CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA — June 22, 2026

Cavecreek · 2026-06-22 · case details pending

Cave Creek planning commission workshop addressed hillside ordinance clarity and negotiated compromise on accessory dwelling unit allowances in R18/R35 zones, capping units at 30% or 1,200 sq ft maximum to balance housing flexibility with density concerns.

Cave Creek Planning Commission Negotiates ADU Compromise at June Workshop; Hillside Ordinance Edits Move Forward

The Cave Creek planning commission convened on June 22 for a continuation workshop on two pending text amendments—a hillside ordinance cleanup and a new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) policy for R18 and R35 residential zones—seeking to nail down language and resolve outstanding concerns before public hearings scheduled for September 17. The workshop revealed deep commission unease about allowing ADUs in small-lot, low-density zones, particularly on undeveloped parcels near Spur Cross and Grapevine, ultimately driving a negotiated compromise that caps ADU size at the lesser of 30% of the primary residence's gross floor area or 1,200 square feet.

Hillside Ordinance: Language Cleanup and Driveway Gateway

The hillside ordinance discussion opened with staff presenter Eric walking through a series of targeted clarifications designed to reduce interpretive ambiguity that has plagued the department for years. The ordinance, which restricts disturbance on slopes of 15% or greater, contained contradictory language in different sections defining when a parcel becomes "hillside," and lacked clear guidance on how to calculate slope percentages or how to handle driveways that must traverse hillside areas to reach flat buildable land.

"We received inquiries in the past to further elaborate section meaning of the chapter 7 hillside ordinance so people would call and just read it to us and what does that necessarily mean? So, it's more of trying to elaborate further in different language." — Staff, presenting the rationale for clarifications.

The core amendments proposed three changes. First, clarifying that a lot becomes subject to hillside regulations only "when a natural undisturbed slope of 50% or greater is disturbed"—adding the word "disturbed" to resolve confusion about whether mere presence of steep terrain triggered restrictions even if a property owner never planned to touch those areas. Second, codifying the decades-old practice of measuring slope within the proposed development envelope (building setbacks) at 20-foot intervals, rather than allowing ambiguity about where measurements should begin. Third, creating a new driveway exemption allowing driveways to cross hillside areas without triggering hillside disturbance limits, provided the actual building occurs on flat ground.

The driveway exemption sparked the liveliest debate. Commissioners worried that without guardrails, a property owner could cut a half-mile-long road up a mountainside and claim an exemption. Staff agreed a cap was warranted.

"That would suck. That's like [the case of] the guy that like did it without a permit... the Great Wall of Cave Creek... across someone else's property." — Commissioner, referencing a notorious local driveway dispute.

The discussion landed on likely capping driveway disturbance either as a percentage of total lot area (perhaps 5%) or by linear footage, subject to zoning administrator approval. Staff committed to preparing options for final exhibit language, with guardrails tied to the town's technical design guidelines (which already require enhanced construction standards for slopes over 12%). Commissioners also noted that retaining walls, switchbacks, and finishes must blend with natural terrain—requirements already embedded in other ordinance sections but worth reinforcing in the driveway provision.

"The walls, if there's retaining walls, have to match natural terrain or be stuck. The driveways have to be asphalt or what's the state there? Anything over 12% makes service concrete or asphalt." — Staff, clarifying existing design criteria that apply regardless.

One commissioner flagged a potential tension: if the ordinance now clearly defines the development envelope and requires slope calculations within it, could applicants argue they are confined to a smaller buildable area than they might prefer? Staff and the zoning administrator clarified that the exhibit is meant to enable property owners to see where hillside restrictions do and do not apply, so they can plan accordingly, rather than to impose a stricter envelope. The intent is transparency, not constraint.

Outcome on hillside: The commission voiced consensus to proceed with clarifications. Staff will refine the driveway language to include a disturbance cap (likely a percentage or footage limit, subject to staff approval for safety and impact), prepare a final exhibit showing how slope calculations work, and bring the amended language to the September 17 public hearing for formal recommendation.

Accessory Dwelling Units: 90% Built-Out Zone Spurs Housing Policy Debate

The ADU discussion consumed the bulk of the two-hour workshop and exposed a deeper rift: commissioners acknowledged state pressure (House Bill 2720, which mandates ADU allowance in cities over 75,000 population) and general plan language encouraging multigenerational and workforce housing, yet remained deeply skeptical about allowing more housing on small R18 and R35 lots, especially where vacant land remained developable.

Eric opened with demographic and comparative context. The R18 and R35 zones collectively contain about 600 properties, 57 of which are vacant—a 90% buildout rate. However, three pockets still hold significant development potential: Hidden Canyon (behind town hall, 48 potential lots), the Spur Cross–Grapevine property (northeast corner, 13 potential lots), and a parcel at Schoolhouse and Military (8 potential lots). The current desert rural zones already allow ADUs capped at 50% of the primary residence's gross floor area, shared driveway, shared utilities, and compliance with setbacks (40 feet front/rear in R35, 30 feet in R18) and lot coverage limits (20% in R35, 25% in R18).

Staff presented two options: Option A would replicate desert rural rules (50% GFA cap) in R18 and R35. Option B would tighten the GFA cap to 30% in these zones, yielding a maximum of 600 square feet for a 2,000 square-foot primary residence. Comparables from nearby cities (Carefree, Fountain Hills, Wickenburg, Scottsdale) generally allow ADUs but with lower GFA ratios (30–33%) and sometimes reduced setbacks (5–10 feet), though none are perfect parallels given Cave Creek's smaller lots and lower density.

A commissioner who had missed earlier meetings raised the core political question: "If we see so few [ADUs actually built], why are we going down this road?" The response pivoted on principle: "It's easy to say no, it's not allowed. It's also just as gracious of a community to say yes, they are permitted. However, you know, here are the requirements for it."

Yet the debate quickly shifted to the Spur Cross–Grapevine gateway property, an undeveloped triangular parcel zoned R35 that would be visible to all entering Cave Creek from the north. One commissioner voiced deep concern:

"I'm just trying to not encourage, you know, 7,000 square feet of structure built on a [lot]... my only concern really is that gateway to Spur Cross, you know, that particular property... to your point on the stuff that's built out, yeah, it's built out. It's not necessarily going to be ideal because they situated their home, they are septic, they're whatever."

A detailed overlay of nearby built subdivisions (Black Mountain Shadows, Desert Creek, Miramar Montoya, Hidden Canyon) revealed that most existing R35 lots were already maxed at lot coverage and hemmed in by hillside constraints, making additional structures infeasible. The Spur Cross parcel, however, is flat, fully buildable, and highly visible—raising the prospect of a large primary home plus a 1,500 square-foot ADU that would read visually as two substantial homes on one lot.

The Compromise: 30% or 1,200 Sq Ft, Whichever Is Less

After an hour of back-and-forth, commissioners converged on a compromise inspired by Wickenburg's ordinance: 30% of primary residence GFA or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. This formulation preserves flexibility for smaller lots and existing homes (e.g., a 3,000 sq-ft house could still add 900 sq ft), while capping ADU size on large undeveloped parcels. A 4,200 square-foot primary residence would be capped at 1,200 sq ft (not 1,260 sq ft at 30%), preventing a de facto second full home.

One commissioner raised a secondary concern: if the gross floor area cap includes attached garages (which count toward GFA under building code), then a 1,200 sq-ft ADU with a one-car garage leaves only ~900 square feet of livable space—a tight mother-in-law quarter. Staff acknowledged the tension between gross floor area calculations (which include all enclosed space, including garages) and livable area, noting that applicants in desert rural zones sometimes build separate detached garages to work around GFA caps. The commission did not resolve this; it will likely be flagged in the September public hearing.

State Preemption and the Bigger Picture

The zoning administrator contextualized the proposal within broader state preemption concerns:

"A lot of these text amendments that are being forwarded and proposed to the planning commission at this time are born out of not only the anecdotal evidence of people wanting to be able to do this or do that but also additional, you know, state legislation as the state kind of usurps more and more authority from local municipal control. Not our size, not our size yet, but things have a way of growing into something or otherwise."

HB 2720, which requires cities over 75,000 population to allow one ADU per single-family lot, does not yet apply to Cave Creek (population ~3,600). But the commission recognized that preemptive local rule-making—defining parameters for what will be allowed—may forestall future state mandates that give towns no say. The staff framed the ADU amendment as part of regular ordinance review, alongside discussions of hillside disturbance, setbacks, and other parameters that ensure Cave Creek retains some local control over land use.

One commissioner noted that Cave Creek's population has actually declined over the past 20 years despite significant new construction—a demographic puzzle that undercuts arguments about housing scarcity:

"Our population of Cave Creek has gone down in the last 20 years, and not just by a little bit. Like, it's we our population is dropping. Um which doesn't compute with the fact that we've added so many dwelling units in the town over the last 20 years."

This observation hung in the air without resolution, suggesting skepticism that ADU allowance would materially address any housing shortage.

Timeline

Hillside ordinance: Introduced in prior workshops; language clarifications proposed today based on decades of staff practice; driveway cap to be refined; exhibit to be prepared; public hearing and recommendation vote scheduled for September 17.
ADU text amendment: Introduced March 2026; workshop held April 2026; continued to June 22 workshop after staff received feedback on GFA caps; Option A (50% GFA) and negotiated Option B (30% or 1,200 sq ft, whichever is less) to be presented at September 17 public hearing; recommendation vote to follow.
General Plan zone-cleanup amendments: Town and Desert Foothills Land Trust properties with mismatched zoning to be corrected; scheduled for same September 17 hearing as a housekeeping item.

