MINUTES
REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
TOWN OF CAVE CREEK,
ARIZONA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Vincent Francia called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Cave Creek Town Hall, 37622 N. Cave Creek Road, Cave
Creek, Arizona.
ROLL CALL: Town Clerk Carrie A.
Dyrek
Council Present: Mayor Vincent Francia, Vice Mayor Dick Esser, Council Members
Kim
Brennan, Ernie Bunch, Gilbert Lopez
and Grace Meeth
Council Absent: Council Member Thomas McGuire
Staff Present: Town Manager Usama Abujbarah
Town
Clerk Carrie A.
Dyrek
Town
Engineer Wayne Anderson
Director
of Planning Ian Cordwell
Senior
Planner Larry
Sahr
Town
Attorney Kelly Lewis
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Everyone stood and gave Pledge to the flag.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Francia announced that the Sound Committee would be meeting
on November 14 at 7:00 p.m. at which time they will make their recommendations.
Francia introduced Cave Creek Unified School District
Superintendent Dr. Ashby.
Dr. Ashby thanked the Town and the Council for the support they
give to the Cave Creek School District. She stated that she is the new and proud
Superintendent of the School District as of
August 1st and spoke briefly on her background and experience. She stated that she would like to extend
partnerships in many ways in the future.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Herb Natker, 6850 E.
Stevens Road, Cave Creek, spoke about Wild West
Days.
REPORTS
1.
Vice Mayor Dick Esser reported on the recent Summit of Mayors
Vice Mayor Dick Esser
reported on the recent “Summit of Mayors” which he and the Mayor attended. It was the first-ever Governor/Mayor’s
Conference. The Mayor of Winslow,
Jim Bowles, who is the President of the
Arizona League of Cities and Towns, gave opening remarks. He introduced the Governor who expressed her
pleasure with the turnout. Seventy-eight
out of 90 cities and towns in the State of Arizona responded to her survey expressing
interest in local problems. Her effort
was to eliminate the filtered process with the Legislature and deal directly
with the Mayor. The result of that
survey included four main topics, of which three were discussed. Anna Chavez,
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, explained the process. With the 3-year break-out sessions we had the
10-year economic future of the State of Arizona,
water, and transportation. Both water
and economic development had handouts, of which there were copies for Council
members. Groups discussed the needs of
local government pertaining to those three items. As a result of those meetings power point
presentations were developed. The
Governor responded to our concerns.
Pat Cunningham, Jay Spector and Herb Gunther moderated the water segment. Bullet points were:
·
Rural Arizona
needs recharge assistance
·
Arsnic Standards need flexibility to go into
effect January 23, 2006
·
Reuse of Surry Pipeline
·
AMA for rural areas and reduced wildcat wells
·
Tie development to water supplies
·
Accelerate negotiations vs. litigation among the
seven States that share the Colorado River
water supply
Esser noted the most interesting was the explanation by Mr. Gunther of where we are at water-wise. Apparently we have plenty
of water; the main problem is transport from point A to point B. The groundwater tables have replenished
considerably. The new EPA Standards are
going to be difficult to implement.
There will be sanctions with a 4-6 year monitoring process.
The portion of the meeting that Mayor Francia attended included Arizona’s future, and the
10-year economic development plan. We are basically in very good shape.
The transportation portion
pointed out the critical need for better and faster, as well as alternative
systems, of moving goods and people.
Light rail has not been accepted but is being worked on, especially in
the down town area.
The Governor responded to all the
questions at the close of the sessions.
Mayor Francia
wished luck to Ryan Cordwell, who is
participating in the National Lego Championship starting Friday.
ACTION ITEMS
I.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.
Approval of
October 3, 2005 Regular Town Council Meeting Minutes.
B.
Approval of
October 17, 2005 Regular Town Council Meeting Minutes.
M/Meeth,
S/Esser to approve the Consent Agenda with corrections as noted by Meeth. M/C 6-0 by voice vote.
II. GENERAL
AGENDA ITEMS
1.
PRESENTATION
BY MIKE RIGNEY, DESERT FOOTHILLS LAND TRUST AND COUNCIL DISCUSSION REGARDING
STATE LAND REFORMS.
Mike Rigney, Desert Foothills Land Trust, gave a presentation on
State Trust Lands and the Desert Foothills Land Trust work on an Initiative to
make changes in the State Constitution, Arizona Enabling Act and Arizona
Statutes.
This is an effort to try to
reform the way State Trust Lands are managed and to find a suitable replacement
for the Arizona Preserve Initiative, which has been declared by our Attorney
General to be unconstitutional. At this
point we are left in the lurch somewhat without any particular means to
conserve any State Trust Lands. The
paperwork to qualify this Citizens Initiative was submitted to the Secretary of
State in July of this year and we have until July 2, 2005 to gather
approximately 183,000 signatures to actually qualify for the ballot in November,
2006.
Rigney gave a power point presentation to point out the major
issues this Initiative dealt with. He
briefly noted that Trust Lands were lands that were given to Arizona at the time of Statehood. They are for sale or lease and one of the
primary methods for generating revenues to support fourteen different State
institutions, primarily our public schools.
Land that is part of the Trust is put to the highest and best use to
generate revenue. He showed a map
depicting the 9 million acres of State
Trust Land
throughout the State. Approximately a
million acres have been disposed of since 1912 and that disposal rate has
accelerated with increased demand for development.
Changes They Would Like To See
In The Way State Trust Lands Are Managed
1.
There is no current mechanism for setting aside some of
the most ecologically, archeologically, or historically important State Trust
Lands.
2.
The State Land Department often counters what local
communities would like, disposing land for the highest and best use, often at
densities that conflict with local plans.
3.
The Land Department has fairly little oversight and
most decisions regarding prioritization of lands for sale are made by one
person, the Commissioner, who appointed by the Governor.
