development on slopes ≥15%; five flag lots are on slopes exceeding 15%. Ordinance incorporates subdivision standards into general plan; exceptions contradict stated goals.

  2. Fire safety—flag lots: Flag lot driveways exceed 150 feet without turnarounds; fire hydrants would be 150+ feet away on affected lots. Dead-end cul-de-sac streets (up to 600+ feet) would delay emergency response. State fire code requires 20-foot clearance on roads; proposed 22-foot pavement width is minimum. Long driveways on steep grades exceed recommended fire department access standards.

  3. Fire safety—broader concerns: Wildfire exposure on 15%+ slopes; federal guidance discourages building on upslopes in wildfire zones. Evacuation scenarios (reference to May 2021 Optatio Fire evacuations) demonstrated chaos; narrow flag lot driveways would compound exit difficulties.

  4. Water sustainability: 48 new homes (plus potential 63 under prior entitlements) on property with limited groundwater; Desert Hills system recently reduced water consumption; adjacent Galloway Ridge approved for 68 homes. Cumulative water demand questioned; drainage and sewage pump station capacity concerns (prior plan proposed pump station behind neighbor's property).

  5. Private vs. public roads: Private roads (with public access easement overlay) set precedent for avoidance of public maintenance obligation; developer assumes responsibility temporarily but structure allows future gating if easement removed (requires town council approval but establishes slope). Wider public roads serve as utility corridors; narrower private roads concentrate disturbance but reduce design flexibility.

  6. Subdivision ordinance standards: Subdivision ordinance explicitly prohibits flag lots since 1999; cul-de-sac length limit (600 feet or 4 lot widths) derived from mathematically justified 10-acre block requirement (1,320 feet ÷ 4 lots = 165-foot lot width ≈ 1 acre). Exceptions without clear "extraordinary conditions" (per ordinance language) appear to prioritize developer profit over community standards.

  7. Precedent and incremental pressure: Prior Hidden Canyon proposal (2006–2007) included 63 lots, public roads, and no open space; current plan requests multiple exceptions to reduce road extent and increase open space, but cumulative impact is still 48 homes on steep topography. Pattern of developer requests for relief followed by return requests is typical development strategy; exceptions are "stair steps" to further concessions.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups:

No formal organized group testified as an entity, but Anna Marcelo represented a coalition of 165 Cave Creek residents who signed a petition opposing exceptions. Marcelo presented petition in increments (155 signatures in packet, additional 10 reported during testimony) and coordinated testimony timing with other speakers (Phelps, Wright, Martinez, Samples).

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Zero members of the public testified in favor of the exceptions or plat.

Council statements supporting approval:

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

E-21-01 (Private Roads):

E-21-02 (Flag Lots):

E-21-03 (Extended Street Blocks):

E-21-04 (Extended Cul-de-sac):

E-21-05 (Private Street Dedication Waiver):

Preliminary Plat (P-21-01):

Individual votes not formally named in transcript; vote tallies stated as 5–0 (with 2 recused) for each item.

Outcome & Next Steps

Approvals: All five exceptions to the subdivision ordinance and the preliminary plat for Hidden Canyon were approved on November 1, 2021. Conditions of approval (36 total, referenced in Exhibit B of agenda packet, pages 206–210) are attached to the preliminary plat decision.

Next steps:

  1. Infrastructure improvement plans (IIP): Applicant must submit detailed street, water, wastewater, landscape, and grading plans evidencing compliance with conditions of approval.

  2. Final plat review: Staff review of IIP; town engineer and fire safety official approval required before final plat can be submitted to council.

  3. Lot-by-lot compliance: Civil grading and drainage plan required for each lot at time of development permit; retaining walls must comply with technical design guidelines (4-foot planter break per 8 feet of exposed wall); fire code and hillside ordinance apply to all individual lot development.

  4. Financial assurances: Applicant must prepare and post financial assurances for infrastructure improvements before final plat approval by council.

  5. Conditions specific to private streets:

    • No gates allowed at any entrance (Condition 23)
    • 32-foot minimum pavement width (Condition 21)
    • Public easements dedicated over all roadways
    • Paved driveway surfaces on all flag lots (hard surface, minimum 20 feet wide, width and surface type adjusted per town engineer and fire official review of slope and grade)
    • Town engineer and fire safety official review and approval of final roadway design, emergency access, and fire hydrant placement

  6. Public trail system: Applicant to construct and install non-motorized trail network per town specifications; dedicated public trail easement to town; maintained by homeowners association.

  7. Drainage and utilities: Town utilities director coordination with applicant on water and wastewater system upgrades; drainage into existing wash system (behind town hall) subject to engineer review; potential improvements to culvert crossings of Paseo Dulce (noted in public comment).