Opposition

No formal public comment was received (workshop format). However, commissioner sentiment crystallized several concerns:

Gateway property visibility: The Spur Cross–Grapevine triangle is a high-profile entrance to town; allowing large ADUs would create visual precedent for "two homes on one lot" contrary to rural character.
Undeveloped parcels: Unlike the 90% built-out portions of R18/R35, the remaining vacant lots offer full buildable footprint, making the 50% GFA cap potentially yield structures too large (e.g., 1,500 sq ft on a 3,000 sq-ft primary on 35,000+ sq-ft parcel).
Septic and utility barriers: Even if ADUs are allowed, existing septic systems and the $80,000–$200,000 cost of sewer connection may deter actual development, making the ordinance permissive in theory but hollow in practice.
Doubt about demand: Staff data showed only 6–12 ADUs built per year in desert rural zones, with none in R18/R35 (where the proposal targets). If demand is minimal in less-restricted zones, why expect uptake in more-constrained ones?
Lot coverage and design reality: Setbacks (30–40 ft), slope constraints (hillside), lot coverage caps (20–25%), and utilities already severely limit feasible ADU siting on most lots. The permissive ordinance may be largely symbolic.

Support

No organized public support was heard. However, staff and the zoning administrator defended the amendment on:

General plan alignment: Town general plan includes goals for multigenerational housing and workforce-housing options; ADU allowance is a direct implementation mechanism.
State preemption hedge: Proactive local rule-setting may forestall future state mandates (like HB 2720 for larger cities) that offer no local discretion.
Principle of choice: Even if few exercise the option, the ordinance extends a permissible use for those who wish to house elderly parents, adult children, or others on their property, contingent on infrastructure and design compliance.
Sewer incentive: For properties near sewer lines, ADU allowance may incentivize septic-to-sewer conversion, advancing the general plan goal of reducing septic reliance.
Existing detached-building allowance: Property owners in R18/R35 can already build detached structures up to the limits of lot coverage and setbacks; if those lack cooking facilities and bedrooms, they evade the ADU definition. The proposal merely clarifies and codifies what is already theoretically permissible under different use labels.

Project Details

Case identifier: Text amendments (not a traditional development case); two ordinances:
1. Hillside Ordinance (Chapter 7) language clarification and driveway exemption
2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) allowance in R18 and R35 residential zones
Applicant / proposer: Town of Cave Creek, Planning & Zoning Department
Location: Town-wide (R18 and R35 zoning districts; approximately 600 properties)
Current zoning → Proposed zoning: No zone change; both R18 and R35 already exist; proposal adds ADU use to both.
Density / units: Estimated maximum 57 additional ADU-capable properties (based on vacant parcels in R18/R35); actual construction yield unknown, likely minimal given infrastructure and design barriers.
Changes from prior version: Hillside ordinance had contradictory language in two sections; no substantive regulatory change, only clarification. ADU amendment shifted from Option A (50% GFA, per desert rural model) to presentation of both Option A and negotiated Option B (30% or 1,200 sq ft, whichever is less).

Vote Breakdown

No formal vote was taken; this was a workshop.

The commission expressed consensus to:

Proceed with hillside ordinance language clarifications and driveway cap (with further refinement pending).
Present both Option A (50% GFA) and Option B (30% or 1,200 sq ft, whichever is less) to the September 17 public hearing for public comment and eventual commission recommendation vote.

Individual commissioners present did not formally commit; the outcome reflects working consensus during discussion rather than a recorded tally.

Outcome & Next Steps

Hillside Ordinance:

Staff to refine driveway disturbance cap language (likely 5% of lot area or similar percentage/linear-footage limit, subject to zoning administrator approval).
Exhibit prepared by consulting firm to be finalized and included in ordinance showing how slope calculations work within development envelope.
Final language to be presented at September 17 planning commission public hearing for formal recommendation.

ADU Text Amendment:

Staff to adjust Option B to explicitly cap ADU size at "30% of primary residence gross floor area or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less."
Both Option A and revised Option B to be presented at September 17 public hearing.
Commission to solicit public comment and make recommendation vote at that hearing (not today).
Staff to prepare exhibit(s) showing example ADU layouts on typical R18/R35 lots, consistent with setback and lot-coverage constraints.

Zone Cleanup (Town and Desert Foothills Land Trust Properties):

Scheduled as housekeeping item for September 17 hearing; no major discussion anticipated.

Post-Workshop Deliverables:

Staff to prepare a memo summarizing all concerns raised in both workshops, staff responses, and any changes to proposed language; memo to be circulated to all planning commissioners (including those absent June 22) before September hearing.
Staff encouraged to meet individually with commissioners who had specific questions or concerns.

Controversies & Context

State Preemption and Local Control

The staff and zoning administrator repeatedly invoked House Bill 2720 and the broader pattern of state legislation preempting local zoning authority. While HB 2720 does not yet apply to Cave Creek (cities over 75,000 population only), the commission recognized that Arizona's legislature has a track record of expanding state mandates in land use. Proactive local rule-making—defining conditions under which ADUs are allowed—may preserve town discretion against future blanket mandates that offer no local parameters. This framing positioned the text amendment as defensive, not growth-enabling.

Population Decline Amid Development

A striking tension emerged: Cave Creek's population has declined over the past 20 years despite substantial new residential construction. This demographic reality undermined arguments that ADU allowance is necessary to house a growing population. Instead, the justification shifted to choice (enabling property owners who wish to pursue ADUs) and future-proofing (preempting state overrides). The population data suggested that whatever housing supply is being built, it is not translating to population retention.

The Spur Cross–Grapevine Gateway Property

The undeveloped triangular parcel at the northeast corner of Spur Cross and Grapevine Road emerged as the key flashpoint. It is one of the few R35 parcels without slope or other major constraints, making it fully buildable. Yet its high visibility—a gateway entrance to town—amplified concern about ADU allowance there. Commissioners repeatedly referenced it, implying that while most of R18/R35 is too constrained for the ADU cap to matter, this one parcel could become a problematic precedent. The property was mentioned without developer attribution, suggesting it is owner-occupied or in speculation mode.

Septic vs. Sewer and the Cost Barrier

Staff noted that existing septic systems on many R18/R35 lots may lack capacity for ADUs, necessitating sewer connection at a cost of $80,000–$200,000. This economic barrier is likely a more effective check on actual ADU construction than the regulatory cap. Paradoxically, the general plan goal of encouraging sewer conversion might be served by ADU allowance, since an owner motivated to add an ADU might be more willing to shoulder sewer-connection costs. Yet no commissioner suggested lowering the GFA cap specifically to encourage sewer investment; instead, the cap was viewed as a density safeguard despite the septic barrier.

Lot Coverage and Design Constraints as De Facto Limits

The commission repeatedly noted that setbacks, hillside restrictions, lot coverage caps, and utility requirements already limit feasible ADU siting on most R18/R35 lots to such a degree that regulatory prohibition may be redundant. The 30% or 1,200 sq-ft cap was thus partly a belt-and-suspenders measure: even though many lots cannot physically accommodate even a 600 sq-ft ADU due to design constraints, the ordinance explicitly caps size to guard against outliers.

Gross Floor Area vs. Livable Area

A technical tension remains unresolved: if the GFA cap includes attached garages (as is typical in building code), then a 1,200 sq-ft ADU that includes a one-car garage (300 sq ft) leaves only 900 sq ft of livable space—tighter than typical for even a one-bedroom mother-in-law quarter. Staff acknowledged this and noted that desert rural zone ADU developers sometimes build detached garages to work around GFA caps, but the commission did not vote to exempt garages from the 1,200 sq-ft ceiling. This design question will likely resurface at the September public hearing.

Existing Allowance for Detached Buildings

The zoning administrator highlighted an often-overlooked reality: R18 and R35 property owners can today build detached structures under lot coverage and setback limits, provided those structures lack cooking and bedroom combinations (which would define them as ADUs). The proposal essentially relabels what is theoretically permissible under a different use classification, while adding explicit conditions. This framing suggests the ordinance may be more about clarity and oversight than a radical expansion of density.

Duration

This item (ADU and hillside workshop): Approximately 2 hours (workshop format; no formal vote or public comment period).
Total meeting: Approximately 2 hours (workshop only; no full council session or additional items).

Other Notable Items

Turquoise Circuit Pro Rodeo 5-Year Lease Extension: The town council approved a five-year extension of the Turquoise Circuit Finals rodeo, moving its home in Cave Creek to 2030.

FY 2027 Budget: The town council approved the fiscal year 2027 budget at its Tuesday meeting; specific details were not discussed at the planning commission workshop.

Development Projects Status: The zoning administrator reported progress on several projects: API corporate office (across from town hall), Havalina Crossing (northeast corner of Carriage and Cave Creek Road, office/retail), Black Mountain Vista (seven live-work units, site plan approval), Vickers Retail Center (behind Starbucks, awaiting building permit), Cave Creek Hotel (114 rooms, behind post office), Black Mountain Marketplace (southeast corner of Carefree Highway and Cave Creek Road, infrastructure plans underway), and Cave Creek Gateway / Aldi (51st and Carefree Highway, multipad retail, site plan submitted).