4.
The Land Department is chronically understaffed and as
a consequence land that could be marketed has not been in the past, and we have
not been able to meet the market demand for land sales. That has changed dramatically under
Commissioner Winkleman’s leadership.
What we hope to achieve
a)
Changing Regulations or basically our Constitution
because there is no Constitution mechanism at this point for Land Conservation
State Trust Lands.
b)
There is a need to go back and amend Arizona’s Enabling Act to match language
changed in the Constitution.
c)
There are a variety of Arizona Statutes that need
changing as well.
1.
We hope to protect approximately 6 94,000 acres of our
State’s most critical natural areas.
That amounts to about 7% of the 9 million acres that are in the total
inventory for State Land Department.
2.
Create a mechanism for setting aside additional lands
in the future through local interaction through the Planning Process with State
Land Department working with local communities.
3.
Provide State and local authorities primarily, with the
power to control development in ways that are consistent with local general
plans and somewhat amend the State Land Department through Super Zoning
Authority.
4.
Create a Board of Trustees that would oversee the way
the Land Department is managed. This
Board would be appointed by the Governor and would have significant real estate
experience and would represent the Trustees who benefit from the sale of these
lands. This would also protect and
guarantee a critical source of classroom funding. Once Proposition 301 is passed the funding
strain coming from the investment through the sale of State Lands is a
mechanism for securing critically needed classroom funding and is one that
would be protected under the ways we hope to change the way State Lands are
managed.
There is a broad coalition
supporting this initiative of education, conservation, business, and community
leaders. Much of the 60,000-signature
gathering was done by teachers during the summer. A variety of different conservation
organizations as well as the Arizona State Horseman’s Association and business
interests have supported this initiative.
We hope in conserving the 694,000
acres we will create three reserves:
1.
A Permanent Preserve Encompassing Approximately 260,000
Acres;
A permanent
preserve would be lands that would be permanently protected upon
enactment. These would be transferred to
cities, counties, or state agencies that are not currently leased for grazing
and would be transferred for no consideration or payment. These lands would only go to Government
Agencies.
2.
Provisional Reserve Amounting To Approximately 361,000
Acres;
Provisional
reserves would have a reserve period of a minimum of 5 years, which would start
once those lands were planned or located within a city. They would be sold at fair market value
without having to go to auction, therefore bypassing the highest and best use
characterization. The Conservation entities
would not compete directly with developers for these lands. Provisional Reserve lands; non-profit
organizations such as land trusts would be eligible for acquiring those lands. Non-compensation would be allowed as well,
typically referred to as density transfers.
There would be 25-year payment loans.
If there were no takers the reserve status would expire.
3.
Two Educational Reserves Totaling About 73,000 Acres;
The Santa Rita
Experimental Range in Southern Arizona and the Centennial Forrest in the Flagstaff area are to be
transferred to the Board of Regents upon their request for transfer. No consideration or payment.
Reserve Terms:
Restricted Against Development: These lands would be restricted with no
development allowed. It would be conserved
consistent with conservation goals and the Managing Agencies would define
those.
Existing Leases: Uses of right-of-ways would not be
affected. If there were an existing
lease it would have to expire.
Public Access: Reasonable public access to all these
reserves defined by the Managing Agency.
Because these lands would be
classified as reserves it would have no affect on the use or management of
other lands. Other lands adjacent to
these reserves would not be affected.
Development: This means buildings or other improvements for
public or private use not in existence as of November 2, 2006. Other things could be done on these
lands. Rigney showed a list of those.
Conservation: Preserving natural
cultural or historical assets. This
definition is broad and includes public use of these areas as long as it
doesn’t directly conflict with some of the values stated.
Lands Selected: First there was a
conservation science analysis looking at ecological, archeological, and historical
values of the lands and those lands were prioritized by scientists from a
variety of different non-profit and State Agencies. Local Open Space priorities had a great deal
of input. Landowners who supported
conservation were contacted and their interests were represented.
Final Map: This map was heavily negotiated. It has taken many years to refine and has
been a negotiated process going back and forth between a variety of different
stake holders with varied views about which lands are appropriate for
conservation and why. Rigney gave some criteria used from the
beginning in that regard.
Maricopa
County: Of the 694,000 acres Maricopa County
came out with 50,888 acres or 30% permanent open space or permanent reserve and
approximately 70% provisional reserve. Rigney showed those areas on the
map. He stated that growth is
inevitable. We need to act within a
short window of opportunity. We need to
gather approximately 183,000 legitimate, verified signatures by July 6, 2006
and they would love to have everyone help.
Revenues also need to be generated for a public relations campaign to
get this supported by the voters once qualified for the ballot. He stated they look forward to the support of
the Council. There will be an
organizational meeting at the Desert Foothills Land Trust Office at 4:00 p.m.
November 17, 2005 for training of signature gathering. Rigney
gave various web sites for more information.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS None
PUBLIC COMMENT
Linda Whitehead, 9681
E. Chuckwagon Lane, Scottsdale,
spoke on behalf of The Coalition of Pinnacle Peak and the need of many
volunteers for promoting this initiative.
Anna Marsolo asked citizens to participate in gathering signatures
so the voters can decide this important issue.
Janet Mohr spoke on the need to value the idea of preserving land
today and not wait as the price of land continues to rise.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Meeth stated this is a very important initiative and we need to
preserve land. She carries a petition
with her at all times for signatures.
Esser stated that he is completely in support of this. It is long overdue.
Stan Toal, Chief Appraiser, State Land Department and Chairman of
the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Town of Cave Creek stated that this
is compensation of just kind as opposed to monetary compensation to exchange
services, entitlements, infrastructure, etc. and has a great deal of legal
battles to cross.
Meeth mentioned the annexation to the West that we’re hoping to
accomplish in the next couple of years.