  8. Blue Ridge Drive emergency access: Applicant and town staff to determine during final engineering whether separate formal emergency ingress easement required or whether cross-access via existing right-of-way adjacency is sufficient.

Controversies & Context

General plan tension: Cave Creek adopted a revised general plan in August 2021, only three months before this November 1 hearing. The general plan incorporates subdivision ordinance standards and expressly identifies Hidden Canyon area as "medium density residential" (allowing 1.24–2.42 units per acre under proper medium residential classifications). However, the plan also contains language discouraging development on slopes ≥15% and emphasizing hillside preservation. Five of eight proposed flag lots exceed 15% slope. Town staff argued that subdivision ordinance incorporation into general plan includes express authority for exceptions; opponents argued exceptions contradict general plan's stated hillside preservation goals. This created a novel interpretive question: whether a plan that explicitly permits exceptions can be said to be undermined by their use.

Zoning history: Underlying zoning (R-35 and R-18) has been in place since Cave Creek's incorporation in 1986, predating all council members' service. Under pure zoning compliance, property owner could develop 63 lots with public roads and no open space (as approved 2006–2007). Current applicant is proposing fewer lots (48), more open space (27 acres), and private maintenance, which staff and some council members characterized as a net community benefit. Opponents countered that the proper baseline is the general plan, not historical zoning, and that exceptions circumvent the plan's implementation mechanism.

Fire safety and state preemption: Arizona fire code and International Fire Code (IFC) set minimum standards; multiple speakers cited specific fire code sections (20-foot clearance on streets, hydrant spacing, emergency vehicle turnaround requirements). Town engineer and fire safety official reviewed all exception requests and incorporated conditions of approval tied to fire code compliance. However, debate emerged over whether code compliance equals operational safety: flag lot driveways 150+ feet long without turnarounds may meet code width requirements but could be challenging in mass evacuation or active suppression. One speaker noted federal guidance discouraging development on upslopes in wildfire zones, suggesting state fire code may not capture all wildfire-specific risk.

Water and infrastructure capacity: Multiple speakers raised questions about water supply (Desert Hills groundwater depletion, Galvin Well offline, CAP allocation questions) and wastewater system capacity (Rancho Manana lift station recent failures and overflow events cited in July/August 2021 storm testimony). Town utilities director's preceding report (first hour of meeting) documented water loss and system vulnerabilities requiring upgrade. Applicant's CAWS is for 63 lots; 48 proposed lot density frees capacity. However, cumulative impact of Hidden Canyon plus neighboring Galloway Ridge (68 homes) raised cumulative demand concerns not formally addressed in record.

Private roads precedent: Applicant characterized private streets with public access easements as preferable to town-maintained public roads (avoiding tax burden). Opponents viewed this as erosion of public realm; David Phelps noted development-industry practice of initial "compromise" followed by return for further relief. Council member Soler voiced long-standing concern about maintenance burden of public roads but appeared satisfied by conditions preventing gates and requiring public easement.

Petition and community engagement: 165 signed petitions represents a substantial organized opposition. Anna Marcelo's coalition provided written detailed arguments (four pages) addressing each exception and ordinance language. No comparable organized support statement was offered. Council members Diefendorf and Smith acknowledged this imbalance but asserted representation of non-petitioning residents and noted property owner's existing legal entitlements.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Utilities Department Quarterly Report: Town utilities director presented comprehensive update on water system metering, non-revenue water accounting, desert hills well status, Rancho Manana pump station upgrades, wastewater treatment plant equipment repairs, and water storage credit programs. Notable concern: CAP canal meter requires $300,000 replacement to improve system accounting; non-revenue water loss between production and delivery is ~16% and requires investigation. Rancho Manana lift station pump upgrades doubled flow capacity (from ~300 gpm to ~590 gpm); additional chemical injection system planned to address odor issues downstream.

Stargazing Event Sponsorship (Agenda Item 1): Town manager sought council approval for town sponsorship of November 7, 2021 stargazing event at Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area, featuring live telescope imagery on monitors. Applicant (Bruce Arlen) initially requested town liability coverage and equipment loan (television and stand). Town staff noted requirements: porta-potty rental (~$300), staff time for setup/breakdown, and liability assumption. Applicant clarified use of own technical personnel; offered personal liability for borrowed equipment. Council approved town sponsorship with estimated town cost of $700–$800 (porta-potty, staff time, liability extension) and committed to website advertising post-approval. Cost context noted: town had not budgeted for major events in 2021 (no Taste of Cave Creek, no beer festival).