View source transcript ▼

Source: 18 June 2026 Cave Creek Planning Commission meeting — June 22, 2026. Auto-generated YouTube transcript; may contain transcription errors.

meeting for the town of Cape Creek to order. I guess we'll do the pledge. Aliance to the flag of the stands one nationisible justice for all. Okay. Uh, this is a workshop, so I'm not sure if we're going to have any public speakers from the public here today. So, I don't know if I'm going to go through my normal speech. Um, I think we can cut right to the zoning administrator's report. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, since the last meeting, I have some updates for the chair, commission, and public.

Heralds is hosting the 40th anniversary of the towns incorporation on Saturday, June 27th. Planning commissioners were invited. Uh please RSVP if you have not yet done so. Um you would have received a a preliminary or an email from the town. I know a lot of uh feedback I heard was that it may have gone to the junk or spam folder. So check those. I sent an additional email separately with that same link. Um would love to see you guys there.

The town council approved a lease contract extension with the Turquoise Circuit Pro Rodeo for Cave Creek to host the Turquoise Circuit Finals rodeo occurring in November. Um it was a 5-year extension, so that puts Turquoise Circuit um their home in Cave Creek out to 2030. Staff is nearing completion of renovating the public restrooms located at Desert Awareness Park. Uh council approved and authorized that budget last year and we're uh wrapping that project up hopefully here early next week.

Council approved the fiscal year 2027 budget at their meeting that they held on Tuesday. Um I don't recall if my budget was reduced again this year or not, but we'll figure it out. Um, as far as the Arizona State Land Department open space acquisition efforts, those are proceeding. Staff uh with the professional consulting assistance of R.J. Carden are engaged with Logan Simpson to prepare cultural resource, wildlife, and native plant analysis as well as environmental study reports.

Additionally, staff is also engaged with Ever Allen Group to prepare Alta survey as well as Pioneer Title for the title report work. The town is nearing completion on its submittal for the land and water conservation fund grant to match town funding up to $2 million. It's a dollar fordoll u match that this grant. So if we the town provides 2 million, this grant will provide 2 million.

The application to initiate auction of the 4,000 acres was submitted in April and is progressing through the state land department review. Uh currently uh last I'll just touch on a couple of development projects in town. There are currently several development projects at various stages of review or construction. Uh API, their corporate office building, which is right here across from town hall, the former Leland's Jazz Club building um is moving forward.

Um I see a change in that nearly every week. uh Havalina Crossing, the northeast corner of Carriage and Cave Creek, our two buildings, office retail, I believe that is in uh staff review administrative for the site plan. Black Mountain Vista, seven live work units. Uh those were approved by site plan via commission and council, were they not? One was. So, they're just doing the same same thing for the rest of that that frontage along Cave Creek Road.

And um if you drive by, that's the the equipment you see on the west side of Cave Creek Road, south of Town Hall here. That's that project. Uh another project, Vickers Retail Center, that's located behind Starbucks. Um that was entitled um quite a while ago. Their site plans approved. We are just awaiting a building permit submittal on that. Cave Creek Hotel, which is behind the post office, 114 rooms. uh that site plan is approved.

They are currently we are awaiting corrections uh from their first permit application review submittal. So um I know that they are anticipating breaking ground in the fall on that Black Mountain Marketplace which is the southeast corner of Carefree Highway and Cave Creek Road, affectionately known as the Bullington property. um that is progressed to uh I believe they have plans in for their native plant inventory and salvage. They are completing their infrastructure improvement plans.

Um and we should start to see that come together over the next couple of months. And then the last project of note, Cave Creek Gateway. Again, um I believe that was the last that may have been the last site plan that was brought before the commission uh which is the the Aldi um property. So at 51st Street and Carefree Highway, um which is a multipad uh retail center.

As far as upcoming business, uh September 17th, the planning commission will be considering various zone change requests and general plan amendments for properties owned by the town of Cave Creek as well as the Desert Foothills Land Trust. Um those I believe we've briefed uh commission on this before. The town owns several properties, has been gifted several properties over the time.

And then Desert Foothills Land Trust also owns several properties that the underlying zoning is still residential. Um, so we're looking to clean that up on our zoning map and and reflect them as appropriately zoned properties. So if any commissioners have specific questions about this report or would like more detail on the matter, I'm available to discuss or meet with you in person except between July 2nd and July 20th. I will be out of the country in which my esteemed colleagues, Mr.

Baker and Mr. Paralysis would be more than happy to to chat about anything going on in town while I'm gone. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Happy to be here. Happy to hear the report and we won't be hearing the site plans.

Uh okay with that I think uh today we have the continuence workshop on the two items one the hillside and one the accessory dwelling units and R18 and R35 um I know commissioner Lamar I don't think you were here for the first were you okay so um so any event you know we are missing three which as I recall our intent was to ensure that everybody was here for this one but uh you know I don't know whether anybody's given any thought to that or if you have anything you want to add or just leave it to us or how you'd like to work this sure it's totally up to you I have a presentation it's going to be repetitive of what we've already gone through it's up to you if you want that or if you just want to get right to discussion yeah I don't know we Do you need to see anything from that anymore?

Anybody? Um, guess doesn't have to pull it up if we're talking about it. I guess we can have it available for Yeah, I think um one thing that that may help. I I understand I missed the last two meetings.

Um but I I think because we are still kind of working through these different concepts and different uh text amendments um I know that it might be helpful to all the commission since the entire commission isn't isn't complimented today um to prepare kind of what we've what we've addressed what concerns were staff responses to those concerns maybe formally in a memo type type format and route those to all the planning commission um and then kind of set a time to actually meet and do conduct the public hearing on them um and and make a recommendation at that point.

So, kind of now would be the the opportunity for the commissioners that are present to say, you know, here's here's our concern still with these two items.

Um I mean one of the things I kind of was also hoping is like depending on what you know you know the consensus of of all this you know because my understanding was you know there's some residents that had contacted or issues that are routinely run into whether it be hillside or somebody that owns a property in R1 18 or R35 that's you know told staff that they want an ADU and that's the the genesis of why this is being proposed, right?

And I what I wasn't sure is is that, you know, no matter, you know, was no matter what staff is proceeding with this and depending, you know, so if the feedback from the commission was just like we hate this, we, you know, um you it's still going to be on the agenda for a vote and a recommendation in September, not withdrawn. Uh yes. So one of the I don't know if there's any hard and fast rule that says um an application can't be withdrawn.

I think one of the things and again a lot of these text amendments that are being forwarded and proposed to the planning commission at this time are born out of not only the the anecdotal evidence of people wanting to be able to do this or do that but also additional, you know, state legislation as the state kind of usurps more and more authority from local municipal control. Not our size. not our size yet, but but things have a way of of growing into something or otherwise.

And also um really from the workshops um that that the commission and council have had the last couple of years um and looking at things. So really more than anything, it's more of a mandate of um are we looking at our ordinances regularly? I would argue yes. Yeah. Um, I mean, I've been arguing for 300 feet for sewer forever, but that doesn't seem to get taped. So, yeah, town code, uh, our utilities department would definitely need to be the one taking up that that torch.

Um, but it's also the the proof is, yeah, we are having these discussions. We are bringing, you know, text amendments before you. We are having dialogue and ultimately we're bringing a recommendation forward. My understanding is the landscape and undisturbed recommendation was a was a split vote. It wasn't um you know there wasn't a a prevailing side with you know a great you know vote. Um it was split 32.

Um so those are the things I mean good bad or indifferent that at least shows not only the the council but the public that we are looking at these things and things can be modified over time. Things aren't set in stone. We can look at these. So, it's really the proof of town staff initiated an application, town staff through its uh review of our current existing ordinances um in in looking at others, you know, what's kind of best practices. Here you go. Here's your bevy of options.

You don't have to do it and and recommend approval of exactly what staff propo proposes. You can amend. Um but ultimately, a recommendation is made. Okay. Got it. So, um, you want to start with the hillside or Okay, I guess we can start with the hillside, you know. So, my recollection is that a lot of the issues were coming in for this change related to the DR190 properties. That's correct, right?

Well, chairman, the the concerns are based off of the the disturbance for DR190, but we're not changing anything with disturbance. What we're trying to do is just get more clar clarity by changing the language of the and not necessarily changing language, just making it more clear for the for the public. So, when they read it, it's not something that has to be interpreted or something that seems vague or contradictive.

So, it's just more of clearing cleaning up the language and so it doesn't change anything. It's not going to change anything. At first, it was recommended like maybe possibly give a little bit more leeway for the DR190s and just letting them disturb all 15%. But after the feedback from commission, we decided to ask that idea and now all we're doing is just cleaning up language within the hillside ordinance. So, that's been completely Do we have that to see it? Yeah.

Um, was that in the last packet? It was but then it was pulled so it was in the last packet and the May one that you could have been there. We can we skip. Yeah. I mean if you put it up on the screen so really the the direction and the feedback we got was let's not touch the bulk regulations. Let's let leave the bulk regulations be. Um but there is two things in that ordinance and I don't have it in front of me just from my general knowledge.

um is there's a statement in one section of that ordinance that says a hillside property is this and there's a statement in another part of that same ordinance a couple of pages later that says a hillside property is this and the two don't necessarily agree with one another.