This is the annexation that is being done with the density
transfer. It was done with the blessing
of the State Land Commissioner and is the model for this initiative. This is how all lands will be planned.
Francia stated that when he and Esser had attended the Summit of Mayors a number of mayors had
asked how Cave Creek had gotten their “in” with the State Land Department and
what we were doing. We started working
with the State Land Department 2 ½ years ago when he and Councilwoman Meeth knocked on the door and
presented themselves, and identified who they were. We did not do anything that the mayors can
not do and we moved in this way because it has been such a struggle with the
legislature, the citizenry overall, with different groups needing to come
together with negotiations and agreement to make a preserve work. That is what the annexation is about. Spur Cross has served as a model for other
communities. We do have an “in” with the
State Land Department and that is Stanley
Toal and he has kept us to our deadlines.
2.
PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR
THE VILLAGE AT SURREY HILLS – CASE SPR-05-01
CASE NUMBER: SPR-05-11 The Village at
Surrey Hills
APPLICANT/ Visiquest Properties,
LLC – Joel Broder
OWNER: KJM Properties,
LLC
APN: 211-55-001
through 211-55-009, 211-55-012, 211-55-040
LOCATION: SW
corner of Cave Creek Rd. & Surrey Dr. (Exhibit A)
REQUEST: Approval for Case
No: SPR-05-11 The village at Surrey Hills, Site Plan Review for approval of 45 Town Home Condos (Exhibit B &
Attachment)
ZONING: Multi-Residential
(MR-43) Zone
SURROUNDING North: Multi-Residential
(MR-43) & Commercial Core (CC) Zones
ZONING: South: Desert
Rural (DR-43) Zone
East:
Commercial Core (CC) Zone
West:
Multi-Residential (MR-43), Residential (R-18) & Desert Rural (DR-43) Zones
LAND
USE: Two
Multi-Residential Buildings
Surrounding: North: Vacant
Land Use: South: Stagecoach Pass Estates (in
development)
East:
Wagon Wheel Restaurant/Black Mountain Body Shop & Desert Foothills
Landscape Maintenance
West:
Two residences and Canyon Ridge Estates
Cordwell reported, stating that Items 2 and 3 of the Agenda
are linked, representing one project.
Two different Ordinances are represented. The Zoning Ordinance requires a Site Plan for
any multi-family project and the Subdivision Ordinance requires a Plat for any
condominium project.
Before Council is a request for approval of a
45-unit Town Home style condominium project, approximately 10 acres. The Planning Commission recommended approval
unanimously with the five members who were present at the meeting. We have stipulations addressing both cases.
The project is basically several buildings across
ten acres; all are 2-story or partial 2-story.
The applicant, Joe Broder, will
present the Case. Among the key aspects
of the presentation is that the applicant is requesting abandonment of a
portion of Carriage Drive
as it bisects the property. Planning
Commission recommended approval. The
applicant can bring an appraisal at the time of final plat if he desires. There is not going to be any abandonment on
Conestoga Trail to the West of the project.
It will remain public right-of-way.
The applicant has offered to develop that right-of-way and restore it to
a trail. He has worked with staff to
ensure connectivity with other projects, Stage Coast Pass Estates and Canyon
Ridge Estates, to develop a loop equestrian trail through the project. We will be looking at other ways for
connections to the north as well through future projects.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Cordwell reiterated for Lopez that Conestoga Trail would not be abandoned.
Anderson clarified
for Meeth that a private HOA would
maintain the sewer lines for their on-site lines only. Their sewage will flow into lines that are
being developed by Stage Coach Pass.
Their maintenance is in lieu of giving up a 25-foot easement to the
Town.
Cordwell responded to Meeth that the applicant has referred to the drainage way next to Cave Creek Wash but it is
not Cave Creek Wash.
It is considered a jurisdiction waterway and is being left in its
natural state. The applicant has offered,
through direction from Staff, to clean up the wash in some places where noxious
weeds have grown as well as dumping in order to restore it to its previous
flow. No development is going to
encroach upon that wash or any washes throughout the project. Its course will not be altered.
Lopez asked, regarding
Meeth’s question, if this is mostly a
maintenance issue within the complex that the HOA will be responsible for if it
floods or a line breaks or leaks. Cordwell agreed.
Esser stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had some
concerns about off-street parking and additional parking. Cordwell
responded that the project meets the requirements for parking for at least 2
spaces per unit. In addition they have
provided a 2-car garage associated with each unit. They will also have guest-parking in front of
those garages in most cases. It is a
private driveway through the project so the applicant, through discussions with
the Planning Commission, stated he would seek to provide some additional
parking through the project. Concerns of
the Planning Commission were specifically if there were to be a block party
within the subdivisions how they would handle private parking and how emergency
access would be maintained.
Lopez stated he knew the requirements had been met
however in condominium complexes there always seems to be a shortage of
parking. He felt it would be a credit to
the applicant if they could provide more parking spaces than the ten extra ones
by the pool and asked them to keep that in mind.
Cordwell responded to Brennan that the equestrian trail ties into our trails currently. The trails relative to this project are
through the public right-of-way, which guarantees that they will stay.
Meeth asked if retaining walls were eliminated in favor
of slopes. Anderson
clarified that in the General Building Plans and Reviews for residences and
commercial buildings either a mild slope or steeper slope with rock base is
allowed, or retaining walls. The
applicant has those options; they all do the job. Anderson
responded to Esser that they wouldn’t know what they would do until
they get into the engineering site development.
Bunch stated it would seem that Conestoga Trail could be
left open for emergency vehicle access. Cordwell responded that it certainly had some merit and he
would look at it when the final plat comes in with the complete topo. Esser
stated that he felt this was a brilliant idea because of all the connections to
the various near-by roads and washes and it could be made 15-20 feet all the
way for emergency equipment access.
Applicant Joel Broder, 8679 E. San Alberto, Suite 201, Scottsdale spoke in behalf of the
project. He stated that the community
has presented a challenge to do a great project with great architecture, great
art, and still capture the essence of Cave Creek. This is an important project for Cave Creek
and himself and he appreciates any direction he can get. Some of the challenges on this site are:
·
Water issues: Global Water Company trying to secure water
for the site.
·
Sewer issues: Cave Creek Road is
blocked off in one direction as the sewer line is being brought to this
property and Stage Coach Pass Estates.
·
Significant
Topography: the land falls 30 feet from
the top of the hill to the bottom and another 30 feet from one side to the
other. That combined with Cave Creek’s
restrictive height ordinance makes this a challenge for the layout and to
build.
·
Retaining Wall
Ordinances on height and depth.
·
Great opportunities: There are fantastic views to take advantage
of with architecture and open space.
·
Damage on this
property: Native species lost that they
would like to restore to the property.
·
Deep cuts in
the hillside need to be repaired.
·
Two four-plexes
on the hill will come down as part of this development. One at the top of the hill has done damage to
the hillside and needs repair to become an asset to this project.
This is a condominium in terms of ownership status;
however the units will function as single family homes. They have attached two car garages, interior
stair cases, loft spaces, private court yards, private patios and balconies,
walk-out decks over garages and anything to take advantage of the views.
Some front, some side facing garages will break up
the garage dominance on the street side.
Units are pushed back as far as possible from the street for guest
parking with additional guest parking on the driveways.
Broder addressed Council questions:
ü Parking: This is a marketing issue and a functional
issue to be dealt with. There are
certain elements of this site that the applicant would like to maintain such as
beautiful washes rather than basins with parking over the top and beautiful
outcroppings. There might be
opportunities of taking advantage of more parking spaces as we get on the site,
moving dirt and cutting roads.
ü Private Sewer: Some municipalities favor public sewer in
private streets. In some cases the
County has required that they be treated as private sewer and have them maintained
as private sewer. This will be worked
out with Anderson.
ü Slopes vs. Retaining Walls: Sometimes you don’t know until you start
grading whether the slope will crumble or if it’s sheer bedrock. We hope to do retaining walls if possible.
ü Fire Access on Conestoga: He felt that it was a brilliant idea, however,
he pointed out that Conestoga does not go all the way through, and is a dead
end at Carriage. However we could
certainly protect that hillside with fire protection available on that roadway.
ü Equestrian Trail: Broder
stated he would do whatever the Town wants.
He is not a horse person and needs some leadership and direction from
citizens or from the Town to have a plan to meet everybody’s needs.
Even though the Town of Cave Creek does not have a
Design Guideline Ordinance there would be none better to give him input on that
than the Town of Cave Creek and its residents.
He wants to use common materials in an uncommon way. They have a tentative schedule for a focus
group for neighborhood residents who have emailed him.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Esser complimented Broder on the project and most questions were answered. What consideration if any has been given to
the eight families that will be displaced as a result of this project? Broder
commented that the condition of that property is dire and needs
maintenance. There is a serious lack of affordable
housing in Cave Creek and he doesn’t have a solution or good answer for that.
Lopez asked if Broder was planning on post tensioning those pads. Broder agreed. In this case there is not so much expansive
soils because it’s hillside. We have
bedrock but are also adjacent to a wash, so in some cases its collapsible
material. The recommendation from the Soils
Engineer is for post tension slabs.
In response to Francia, Broder stated they would have foresighted
architecture. This was a character study
of the architect to elicit comments and discussion from the community and
himself. This is a work in process.
In response to Meeth, Broder stated that he is married to the private roads
because it needs to be a condominium plat.
In that venue the roads are all owned by the community as community
property.
Cordwell responded to Meeth that the right-of-way dedication and the setbacks required would
divide the property. To answer some of
her concerns they have talked with the applicant from the beginning about the
need for this not to appear to be a project that turns its back on the Town. He has agreed it will not have gates with
stipulations as such. Some walls might
be necessary for screening in certain places but it will be left as part of
Cave Creek.
Broder responded to Meeth that because these units back up to Cave Creek Road, they will have to have
some sort of wall to delineate the patio and the building pad. It will not be a continuous perimeter wall
but the walls will be specifically attached to the unit and will have open
space corridors in between those buildings.
Along Conestoga, which will eventually be an equestrian trail, there
will need to be some sort of a fence to delineate the trail from the rest of
the community for the horses’ protection and some privacy for homeowners. Perhaps this could be a 2-foot solid wall
with a 4-foot view fence on top with materials consistent with the architecture
throughout the project. There are
retaining walls on the upper sides of the slope that are actually sunk down
into the hill with significant cuts. The
backyards will then have either slope or retaining walls to create their
backyard patio and garden.
Public Hearing Opened
At 8:20 P.M.
Herb Natker asked how the lighting will be handled in this community
of dark skies. He also asked about the traffic situation.
Broder responded that lighting is a detail that has to be
worked out specifically with Cordwell
and Anderson; however the idea is to
have non-intrusive lighting with low voltage landscape lighting. There will be some exterior lighting against
the monument sign at the entry monuments for safety purposes. There will be sconce lighting on houses
inside the community and beyond that if allowed in the Ordinance, and there
might be some down lighting for some of the open space along the roadways. Some places with down-lighting are required
for safety reasons, perhaps at road intersections.
With respect to traffic, a traffic study has been
prepared and it was Cave Creek’s desire that Cave Creek Road be left in its native
state without improvements to the shoulder.
The traffic study validated that from traffic standpoint. There will not be any deceleration or
acceleration lanes.
Public Comment Closed
At 8:23 P.M.
Broder stated that some of the washes have been damaged
over the years with non-native growth.