So that's really the the impetus for let's clean up this language so when someone goes well nuhuh it says right here we're not having that I mean that's a great thing I I had no idea I I'd love I mean I can see it over there but we you can't see it on your screen yeah on our screen there's like a zoom my notes thing but uh it's not touch screen so I can't see if can come Is there like a share screen maybe? Well, it it's bringing it up. I can see it behind cuz is that is it up now for you guys?

Well, it's there. I mean, just a large zoom window. Like we see one quarter. Oh, yeah. You can't drag it. No, it's uh if it was a touch screen for sure, I mean, I guess we could Yeah, I mean, I can sort of see it start hitting X's. Yeah. So, that's that's what we see. Yeah. So, if you can X out that Zoom notes. No, the Zoom notes. Yeah, like you had the screen up that we saw, but then you out the whole thing. Hit the X up here. No, no, I'm talking to Eric. No, it did.

Is it Do you have it share screen? Yeah, it's okay. Is it the webinar right there? I click on the the browser. Yeah, yeah, there he is. Hello. We are trying to get something to project on the screens of the deis, please. So, we we all have this Zoom Ah, here we go. Hey, Brian, take the rest of the week off, man. It's pretty big on our screen. We're full screen here. Oh, we're Oh, good. No. Yeah, we're we're set. Yeah, we're good. Thank you, Brian. Yeah. All righty.

So, just going over the text amendments in regards to why we're looking to update the language or make it more clear is just that we received inquiries in the past to further laborate section. So, meaning of the chapter 7 hillside ordinance so people would call and just read it to us and what does that necessarily mean? So, it's more of trying to elaborate further uh in different language.

So, we've had that inquir inquiries on the hillside ordinance a little bit too often to where we now that we have the opportunity to kind of clean it up and actually put the language in that we're relaying to the public. It just makes the most sense at this moment. Another one we get is how how do you calculate the hillside lots to actually determine that there's a natural 15% slope or greater?

The way the calculation is in currently the ordinance, it really just goes and explains how to do the measurements, but it doesn't tell you where to take the measurements from. It's more something that we're I wouldn't say interpreting. It's just more of the practice that's been done throughout the years, and it's but it's never been implemented in the ordinance.

So, um, another item is just implementing one new item, which would be to allow for driveways to go into hillside areas as long as the development is occurring in a flat surface area that is less than 50% slope or greater. uh and not not uh not force the property to adhere to the 15 or to the hillside ordinance because it's kind it'd be unfair that if the surrounding area is all 15% so greater and all they're trying to do is just cut a driveway in to build in the flat surface area.

It's kind of out of their control on that one. So that's one thing we're trying to implement on that. Currently, there is a determination that we have which is allowed per the ordinance to allow for determinations and utilize that for certain situations, but now we're just trying to implement that determination into the ordinance to make it uh to so it's accessible to the public instead of having to pull it out and say, well, you can use this. So, um I'll go into the uh proposed amendments.

The current language states all portions of a lot or parcel having a natural undisturbed slope of 50% or greater shall be subject to regulations set forth in this chapter.

So this gets a little bit tricky because the the way it's people have been interpreting is that if you disturb a natural undisturbed slope of 50% or greater then you know all portions of a lot have to adhere to that or uh it's just then it's pretty much saying that your entire lot is hillside when that's not necessarily the case.

And what we're trying to amend it to is a lot or parcel shall adhere to the regulations set forth in this chapter when a natural undisturbed slope of 50% or greater is disturbed. So it doesn't say in the in the current language when does that have when does that take effect and that's where we just put in the lang or the one verbiage at the end is is disturbed.

So that's where questions come into play is well if I have a if I give you a topographic and show that one area is 15% slope greater than the whole lot's hillside and that's not the case. We have to make it clear that it's when you disturb an area that is hillside or 15% slope grad any part of the lot then the yes and your entire lot would be hillside.

So, and again, we've addressed these through policy, but as staff changes, if you know, if I'm no longer here, those kinds of things, then if you read that and take that at face value, if you've got a small insignificant portion of of land that you're not even planning on touching, that's 15% technically per the written word of that, you can assume that the entire lot is subject to the 15%.

And our policy has always been if you touch it then yes but if you stay away from those uh sensitive areas of 15% then no. And that's why you know going back to the uh the driveway um and and making that official and codifying it in our ordinance. It's something that that we did through determination about 5 years ago. Um, we had a a property that the only way to get on the property was to traverse a hillside section. They had no intention of building on the hillside. They couldn't have.

It was in the setbacks anyway, but they would have been unable to build on the flat, you know, 3 acre portion of the property otherwise. So, we had to, okay, you're just putting in a driveway. You're not doing anything else to that. You have to be able to physically access your property. We're not going to hold that against you and penalize you um just to make access. So, go ahead. Is there a uh is there a question on the language here?

Why it's changed or is there further clarification needed on that? Yep. Okay. But it sounds like the drive for for purposes of this change, you know, the driveways excluded. Correct. And I will it correct chairman. That'll be shown in length, right? Correct. Yeah. This is, you know, we have a five, you know, 5 acre piece and the flat portion is like 600 ft back. We could have a 600 ft. That is that is a potential, right? So, yeah, there's that that new item C that talks about the driveway.

I was just looking to see if that is still subject to talent staff review and we could put that in there that it could still be subject to town staff review if that would apply rather than just you know saying if it was something really correct if it's going to scar normal correct so I mean if we need to add something so it it still meets the intent of the hillside ordinance to state that subject to zoning administrator approval or subject to town approval, then we can also do that.

Um, that's something that would I would probably want to discuss further with legal to see if we'd even have that right to um to do such just to say, well, we let someone have it. Maybe we put a a cap on the I mean, you'd have to probably put a, you know, not exceeding X in length absent zoning administrator approval. Yeah, we could look into I mean, I was just throwing it out there because I was like thinking to myself like that would suck.

That's like that's the purpose of the workshop to get further, you know, guidance in that so we can put a couple options together and and state, you know, maybe put at maybe a percentage of disturbance or maybe put it towards a percentage of the square footage or linear footage. So, whatever it seems more reasonable.

I know that there's a subdivision out here that allows for 1,800 ft² of driveways outside the building setbacks for additional disturbance, but it's just something we'd have to look into and and I think probably placing the disturbance cap on it would probably be the best. But I think the property that exists in town where a driveway would would exceed 300 feet in length just to get to a buildable area on a hillside property. I that would be a hard one to find. I know.

The only one I was thinking in my head is the the guy that like did it without a permit. Oh, the great the Great Wall of Cave Creek. Yeah. Across someone else's property. Yes. Yes. I saw it was like this road ripped in your neighborhood. Yeah. All the road to China. Yes. So yeah, I mean to to consider all all possible um potential that's yeah that's that would be an interesting equation to but yeah I think there are some guard rails that we can put into this a little bit.

I know you know there's going to be um things with driveway construction. I mean, even with our technical design guidelines for driveways, uh, over a slope of 12%, there's a whole bunch of requirements that kick in. So, a lot of those things come into play in our factors as well. So, we'll we'll look at all of those and and make sure the language that you get that you see. Let's make them solar reflective, right? Well, only in North Carolina.

Now I think you're getting to my question like what are the differences you know if you do if you are on hillside for sight walls and things like that um you know what between a flat lot what are you allowed to have for a sitewall you know depending or you know versus the hillside one so the driveway going traversing the hillside area do we need to have it comply with hillside regulations for that little portion yeah so that that brings brings up good points about uh retaining wall um and walls just in general being either stonefaced with native looking material or stuckcoed and finished to reflect the native surroundings.

All of those factors come into to account. Um, you know, again, our our determination at the time for the specific case that we got was for a 25 foot length, they had to traverse a a hillside, you know, slopewise. Um, so yeah, it really didn't take into account what what the the larger picture of a a 200 linear foot driveway or greater would look like. So, we'll we'll we'll talk a little bit more in the shop about what that looks like and make sure that you guys get the best language. Yeah.

Cuz I think I'm all I mean, all of this makes, you know, great sense to me for, you know, your building area if it's on the flat side. Just, you know, being pretty standard, but if we're, you know, those roads can get pretty nasty going up hillside. So, it'd be nice to make sure that they're at least, you know, complying with maybe a little bit more stringent and sometimes, I mean, even nasty in in the opposite direction.

I mean, it looks it it can be nasty for the person putting it in because we want them to work with grade and do switch backs that are appropriately screened so that you're not just looking up a Yeah. a straight slope. Correct. And there's design criteria that have to be met like Luke was indicating. The, you know, the walls, if there's retaining walls, have to match natural terrain or be stuck. The driveways have to be asphalt or um what's the state there?

Anything over 12% makes service concrete or asphalt. So I mean there's requirements not just where it's going to completely scar up the mountain. It's still going to have to blend in with with what's currently there.

So, but again, I think that maybe capping it a disturbance percentage, maybe saying as long as it doesn't exceed 5% of disturbance, then maybe something to that extent, but or or or the the the portion of the driveway occurring within the setback, you know, if if that hillside portion is within the setback and the driveway is traversing it within the setback, then then they get this um correct this credit. Mhm. So once once they're in the setback and they're disturbing, come on, man.