Advice has been given that those kinds of material should be removed
however it is a decision for the Town to make in terms of what they want it to
look like. If we eliminate some of the
volunteer material and replace with native species there will be a period of
time that will look like damage has been done to the wash. They will also re-grade an unsafe and
unsightly area at a culvert under Cave
Creek Road where water stands. The culvert has not been maintained and the
wash needs to be restored to its original function. They have met with Cave Creek’s landscape
team and will do whatever it takes.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
M/Esser, S/Brennan to
approve site plan, Case SPR-05-11 with Conditions of Approval attached in
Exhibit D.
Esser commented that he felt this to be an excellent
project and a welcome addition to Cave Creek.
He applauded the applicant and his staff for developing these plans, the
best they have seen in a long time. He
stated that this is not just an equestrian trail but is a multi-use trail for
hiking and cyclists. He would like to
see some continuity as it parallels Cave Creek Road and would like a path all
the way through by working with the other subdividers. He agreed with Bunch’s suggestion for creating an emergency access and
would like to see that happen.
Brennan commented that it appears to be a very nice project
and that the developer is willing to work with the neighbors.
Meeth applauded the developer but stated she was still
nervous about private roads.
Lopez commented that this is 45 acres and 11 acres with 4
units to the acre and fits into the area and atmosphere of Cave Creek. It is refreshing to see a developer
soliciting input from the community.
Francia stated he shared Meeth’s concern regarding the possibility of a gate
enclosure some time in the future.
Council is in the position of taking a leap of trust because we do
understand private rights and hope we will not see a gate on this project. Francia
applauded the effort to get input from citizens. He commented that he also shared Bunch’s concern regarding emergency access. He would like the issue of achieving the residents’
privacy without walls through the use of natural landscaping of native trees to
be considered.
M/C 6-0 by voice vote.
3.
PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR THE VILLAGE AT SURREY HILLS – CASE P-05-03.
CASE NUMBER: P-05-07 The Village at
Surrey Hills
APPLICANT/ Visiquest Properties,
LLC – Joel Broder
OWNER: KJM Properties,
LLC
APN: 211-55-001
through 211-55-009, 211-55-012, 211-55-040
LOCATION: SW
corner of Cave Creek Rd. & Surrey Dr. (Exhibit A)
REQUEST: Approval for Case
No: P-05-03 The village at Surrey Hills, Preliminary Plat for approval of 45 Town Home Condos (Exhibit B &
Attachment)
ZONING: Multi-Residential
(MR-43) Zone
SURROUNDING North: Multi-Residential
(MR-43) & Commercial Core (CC) Zones
ZONING: South: Desert
Rural (DR-43) Zone
East:
Commercial Core (CC) Zone
West:
Multi-Residential (MR-43), Residential (R-18) & Desert Rural (DR-43) Zones
LAND
USE: Two
Multi-Residential Buildings
Surrounding: North: Vacant
Land Use: South: Stagecoach Pass Estates (in
development)
East:
Wagon Wheel Restaurant/Black Mountain Body Shop & Desert Foothills
Landscape Maintenance
West:
Two residences and Canyon Ridge Estates
Cordwell gave some background of the project, stating that
Staff had been working with different applicants over the last six years. Originally the project came in with 140
units, next time at 104, a few years later at 80, and then 56, which is what we
thought it was going to be. Then Mr.
Broder came in and suggested 45 units and he
has worked with Staff to not only meet the Ordinances but the character of the
Town.
Esser asked why the site plan was done first and the
preliminary plat second on the same project.
Cordwell clarified that it has
to do with the Zoning Ordinance requiring a site plan for any mutli-family
project.
Joel Broder reiterated that the Town had given some ideas on
what the perimeter fence might look like along the back. Those are the kind of ideas he is looking for
and is talking to citizens as well. He
gave his Website as www.villageatsurreyhills.com where
anyone can view all this information. He
encouraged everyone to get involved in the project.
Public Hearing Opened
and Closed At 8:36 P.M.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
M/Brennan, S/Esser to
approve Preliminary Plat for Village at Surrey Hills, Case P-05-03 with
Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit D.
Brennan had nothing more to say about it.
Esser agreed.
Meeth added stipulations on the Preliminary Plat.
ü Wash shall be left in its natural course.
ü Conestoga Trail shall be maintained as a multi-use
non-motorized trail. Bunch added, “except for emergency access.” Brennan
agreed.
M/C 6-0 by voice vote.
Council Recessed At
8:40 P.M.
Council Reconvened At
8:48 P.M.
4.
PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE FIRST READING
OF ORDINANCE O2005-11 AMENDING THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK ZONING ORDINANCE, AS INCORPORATED
IN THE TOWN CODE, DATED JANUARY 6, 2003, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1 – TITLE, PURPOSE
AND SCOPE, SECTION 1.7 – VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES.
CASE
NUMBER: A-05-20 Amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 1, Section 1.7, which would change a violation of the
Zoning Ordinance from a Class One Misdemeanor (criminal) to a civil violation.
Larry Sahr presented a brief overview of the process. The front of the packet is a copy of the
Ordinance containing either the strikeout version of the amendment or it
contains an attachment with that in it.
The version will have bold cap underlines for additions, and strikeouts
for items to be removed from the Ordinance.
If those bold caps are italicized
they have been amended by the P&Z Commission before it came to Council.
Following that is the Case Summary with a brief
description of the Ordinance, what its impact is in some discussion, and has at
least two Exhibits attached. One copy is
the current Ordinance and the other is the proposed amended Ordinance. That is a clean copy with all the strikeouts
and highlights removed for easier reading.
Ordinance O2005-11 is an Ordinance of the Town of
Cave Creek initiated by Town Staff. The
request is for approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 1, Title Purpose and
Scopes, Section 1.7 Violations and Penalties.
The request of the amendment, if approved, would have the affect of amending
the violation and penalties section, Section 1.7 to provide that all violations
of the Zoning Ordinance should be civil infractions punishable as provided in
the new Town of Cave Creek Code, Section 10.99, Item A. This was heard on September 1, 2005 at a
special meeting of the P&Z Commission and was recommended for approval with
a vote of 6-0.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Meeth commented that Staff had recommended that building
regulations remain criminal because there is a problem with safety. Is the Building Official on board with the
fact that we want to make everything Civil?
Sahr responded that this only
affects the Zoning Regulations and does not affect the Building Codes. The Building Codes will come back before
Council at a later date presented by the Town Prosecutor.
Public Hearing Opened
and Closed at 8:51 p.m.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
M/Esser, S/Bunch to
approve First Reading to Ordinance O2005-11 amending the Town of Cave Creek
Zoning Ordinance as Incorporated in the Town Code, dated January 6, 2003, by
amending Chapter 1 – Title, Purpose and Scope, Section 1.7 – Violations and
Penalties. Esser read the title of the
Ordinance for the Record.
ORDINANCE
NO. O2005-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
AMENDING THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK ZONING ORDINANCE, AS INCORPORATED IN THE CAVE
CREEK TOWN CODE, DATED JANUARY 6, 2003, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1 – TITLE, PURPOSE
AND SCOPE, SECTION 1.7 – VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
esser stated
this is long over due and should help move us forward in areas that have been
confusing and difficult to enforce.
Bunch agreed.
Meeth had questions on how this affects violations. Sahr
clarified that this is not amending the Town Code. The Town Code was put in for reference purposes. A Civil violation is up to $500.00 while a
Criminal violation misdemeanor is $2500.00 and is part of the existing Town
Code.
Esser asked for clarification of those areas that would
have impact. Sahr responded that the Town Code establishes the Civil
Penalty and what possible fines and assessments are and how civil violations
are handled. It also identifies what a
criminal or misdemeanor offense is and how the Town would handle them. We’re not changing that.
Lopez asked for clarification of #1, under C, on Page 58:
…10 or more days after issuance of the citation. Sahr
responded that is part of the existing Town Code and is not the subject of this
amendment.
M/C 6-0 by voice vote.
5.
PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
O2005-12 AMENDING THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK ZONING ORDINANCE, AS INCORPORATED IN
THE TOWN CODE, DATED JANUARY 6, 2003, BY AMENDING APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY TERMS
AND DEFINITIONS; APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS; NUMBER 12 BED AND BREAKFAST INN.
Sahr reported. This request was
initiated by Town Staff based upon input from the public and Town Council
members. The approval of the Zoning
Ordinance would amend the Appendix B Definitions, Number 12 Bed and Breakfast
Inn for the Town of Cave Creek Zoning
Ordinance. If
approved, this Ordinance would have the affect of changing the definition of
Bed and Breakfast Inns. The proposed
change would modify the allowed number of bedrooms from the current 4 to 5
bedrooms. Staff has been approached by
members of the community who have Bed and Breakfast Inns to look at this
issue. We have recommended to you that
if you choose to modify the definition, we are recommending the number of
five. The reason we’re doing it and
included as documentation to support that is because six is the threshold for ADA (American
Disabilities Act) handicap accessibility requirements. We are recommending no more than five. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended this with a vote of 5-1.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Brennan asked if Bed and Breakfasts currently pay a bed
tax. Sahr responded he didn’t think so.
Same would be true for sales tax.
Francia questioned “allowed to serve breakfast but not
lunch and dinner”. Sahr clarified that had come through the P&Z
Commission. It will be in the next
Ordinance that deals with Special Uses.
Public Hearing Opened At
8:59 P.M.
Roger Dexter, Spur Cross Bed and Breakfast, 38555 N. School House Road discussed the
new proposed amendment of 5 bedrooms.
That has been the contention, this needs to read five “guest rooms.” That leaves it open to interpretation as
their personal “bedroom” plus four more?
Or is it five “guest rooms?”
Sahr responded that they can add, “Guest” before bedroom in the next
Ordinance on the Agenda.
Janet Mohr commented that we have a low density in residential
and to increase the number of guests seems to be a conflict.
Karen Friend spoke on the Privilege Tax. Five rooms would pay tax.
Anna Marsolo stated that this is a business in a residential
area. This means more traffic, more
noise especially on weekends. Bed and
Breakfast is a good way to supplement income at four rooms and less. Why make a fuss over five rooms? Just where does it stop? Make it a legislative action so citizens can
refer it if the numbers get too high.
Public Hearing Closed At
9:11 P.M.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
M/Meeth, S/Esser to approve
First Reading of Ordinance O2005-12 amending the Town of Cave Creek Zoning
Ordinance, as Incorporated in the Town Code, dated January 6, 2003, by amending
Appendix B – Glossary Terms and Definitions; Appendix B: Definitions; Number
12, Bed and Breakfast Inn. Meeth read
the title for the record.
ORDINANCE
O2005-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR
AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
AMENDING THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK ZONING ORDINANCE, AS INCORPORATED IN THE CAVE
CREEK TOWN CODE, DATED JANUARY 6, 2003, BY AMENDING APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY TERMS
AND DEFINITIONS; APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS; NUMBER 12. BED AND BREAKFAST INN.
Meeth commented that this is hard work and is not an easy money maker. One extra room isn’t going to make a big
difference.
Esser agreed this is a lot of work and not an easy job. If this is internal housekeeping the addition
of one room is probably appropriate.
Brennan stated that she is in the Town Core often and meets
people who come to Cave Creek to stay.
They are the kind of people to tend to be more of a traveler than a
tourist. She observed they have a real
interest in the place they are visiting and tend to care about their own
environment, whether it is someone’s home or on the street. She leans toward this. At 5 rooms the Town can collect a bed tax.