It's hillside, right? Yeah. So the disturbance could probably be accounted for all development towards the driveway outside the building setbacks shall not exceed 5% Yeah. of the lot area, something to that extent. So cuz once it meets the building setbacks, that's where it's going to be a flat surface anyways. So um I think we can fine tune this a little. Yeah, we can. We can. So we'll make sure we fine-tune that area. Then I'll go back here. Any qu any further questions on the driveway? No.

Okay. So, the second item that we are looking to amend is how to calculate the current to determine if a lot is hillside. The current language states, "For the purpose 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." And then it says rise in feet over 100 foot equals percentage of slope.

So we be we get a lot of calls on that item right there asking, well, where do where are we supposed to take the measurement? Where are we supposed to calculate this? How do we calculate it?

uh they ask if we follow different jurisdictions requirements and such and we just pretty much been going towards the practice that has been done probably since Luke began 15 16 years ago correct so now we're just trying to implement that into the ordinance by stating for the purpose of this ordinance the percentage of a slope of an area within the proposed disturbance limits development envelope of a parcel shall be calculated by dividing the natural vertical rise in feet by an underlying slope Underline 100 ft horizontal run rise in feet over 100 ft equals a percentage of a slope at 20ft intervals as close to perpendicular to natural grade elevation change as practical for purpose of plan review.

A separate slope exhibit may be required which depicts a slope through the development envelope. I know that gets a little bit tricky and trying to understand that. So, what we've done is ask for a little assistance through a firm to actually draw out what that looks like, what it would look like. So, I probably should have used the better slide. Can't really zoom in on that for Yeah, the the dangga uh I tried the best one I could use, but went heavy on the heading. Yeah.

So, uh, if you can I can see a little bit clear on my end. But what the firm did was take where the development envelope is, which was the building setbacks, and take the take the contour, draw a line, and from there get the percentage. And they went additional 20 ft. Well, 25 ft in this one, but they're supposed to go 20 ft. and continue the same practice as what they've been uh to determine what the slope is through that run.

So, uh in this case, they were not showing any hillside areas, but Luke, you've been kind of mastering this one for the timing, so if you want to further elaborate on it. Yeah, just real quick. I mean, this is uh this has long been the the bane of zoning um as far as calculating whether or not you're you are in fact a hillside property and and going to be subject to those rules.

Um I I dare say the the policy that we've looked at in in determining it has been a little bit arbitrary in that development envelopes um can change. I we get a lot of people that try to um squeeze the limits of disturbance and and make it really defined knowing that on either side out 10 ft would put them over that 15%.

So instead of really a an a civil engineer and zoning staff playing that cat and mouse um just clearly saying through your development envelope which is your building area the area within your setpacks you're going to provide these sections and you're going to tell us what the slope of those sections are and that's going to tell us everybody whether or not it's hillside. Yeah. Every 25 ft or so. Yeah. So yeah I think that's smart because there's some undilation. Yeah.

you had a ridge or something. I mean, it totally Yeah. Yes. This may sound stupid, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. I'm not familiar with this stuff, but we we have one section that talks about hillside lot disturbances, right? And basically, it's saying where the disturbance occurs, where the you know, if it's 15%. Right? But then we have a separate section that basically dictates a development envelope regardless of where you're disturbing if the lot. Right. Mhm.

So you get this certain percentage and you got your build development envelope. So you might be confined based on this envelope where you might not otherwise want to develop on let's say a 15% slope of that portion of that parcel. Mhm. Does that run into any issues? Because like are we forcing them into this 15% by creating this development envelope because we're looking at areas that they're not looking to develop on, you know?

So, so the the lot may have lots of 15% slopes, but they're not planning to build on that, right? And so therefore, they're not disturbing a 15% other than maybe a driveway, right, to get to that flat portion. But then because of this section, there's now this imposed development envelope that might impair what they're trying to do by not developing on the on the hillside part of the lot.

And that's that's where it gets a little bit tricky, Chairman Breckner, is that when someone could draw up a plan and say it's 15% or greater, another engineer draws up a plan says, "No, I did it this way and it's not 15% slope or greater." That's why we're trying to establish it to where the disturbance limits meaning, well, the development envelope is disturbance limits. It's not like the setbacks where that's the buildable area.

The disturbance limits is any area you plan to clear, grub, grade, establish the pads, and such. So he would outline pretty much how Everdown did here the areas of the disturbance. So wherever they drew the lines in, that's where they plan to disturb for the site, it ends at that last line right there. And let me just jump in here. Stay on this slide.

So again, in a perfect world, um, when an architect or a, you know, someone designing their home would start to lay out how the site's going to develop, they would essentially start with this plan, surveyor prepared topographic detail that shows the setbacks, the lot lines, this exercise of uh, delineating slopes through the section of the buildable area. In this case, everything is below 15%. So it's not hillside.

you may find that the top two lines are above 15%, the bottom three lines are below. So that informs um your civil engineer and the home designer, all right, we're going to bring the driveway here to avoid those 15%s. We're only going to disturb this. Um instead of what we have now is people just dropping disturbance on a lot and then leaving staff and ultimately another civil engineer and surveyor to figure out whether or not it's hillside.

This almost this jump starts that process of here's your hillside exhibit. Stay out of this area. You can build in this area instead of having to guess. All right, we're going to disturb this. Oh, wait, that's 14.9%. Or is it 15.2%. Where do they start and stop? Under this circumstance, they stay at a hillside all together. Correct. So, you can have two two different owners.

one deciding I want to build over here and then they're subject to the hillside ordinance and then another build another owner who's like no I'm okay over here and then they avoid it all right okay and that's what this exhibit does and and the way we define it and say this is how you're going to show it instead of like I said going back to the show us your limits of disturbance all right now drop a drop a 100 foot um section across there what's the natural grade um and trying to trying to chase down whether or not it's hillside that way this method is much cleaner and gives everybody a level of expectation and comfortability on whether it is in fact hillside or not or certain portions are or not.

Right. Would you provide this exhibit or something drawn up similar like that within the guidelines? Absolutely. Yes. This would be implemented in the ordinance. I of course this was just for uh example purposes but we'd consult with the the firm probably to draw us an official exhibit to um officially ordinance. Correct.

Another thing I was thinking on that driveway just if you're making exhibits like that is to where do you delimate delineate the driveway versus autoc court like you know where does it stop from being your driveway you know connection to now I'm at the garage or whatever and disturbing more correct where does the driveway end to where now it's into I know I fudged that a little bit like so you might want to delineate that sure and it'd be where I mean just For the lay person, it'd be if you put your car in park and got out of it and left, could someone still get by you?

That would be the end of your driveway and the beginning of your your parking area or motorc court. Yeah, that's fair. I think it would probably end once it hits the requirements for the the town engineer of the width and then once it expands out past the six minimum requirements requirements. Correct. So, that's something we could look into as well and possibly do if we need an exhibit, we can do an exhibit for that as well. So is it there further questions on this item?

Is it more of um is it kind of clear what the intent is to yeah because again when we were getting calls like how do we calculate this and many engineers would say this is hillside and it left the client the public to have to go and search for another second opinion. So yeah I didn't see this being much clearer. Okay.

So this one just the minor change is similar to this item here of indicating that when it's actually disturbed is when and I'll read it but it's just that cleaning up the language again. So the area of a site containing natural undisturbed slopes of 15% or greater shall be limited in the amount of the maximum permitted disturbance allowed.

Those portions of the parcel containing slopes of 15% or greater shall be restricted to a disturbance limit not to exceed permitted maximum indicated within the lot coverage and land disturbance regulations table as contained within this chapter. So what we change it to what we're proposing to change it to is when an area of a site containing a natural slope natural undisturbed slopes of 15% or greater is disturbed. So it doesn't say that in there. It doesn't say is disturbed.

So as we're changing to make it clear that when it is disturbed then the entire lot or parcel shall be limited in the amount of the maximum permitted disturbance allowed in allowed indicated within the within the land disturbance regulations table as contained within this chapter. So all it is really making it clear that when that 50% slope is disturbed then your entire lot is now considered suicide. The current the current language doesn't say when it is disturbed.

It's something we have to tell the public. Well, when you disturb it, that's when you have to adhere to it. But it's in congruent with that first statement of any lot of record having 15% or greater is considered hillside. I mean, well, I mean, it gives them the option depending on the contours of the lot that they own. Work around it. Yeah. Y would you add like minus the driveway or whatever we're figuring out with them?

Yeah, I think maybe um except as otherwise uh stated in this ordinance some something like that that ties it to that uh statement that C that item C from earlier would be good depending on the wording of the other section. Yeah. I mean just for example we'll have some engineers that will provide a survey which shows that the lot 35% of the lot is less than 50% of slope or greater than the remaining is all hillside.

So pretty much it indicates that that's their maximum disturbance if 35% if they don't want to be hillside. So we have that happen as well. I mean you could easily add something at that another sentence saying for purposes of this paragraph a driveway should not be considered right disturbance. Mhm. Well it's disturbance. It's just correct. It doesn't kick counted towards the overall site. Well, it doesn't kick it into the hillside provisions.

So, the current ordinance in and other chapters state what Luke had indicated was unless specified otherwise in this ordinance. So, that way that will cover us to go and revert to the driver requirement say that as long as you fall within this requirement, then you don't treat it as disturbing. Correct. And you that's that's probably going to be the safest bet on that.

Cuz if we go and trying to address a driveway, then that may get them a little bit more uh caught into something completely different when the intent is just to clearly focus on that when is the lot considered hillside and when are they subject to adhere to the uh land disturbance regulations. So, and the the goal of a a an effective ordinance is to give the public something to point to, not necessarily to defend or have to explain, you know, just make it as as straightforward.

Call it what it is. If you disturb it, it's hillside, you know. So, I that's why I was I I was kind of suggesting putting it right there as opposed to referring somebody to another section because then that leads to more work. Yeah, it's got to be somewhat confusing. All right. Were there any uh further questions on that one or any and this is the driver requirements we went over earlier?

Is there do we need to go over this section again or is um we took the recommendation of trying to find probably capping it at a certain disturbance limitations and trying to clean up the language on that so we can look further into that. But would you like me to go over this section or there isn't a current section with the with the driver requirement? All we'd be doing is adding another item which would be C. I I would um from just an English standpoint I I think but might be better than yet.

Yeah, we can. Yeah, it just from an English standpoint it's clear like but the driveway or utility service however the driveway or it should be yet seems awkward. It should be driveway and or public service. Yeah. Okay. So we'll change it to but or however and then and or public and then we'll try to research further what's probably most appropriate of the limitation for disturbance either capping at a percentage or capping it at a square footage.

So and that that will likely be something um just kind of here thinking about it out loud um that might be some options that are brought back to you guys. Here's option A that has a cap on where the disturbance can occur. Here's option B that just caps the overall disturbance. That kind of thing. And let you guys kind of discuss and pick which which you think suits the ordinance overall the uh the best. Okay. Right. And this one's just making a little bit more simple.

Um this currently states all building permits for sites having natural slope of slope areas of 50% or greater shall be limited in the amount of maximum total disturbance area for those parcels with areas containing slopes of 50% or greater. The permitted total maximum disturbances in cadence 7.1 which table 7.1 just outlines the maximum disturbance. We just shaved it down.

So for the parcels where disturbance occurs within the within areas containing natural slopes of 15% or greater, the permitted total maximum disturbance is as indicated in table 7.1. It just made more sense just to that I felt like it was repeating a sentence. So I just wanted to make it to cut it short and just get to the point. There any questions on that section? So, this one is being amended because site plans are no longer taken to commission and council.

So, we're just striking that out to be consistent with the current uh current ordinance. So, and so this one is just amending this section to change it from town council to town staff because again site plans do not go to commissioner counsel. This one is to be consistent with what our current requirement is.

Uh when I first started, uh the town engineer and I had the discussion and it was best to they used to ask for two foot contours on the on the civil grading drainage plan, but after speaking with the town engineer, it was best determined to keep it with one foot contours. So therefore, we're just trying to change this to be consistent with our internal policy. So I love this one. This one has always been a Why is it two feet?

Yeah, it is a It's just to make people lose their minds that they've got to go back to a surveyor and have them remove one contour line every So, it's for looks. It looks less severe, right? Yeah. Easier on the eyes. It is nice. A little less busy. So, that was the hillside section. And really what I gather from that is just more of um cleaning up the language of driveway and then uh getting a final exhibit that will supple or complement the the disturbance and when it's considered hillside.

So other than that, am I missing any other items on that or No, I think that's really good. Okay. With that, chairman, did we need to go over the accessory living quarters? No, we can skip. You want to skip that one? Okay. Yeah, let's go to that one. Sure. I'll try to run through this quickly again because we've kind of gone through the presentations.

I think what the goal of today was to look for a first of all, do we want to proceed with this uh since again staff is the applicant, you know, we still have Was there any changes made like the hillside? Because I didn't and then B was really um Yeah. changes to what staff is looking to propose. Um we I don't know if we went over it was in the staff report that was going to be uh for May, but it was continued, but it was the looking at potentially the gross floor area. Yeah. Um modifying that.

And so I'll get through it, but the background on this, we introduced it in March, had a workshop in April, and then prior to that May public hearing, we wanted the workshop today to get a full consensus on uh what we're looking at doing. So, we've already gone over the rationale behind the text amendment, but two more things just wanted to point out is looking trying to look at the general plan.

And two parts um came out to us looking at it is first of all, there's a section that talks about encouraging residents on septic to connect to sewer. Uh looking at the map of the R18 and R35 properties that I'll get to. I think it's on the next slide. The majority have sewer right there in the vicinity and exi existing septic tanks may not have that capacity for a new guest house which could incentivize a sewer connection.

And then the second thing looking at the general plan is that there's multiple sections but I took the snippets from page 20 that talk about the lack of housing that's oriented towards our senior population as well as the workforce housing. Um, and this is a small thing that could definitely help uh with those types of things for uh multi-generational living and again additional housing options uh while still preserving the character of those zoning districts.

So, here's the map of the properties R18 R35. Uh there's 600 properties, 57 of which are vacant. So, we're already at a 90% buildout. Um, the ones that still are going to be potentially developed that should be noted are Hidden Canyon behind Town Hall, which would be 48 lots. The lot on the northeast corner of Spur Cross and Grapevine that has a potential buildout of 13 lots.

And there's another lot on the southeast corner of Schoolhouse and Military, which has a potential buildout of eight lots. And really looking at this map, they're all, if you look, pretty much the majority are in that town core area. So, we've gone through this slide, I know, before, but looking at the existing requirements for our desert rule zones of accessory living quarters, um the maximum gross floor area can exceed 50% of the principal residence.

So, if that principal residence has a 3,000 foot gross floor area, that accessory living quarters cannot exceed 1500 square feet. They're also required to be shared by the same driveway um as a primary residence and share the single common water and electric meters. And like any structure uh an accessory living quarters would be required to meet the setbacks which for R35 that's 40 ft front and rear 20 ft sides.

R18 that's 30 feet front and rear 10t on the sides except if it's a corner lot the lot the side step back facing the street would be 20 ft. And there's also another thing to keep in mind which is lot coverage which is the roof outline of all covered structures for R35 that's 20% R18 25%.

And then looking at the nearby municipalities, um first of all, we talked about this a little bit earlier, but um House Bill 2720 was passed and that required municipalities of 75,000 or larger to require by law a minimum of one accessory dwelling units on all single family residences. I think the thing to note with that, it's not totally an applesto apples comparison because the lot sizes that those are really looking at are the 6,000 to 8,000 foot lots that you see throughout the valley.

Um, R8 and R35 for Cave Creek standards, they're small lots, but when you think about other municipalities that these are their state lots, so it it's tricky to really do a comparison. But when we looked at the other ones that do have already R35 zoning districts, uh if you go down the list, Apache Junction, Carefree, uh Fountain Hills, Paradise Valley, Wikcinberg, they all do have allow accessory living quarters in their comparable R18 and R35 zoning districts.

And then looking at their zoning codes, they also tend to have that same requirement of the shared water and electric meter as well as the shared driveway. Where they do vary is with the gross floor area ratio comparison which again that's that size ratio with the primary dwelling unit. So I put this little table together. Our desert rule zones are at 50% which is towards the top end.

If you look at other municipalities for that size ratio whereas you look at carefree fountain hills they're they're lower down by 33% and 30%. Uh the state law that was passed has an interesting one of 75% or thousand square feet, whichever is less. Um again, I that one's not a great comparison because again, you're talking about smaller lots and your typical cookie cutter subdivision track homes. Yeah. I mean, those those municipalities are 15 times the population size, right? Absolutely. Yeah.

No, there's there's differences as Eric pointed out. They're not apples to apples. Um are did you find anything with uh reduced setbacks for accessory living quarters as far as single residents or do they follow the kind of the detached accessory structure setbacks? You know, like county allows accessory structures up to 5T. Um so it's the large municipalities again all have that they're going to be 5 foot setbacks for accessory uh living quarters.

I actually think that was in that house bill 2720. Um the smaller like Carefree is similar to us where it's just one building setback, but some of the other ones like Scottsdale have the reduced setback for access accessory living quarters where they're they can be down to 5 to 10 ft usually in that range.

So, we're unique uh with some of the other smaller municipalities where we just have that one solid building setback that applies to all structures uh really to try to keep, you know, structures off the property line to try to maintain that that low density character of uh those zoning districts. And so, that's kind of what I was going to get into with this slide is um the setbacks coverage.

We have disturbance which is pretty unique and other development considerations will inherently limit the location size and honestly the feasibility of these accessory living quarters on many of the lots. Um second that R18 and R35 properties are allowed to build detach accessory buildings as long as they do not meet the requirements of a living quarter. So today someone in R1 18 zoning district could build a detached structure. It could be conditioned. It could have a full bathroom, let's say.

It just could not have cooking facilities and a bedroom. So, you're still allowed currently to build detached structures, they just cannot have that full combination, which we define as an accessory living quarters. And then the third point is just that um even though they're going to be permissible in R8 and R35 zoning districts, the expected number should be less than what's allowed in desert rule zones due to the tighter development constraints.