Lopez sympathizes with the Bed and Breakfast Inns that are near the Town
Core. We would have no objection to
raising it to 5 for them; however we can’t pick and choose as to giving 5
bedrooms to some and not others. Those
who live in more rural areas with larger properties did that because they
wanted open space, peace and quiet, and residential areas are zoned
“residential” for a purpose, with expectations that they will be reasonably
quiet and free of a lot of activity. For
that reason he can’t support going to five bedrooms.
Francia stated that he had always looked at Bed and
Breakfast as a nice way for people to come into this community to enjoy
it. This came up over a year ago at a
Chamber of Commerce Mixer and one of the owners brought it to his
attention. As far as owners of Bed and
Breakfasts on the West side of town, he received an email from a particular
owner wanting to go to 8 rooms. Francia stated he would have a problem with 8 or 7 or 6,
but he has no problem with 5. He would
have to see evidence that there is some sort of relationship between the rise
in crime and those that come to a Bed and Breakfast for any period of stay
before he could make that leap.
Meeth wanted to change 5 “bedrooms” to 5 “guest rooms.”
M/C 5-1 by voice vote with
Lopez voting nay.
6.
PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
O2005-13 AMENDING THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK ZONING ORDINANCE, AS INCORPORATED IN
THE TOWN CODE, DATED JANUARY 6, 2003, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4 – USE DISTRICTS,
SECTIONS 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, AND EXHIBIT 1.
CASE
NUMBER: A-15-19 Amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4 – Sections 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 to
identify those allowed uses as well as those requiring a Special Use Permit or
Temporary Use Permit for each of the zoning district classes.
Sahr stated the requested amendment, if approved, would have the affect of
changing the Use District Sections and Exhibit 1 of the Town of Cave Creek Ordinance. The amendment would clarify within each zone
those primary uses allowed within the zone as well as identifying those uses
that are allowed subject to obtaining a Special Use Permit or a Temporary Use
Permit within that individual zone. The
Ordinance also amends the Town of Cave
Creek Zoning Map to reflect annexation of those
portions of Cahava Springs that have been brought into the Town and it deals
with an amendment to the Table in the DR-43 Zone with reference to side yard
setbacks.
This was presented to the P&Z Commission on September 1, 2005 and recommended
for approval by a vote of 6-0. This
Ordinance works hand in hand with the next Ordinance. The intent is that the current Zoning
Ordinance has a Section on Special Uses with over 18 items listed. Those 18 items are spread out over the entire
Town. What this Ordinance does is go to
the individual zoning district and specifically lists within that district
those uses that are allowed as primary use, allowed subject to Special Use
Permit, and those allowed subject to Temporary Permit within that specific
district. This does not address
Commercial Core, Commercial Buffer, or General Commercial. That will be addressed in the next
go-around. It does reference that in
here.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Brennan – With all the potential uses listed, how would the
Town government deal with the request that seems reasonable but not listed?
Sahr responded that the Ordinance is permissive by nature. If it is not listed as a Use, it is not an
allowed use. The Ordinance would have to
be amended to address an unidentified use.
We have tried to list all the uses that are identified as appropriate
within the General Plan for that particular zoning classification within the
Town. We have also identified those uses
that are required by both Federal and State Law that we have to allow within
the Town, such as cell towers, etc.
Those are uses that have a minimum amount of impact on the surrounding
land uses in the area. Safeguards will
be put in the next Chapter we will be dealing with.
Meeth asked about Desert Rural on Page 87.
Sahr responded that the intent
was to provide allowance for the privately run Fire Department in the Town of
Cave Creek and those types of facilities in
the appropriate location with guidelines to be looked at in the next Chapter.
Bunch asked about Page 88 (C),
Short-term occupancy. Sahr responded that it was added by the Planning
Commission. They felt that it was
important to identify that the intent of Bed and Breakfasts are for short-term
occupancy, not to be multi-family units.
Esser asked about Page
93, MR Zones. Sahr responded that language was specifically identified
within the multi-family zone. Going
through the Ordinance, we are trying to provide much information in that part
of the Ordinance for user clarification and convenience of this Ordinance.
Meeth asked about Page 97, A, B, C, & D. Sahr
responded that they chose at this time to not move forward with Bulk
Regulations. It will come forward as a
“stand alone Ordinance.”
Francia inquired of Commissioners Williams and Bryda regarding the serving of breakfast only. Why just breakfast? Commissioner Bryda, 3786
E. Sat Nam Way responded that the purpose of that
was so that you don’t have a restaurant set up serving lunch and dinner in a
residential area.
Public Hearing Opened At
9:30 P.M.
Martha Arnold, 6111
E. Fleming Springs Road, spoke on Special
Uses. She wishes they weren’t
allowed. Two of the largest Bed and
Breakfasts are near her. The people try
to comply, but there are always problems.
She didn’t object to the first permit, but she objected to the
second. She specifically objects to the
intensity of use. She always had horses
until recently. She is not against horse
uses. She thinks review should be done
more frequently.
Todd Gilson, 35201
N. 50th Street, questioned Section 4.1
(C) (4) Commercial Ranches. He spoke against allowing this use. It creates dust, noise, lighting issues and
conflicts with residential living.
What’s the rush? Let’s get it
right. There should be a public
workshop.
Anna Marsolo also sees a conflict with Commercial Ranch status
in Section 5.5.
Janet Mohr stated that she is one for Zoning, but she isn’t
one for mixing other uses in a residential zone. She is not in favor of Special Use Permits.
Public Hearing Closed at
9:40 p.m.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
M/Esser, S/Meeth to give
First Reading to Ordinance O2005-13 amending the Town of Cave Creek Zoning
Ordinance, as Incorporated in the Town Code, dated January 6, 2003, by Amending
Chapter 4 – Use Districts, Sections 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and
Exhibit 1. Esser read the title for the
Record.