And then when you look at the desert rule zones, the majority of those properties today do not have an accessory living quarters. So, with all of that being said, there were two options that staff was going to propose. Um, which are first of all option A, which would be to have the same requirements in R18 and R35 that desert rule zones have, which is the single common driveway, shared water and electric meter. Um, and then the 50% gross floor area requirement.

Then the option B was everything I just said except make the gross floor area 30% in these zoning districts instead of 50%. And then this was just a comparison of those two. Uh so if you look at a 2,000 ft primary residence, you would see that the 50% requirement would make the accessory living quarters maximum size 1,000 square feet. Uh if it was 30%, it would make it 600 square f feet. And then again at the bottom, you just also would have to factor in lock coverage.

Um because there's also going to be a hard cap no matter what. You can't exceed a certain number of all covered structures, which that's important to note too because it would apply to more than just the primary residence and the accessory living quarters. It would also be carport sheds or ramadas or other coverage structures on a property. So that was kind of the rundown on that. There were two different things we're looking at. And if there's actually I should back up.

There's one thing we're looking at changing or playing with if we go down allowing accessory living quarters in R18 and R35. Staff thinks it would be the gross floor area. Looking at that as as a thing. Yeah. I mean that actually you know that you know over the time I was ruminating my head that was what was kind of coming in my head too. Um, and if you go back to the first slide that you had, um, here, um, you know, where 90%'s built out, right? Septic tanks are going to be an obstacle.

Um, and and septic tanks often are obstacles because of the picture count, right? And if if if there's gross for limitations, that gives them a better shot at having it because given the cost of having to connect, that's going to dissuade these. Um, and then they just won't do it because they're like, "My septic's fine.

it's going to cost me 80 grand to tie in, you know, to the sewer because my fixture count if I have two bedrooms or three bedrooms or, you know, a larger ADU, um, you know, would, you know, it gives them at least a little bit better of a chance for the fixture count not to go over if they're not having two bathrooms and, you know, all that kind of stuff because their main house is X and then they're allowed a larger ADU.

And then also for per for purposes if you go back to that first slide again the bottom point that was being made multigenerational living you know that's typically going to be a onebedroom you know it's not going to be you know family you know if it's your mom who or dad who can't care for him you know you know so in my mind I like the 30% but and in my head I was thinking not to exceed you know maybe the minimum the the middle ground that you had on there 700 750 ft, something like that.

And that way it's it's kept to like a onebedroom or if it's two, it's tight, you know, but the idea is to keep it to something not so massive because in my head, yeah, it's all built out, but we do have that one part I mean, I hate to go back to that one parcel next to me, but that's an important parcel.

And somehow, you know, even though we're rural, you know, R35, you can put you can you can disturb and build more in R35 than DR43, you know, and then you've got this sandwich, you know, you get 7,000 ft that you can disturb and it's less in DR43. And so you end up with this potential for massive structures. they're filling up filling up a lot of the lot. And so my thought was, you know, some sort of middle ground by putting in a floor area maximum.

Um I think we saw it in one other zone, one other area or municipality. Maybe it was Wikcinberg or Yeah, yeah, Wikcinberg. There's one thing about that though, like at least from appearances from the outside, I think the biggest thing on here that I look at is you I can build a detached garage, max out everything, build it to the today, everything. Yeah.

And so from all appearances of density, you know, people driving by looking at houses and how, you know, our rural area I mean, there's things we can't control, doesn't change at all. It's just we can't it's just like do you want more people in the town or not? I feel like that's more the what you end up with with you know you either you're either providing more housing like for a uh well I guess we're leaving it open to whatever. It could be an Airbnb or it could be your mom.

Um right versus a garage. I'm just Yeah. Yeah. So like that's where I'm trying to find the happy medium. I guess what I'm getting at, doesn't it matter if the building is smaller when I can build a garage just as big? Yeah. She doesn't need She doesn't need to cook.

So, anecdotally, if I may, just anecdotally, uh, two things come to mind in this conversation that are both entertaining to my to the musings of my brain, but, um, our our, uh, population of Cave Creek has gone down in the last 20 years, and not just by a little bit. Like, it's we our population is is dropping. um which doesn't compute with the fact that we've added so many uh dwelling units in the town over the last 20 years.

Um so when you' said uh just do we want more people in the town or not? I mean I I think whatever that capacity is is a is a little bit sure whatever. I mean it we don't really see it right. We haven't really seen the change. We've noticed we've noticed the decline. But um and then the other thing um uh Commissioner Lamar will remember this when we were going through the zoning ordinance back in 2012 and the 4-hour meeting we had over whether or not to adjust the DR190 lot coverage.

Um which used to be 5%, it's now 10%. But no one realizes the amount of effort and energy and time going into what does 5% look like? And one of staff's proposals, and I'll take credit being uh cheeky as I was 15 years ago, um was why why do we have to have a percentage of lock coverage? If everything is required to meet the setbacks, what difference does it make?

and if there were banana peels to be thrown at somebody from you guys that it would have been the time to do that because that was kind of dismissed out of hand. But that illustrates the point that Clayton's making or Commissioner Vice Chair Miller is making about um I can build this now. What what really does that mean? Whether or not it's livable or not or whether what the use is, it's still a structure.

And further, um, as we've discussed and defined what a detached living quarters is, if you wanted to take your house now, put an exterior stair up to a new second story addition that is accessed via outside, the town considers that a detached guest house. Um, so for all intents and purposes, when we talk about land area, you you are not only defined by your setbacks, but also the height of a structure.

So, there are certain circumstances where an existing residence doesn't have the room, the the ground room to provide a a guest home, but they could go up, but maybe they don't want to access it through the existing space. They want to have an exterior stair that leads up to a um a guest suite or or a guest home as we define it. So all of those things kind of play into this as far as and back to your point, we can continue to say, "No, it's just not allowed.

You can't do it." And then we can continue to chase the rabbit of, "Well, it's not a guest house. It's a it's an art studio and it's my creative space where I've got a Murphy bed." Or we can say, "Yes, but here are the requirements that you have to meet in order to do it. And do you have to replace your septic? Maybe. Do you have to provide this?" possibly.

So instead of an outofhand no, they're just not allowed, what this is attempting to do is say yes, within these parameters it is a permitted use. I have a question. Yes, sir. Unless somebody had a comment based on Sorry. Um, do we have any numbers about how many permits have been submitted for accessory units and then how many actually been built? And I don't care what timeline. It could be five, 10 years. Just in the town, how many guest homes are constructed? Like we're talking about here.

Um in this zone, none. Um because they they're not even they're not even submitted. Uh we we are are saying no, those that's not an uh inappropriate the middle. It's not allowed where it is allowed. Yeah. Um so in desert rural um zoning categories, I mean I if you asked me 10 years ago, I'd say maybe six to 10 a year. I was going to say a dozen. Yeah, maximum. Maybe now it's increased a little bit.

Um, but the obviously the demands of the community, the socioeconomic uh makeup of the town, we we see tons of RV garages. We see um several guest houses. So, if we see so few, why are we going down this road? Um because when when asked specifically questions that are zoning related about R18 and R35, this is so that's the group that wants these. Yes, everyone else can have them. It's whether or not they choose to build it is is another thing.

But yeah, they are they are built and they are, you know, quite likely they want it because they can't have it. But then if they can have it, they won't build. That's a potential. But again, it goes back to my point of it's easy to say no, it's not allowed. It's it's also just as gracious of a community to say yes, they are permitted. However, you know, here are the here are the requirements for it. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean sounds like if we say yes as a town there's a lot of restrictions around this already with setbacks septic utilities driveways already that 100% wouldn't even qualify what percent would is you know different question than out of that percent that would qualify how many would actually go through with it right I think it's a pretty small percent well this goes back to what chairman Breckner mentioned commissioner Edison that you know when you hear you may have to tie in the sewer and abandon your septic and such and you're you're going to ask yourself is it worth 180,000 you know 100 to 200,000 just to do that project and then in addition to how much is it going to cost to do the guest home.

So that's just some it's just more of giving flexibility and the ability for those that actually want to do it then that by all means that's that option is there but is that something that they're going to want to do in the long run? uh to what possibly increase property values or such. We don't know. But is it are they going to profit off it? And again, it's still would be in compliance with a general plan as far as how would we be able to implement that portion of general plan.

Well, this is really one of those options to really get to that point juaposed with no, it's not allowed. Yeah. I I mean like I mean I get it. 90%'s built out and the all right, you know, you know, it's it's really that 10% that I'm concerned that hasn't gotten built and then they're allowed to do it and then we get this like, you know, property with just a mass massive amount of structure on it because they're effectively building two homes on one lot, you know.

Um and so that that's where in my mind I was like you know maybe the compromise somewhere in there for that aspect is or some kind of floor floor area cap for the ADU percentage you know um which I think you had outlined in in B you know which was 30% of the primary residence you know but that's still you Yeah, you know, I would think it's fairly easy to see a 5,000 square foot primary, you know, on a on a R35 lot and then a 1500 square foot guest house, which is bigger than a lot of people's homes.

So, yeah, those those do exist. Absolutely. I think when I went through an inventory of the properties, over half really fell between the 1500 square ft and 2,000 foot range. really just across the street. Those R18 properties, there are some that absolutely are that I see that for sure. Um I I wrote down because there we were I was looking at Wikcinbergs too. They have the ore option. Um something like you could do 30% or 1,000 square ft, whichever is less.

So that still gives let's say the house is only 2,000 square ft. They could still do 600 ft if they wanted. But then when you get to the larger 4,000 ft² side, it it cuts it down at least a little bit. Yeah.

I would further I mean if we are going to go down this road, I would also explicitly exempt maybe covered patio or garage or carport in some manner or capacity because if we're talking about strictly gross floor area, then yeah, you wouldn't be able to do a single car garage um given those restrictions of square footage. So there there should be some flexibility in that. Correct. to my Are you talking about Are we talking about livable or You're talking about a garage for the ADU, correct?

So that would count towards the gross floor area because it's attached. So you're saying to exempt those even if they're attached almost make it livable and and um I don't know that just my two cents. Obviously it's not my not my call, but it's something to consider because um a threecar garage is what 900 ft². So, um, a onecar garage would be 300 ft² and a bedroom would be, but you're talkingable. You're you're wanting to say, you know, have the 30% and the square footage be livable.

Well, we So, this is based off a GFA model and GFA is everything under a roof is part of that part of that calculation. I'm saying what you're articulating is is it is for it to be livable, right? It's something to discuss. Yeah. A little nuance because gross floor area is within the walled space. So, we get this at the counter all the time where someone says, "Oh, my house is 3,000 square feet.

My lot coverage is 3,000 ft." It it's never that because lot coverage, you have covered patios, you have a garage, it doesn't count towards square footage. The thing about gross floor area though is that your garage and unconditioned space does count towards gross floor area, but a covered patio would not because it's not enclosed. It's anything that's enclosed attached to the structure. So, so to what Luke's getting at, it's really the garage. Correct.

So, what we usually advise applicants sometimes they'll want to do a guest house with a even in desert rule zones a two-car garage and a little cassita attached to it. Usually, it doesn't work. Luke, they get around it because there's a separate provision that allows them to build a detached garage, right? So, they can easily build a detached garage and doesn't count towards the ADU. But to your point, now you're getting three structures. Yeah.

When you're when you're trying to limit the the structure appearance from Yeah. So, that that's all. I mean, it's just one more thing to consider. If we are going to further restrict the overall size based on gross floor area, those are the unintended consequences. Yeah. I have Yeah. I mean, you go the other route. And you got to park grandma's car in a garage, otherwise it's going to be worthless um in four years. So, yeah.

You go the other route and just make it just without carports and garages and just make it just like a mother-in-law quarter. That's why I was thinking in this case livable, but we are causing then a a kind of break from what we do for DR and then we're probably likely to get on the other side. Well, if you're not counting it in R35, R18, why do why are you counting it against?

No, I'm saying then like you know the you know to make it easier then so if I was thinking you know 30% or 750,000 you know and that that accommodates it you know because now you're adding in some cushion. Yeah, I think uh a,000 um or 1250, you know, no not to exceed 1250 for Yeah. I don't care if it's 30, you know, 30% or 1250, the lesser of Yeah. Is that Yeah, that that that makes sense, too. I'd have to figure out what number that gets. They have to have they'd have to have a 4200 foot prime.

That's Yeah. and and really the if probably Black Mountain shadows would be the good exercise to look at the average. Um they have a development. Yeah, the thing with they have they understanding that but still those houses sprawl three out of four setbacks. So what are the sizes of those and is there even um what would that look like? Majority of them are maxed at their lot coverage, right? and they're all about and their development.

If we're trying to put the development envelope aside, then yeah, I mean, they may have room to do a small guest quarters, but not much. But again, what I what I comes down to when I think of just a guest home on smaller lots. It's just the home itself, not the not not the garage, not the carport. I mean, that's just when I think of a guest house from my experiences in smaller jurisdictions as just the house itself, like a mother-in-law quarters.

So, I don't know if that's something else to consider or not. But is it a good idea? Probably not. But just to keep the character of the our zones, I don't know. Well, just looking at this map, um, Black Mountain Shadows, what we were describing, and Desert Creek, they both have really tight development constraints beyond our zoning ordinance, which would make it pretty difficult to put in accessory living quarters.

And the other two, Miramar, Monty and Hidden Canyon, now you're dealing with Hillside, and that inherently you're not going to be able to put a ton on those properties. So, that's that's kind of what staff's looking at then. It's like, okay, what are we left with? It's the pocket up by Spur Cross and Grapevine. It's the pocket across from Town Hall, the R18 pieces. And it's the pockets down by Carefree Highway. So that's kind of what staff is really west.

So our west would be included in that as well. Yes. So what um what I'm gathering is um bringing you the uh the cap opt. Yeah. In in conjunction with B. Yeah. Okay. And then and then Well, I don't know if you need voting in the Well, I mean, this is you need to do B. You could just do A with a cap. You're saying 50% if you're if you're cap on the size of the thing.

A would be well it you know the difference is is what I was thinking was having the language from Wikcinberg so it does make a difference if it's 30% or 1,200 because it's the lesser up with the lesser. Yeah. Yeah. Because if somebody they got to build 4200 you know because if they if they have a 3,000t house they're capped at 900 right? You're just worried about the big lots of this. Yeah, I'm just I'm just trying to I just I don't Hold on.

Like there's got Is there another way to figure out how to I don't exclude the big lots and leave it with the large because I think to I don't know what Luke's getting at 1,000 square feet including a garage is pretty small. So it goes back to the lot coverage too. depends on what the main structure is, right?

Because I know, but if you're trying to cap it at a thousand, I'm just trying to not encourage, you know, 7,000 square ft of structure built on a or are you I mean I I look at it a little bit different. Um so in the case of of the lot that's at schoolhouse in Grapevine, um Schoolhouse Spur Cross and Grapevine, I'm sorry. um you would dissuade subdivision then you would dissuade smaller lots.

You would actually have less you would have larger more more you know acre plus um instead of subdividing it to its full potential and and capacity you're almost encouraging well I don't think I don't think ADUs are going to dictate that. No, if the lot size is 35,000 square feet, you get to your I mean, if we're at if we're if we're still saying you can have a,200 square foot home, you know, home or 30%.

Um I I would think that it's encouraging a larger lot, you know, by by doing that as opposed to smaller lots. And I think what you're saying is what I'm doing makes for more lots, but I'm trying I'm I'm thinking it's going to encourage the opposite. No, it's going to it's going to allow more um it would encourage larger lots because you're getting a bigger area to be able to space that out appropriately. Yeah.

Maximize your main residence and whatever that cap is on I don't think it's going to you know that that'll be the result but it doesn't I in my mind it encourages that. Yeah. Every now and then we're wrong. Yeah. Lately more often right for me. So, it sounds like the consensus to bring to the public hearing would be 1,200 square feet or 30% whichever is less as the primary option. I mean, and it's not just my say here. I mean, you've got an A and a B. Yeah.

If everybody wants to vote A in, they get to vote A in. Then what I could Yeah, I could just adjust B to add 1,200 ft. Bring both options by.

Is there any sort of exhibit we could do to this to like I don't know provide any sort of clarity or show yeah we've talked about I had an exhibit in the April meeting it was taking a little overhead of a property it showed a house and it showed the guest house and the setbacks and really that was trying to show kind of how how we look at it but I mean we can we can definitely add that in the next meeting as well I I guess I guess what I'm trying to get at is like it seems to me like in our our your typical lot here where you're you're actually really complying to an R18 and R an R35 kind of zoning with minus these it outlier ones that we're worried about really the undeveloped you know some of the undeveloped ones and frankly I you know my my only concern really is that gateway to spur cross, you know, that particular property.

Yeah. And which has its own issues as far as, you know, it shapes triangle, but it's flat. There's no hill. It's no washes. You know, it is like entirely buildable. It's the, you know, the gateway in. And uh, you know, it it you know, cuz to to your point on the stuff that's built out, yeah, it's built out. It's not necessarily going to be ideal because they situated their home, they are septic, they're whatever. Yeah.

And it would um developmentwise would look very similar to um it a mirror of what's across the street. Probably even even less impactful than what's currently at the other corner of that same where what cornering. So on the if you want to go to the side the overview. Yeah. You're talking about on the west side of where Councilman Maguire lives. So just just the other side of it you can see kind of how many parcels laid out in there. Um and those are all correct me if I'm wrong.

Those are all built out I believe. You're saying approaching the golf course? Uh yeah just to the east of the golf course there heading towards Brook pass the monastery and go left. So that is what that is what R35 development looks like in a meets and bounds subdivided. uh configuration. Yeah. Um it would be the same development pattern um that's that's currently there across the street.

You're saying that the triangle property would develop the same even less so because of the just the over I mean the the property being a triangle. Yeah. I mean it's not going to it's not going to rectalinearily lay out as as such as that. But as from a density standpoint that's what um you know you'd be looking at the same thing. And and I think every lot in there is is um developed except for one. So yeah, and the the the lots that are to the north of the triangle are all wash. Yep. Non-build.

And that's when we talked about it early on. I thought that was inclusive of that, but it's those are those are separate parcels outside within the floodway. Yeah. I didn't saw saw one of the owners trying to do something on that island. in, you know, in the wash. Unfortunately, sometimes we're the last to know. Yeah. Okay. So, we'll we'll look at that um and bring that back as well. Anybody see good everybody on Saturday? We don't need a motion. Thank you guys.

Watch on YouTube →