ORDINANCE
NO. O2005-13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR
AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
AMENDING THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK ZONING ORDINANCE, AS INCORPORATED IN THE CAVE
CREEK TOWN CODE, DATED JANUARY 6, 2003, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4 – USE DISTRICTS,
SECTIONS 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 AND Exhibit 1.
Esser commented that this is an effort on the part of Staff and the Council
to clarify some of the confusion we have had in the past about Special
Uses. He agrees with Martha
Arnold about enforcement, without an
answer. This is something that we should
discuss. This may not be the answer but
at least it is a start.
Meeth stated that more than discussing the contents of these categories this
is Staff going through the Ordinance and reorganizing the list of uses in
specific zoning districts. She is
concerned about limiting horse uses in residential districts.
Lopez asked, “If we cut out Commercial Ranch uses would the ones that exist
now be grandfathered? Sahr agreed. It
would stop the proliferation of any further ranch uses in residential areas.
Brennan commented that we are not going into too much
regarding the changes of Ordinances. She
would like to have time to research the Review criteria.
Francia stated that he had read Agenda Items 6 and 7 five
times today. He was trying to understand
why it bothered him. He reminisced about
a time when he wondered if they could just eliminate Special Use Permits to
simplify things. The problem was “How do
you get there?” This community has had
Special Use Permits for a long time. He
stated that this is a First Reading and he is unclear if he would be able to
support it. He would like to get to the
time when there is no such thing as a Special Use Permit, but that time may
have long passed in this community.
M/C 4-2 by roll call vote
with Lopez and Francia voting nay.
7.
PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
O2005-10 AMENDING THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK ZONING ORDINANCE, AS INCORPORATED IN
THE TOWN CODE, DATED JANUARY 6, 2003, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 10 – SPECIAL USES,
SECTIONS 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, AND 10.4.
CASE
NUMBER: A-05-09 Amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10, Sections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, & 10.4 that would
remove the list of uses requiring a Special Use Permit from this Chapter. Said uses would be identified within each
zoning classification elsewhere in the Ordinance. The submittal requirements as well as the
review criteria would be expanded upon.
Sahr reported that this was initiated by Town Council. Approval of the Ordinance is an approval of an
amendment to Chapter 10, Special Uses Section 10.1 through 10.4 of the Town of Cave Creek Zoning Ordinance. The requested amendment as proposed would
have the affect of having Special Uses section as identified above. The amendment would eliminate the list of 18
possible Special Uses that are currently allowed within all zones within the
Town of Cave Creek. This amendment,
along with the approval of the previous Ordinance would specifically identify
only those uses that are allowed within each of the Zones as established
by the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of
the proposed amendment is to clarify and expand the Special Use Permit
Regulations so that the Review Criteria and the Conditions of Approval reflect
the land planning goals and objectives as established for each of the land use
classifications within the Town’s General Plan.
The P&Z Commission on September 1, 2005 voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the subject amendment.
Sahr commented on Francia’s comment. There are Special Uses that are required by
law that we have to allow but we do feel that we need to have the ability to
put special conditions on them. What we
are looking at here in this Ordinance is to replace the 18 items with specific
criteria for submittal and identify specific types of submittal documentation
that must be included with an application, such as drainage report, traffic
studies, etc. Then we have expanded the
review criteria eliminating the two ambiguous items that we have and gotten
more specific in the review criteria so as you look at special uses you have
concrete, specific facts for recommending approval or denying as they come
forward to Council. You do always have
the ability to limit the time that a Special Use permit can be in effect.
Sahr responded to Esser that this
tightens up the review process because it specifically identifies the six
different review items. We have had two
conflicting criteria making it very difficult to make a judgment on the
appropriateness. We have specifically
identified the six of them based upon fact, engineering, and science, not on
emotion. We’ve also identified that
Special Uses are just that…they are special and have to meet a certain
criteria.
Francia asked how we could get better through this
particular ordinance or another in ensuring that the person receiving the
special use is indeed following the criteria that is set down, whether the
issue is for one or ten years. Sahr responded that is an enforcement issue.
Public Hearing Opened at
9:53
Martha Arnold, 6111
E. Fleming Springs Road, stated that Council
should make note of what the Special Use Permits are for. It is for a totally different kind of horse
experience than what the majority relates to Cave Creek. Regarding the issue of taxes, have you ever
thought about how many sales transpire across from Martha? Regarding vehicular activity, it’s not always
how many, but also what kind and how big and what time of day or night coming
and going. There should be reviews on
how long to allow special use permit and clear criteria as to what invalidates
that permit?
Anna Marsolo commented that standards are being established for
the first time.
Public Hearing Closed At
9:57 P.M.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
M/Esser, S/Brennan to give
First Reading of Ordinance O2005-10 amending the Town of Cave Creek Zoning
Ordinance, as incorporated in the Town Code, dated January 6, 2003, by amending
Chapter 10 – Special Uses, Sections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4.
ORDINANCE
NO. O2005-10
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR
AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
AMENDING THE TOWN OF CAVE CREEK ZONING ORDINANCE, AS INCORPORATED IN THE CAVE
CREEK TOWN CODE, DATED JANUARY 6, 2003, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 10 – SPECIAL USES,
SECTIONS 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 AND 10.4.
Esser stated his comments are pretty much as they were on the First
Reading. He thinks this is an effort to
tighten up the Ordinances and clarify with direction for Staff to implement
these changes.
Brennan stated that the changes to the review process have
given Council some tools to regulate and enforce uses. Going through this process has created more
questions for her.
Meeth commented that this is more concrete.
She believes it is all about enforcement.
Lopez stated that it’s an improvement to the process, but many issues are
not resolved. We could benefit from a
workshop on both these Special Use issues.
Francia stated that this is a framework that we will be
able to work with and enforce. Perhaps
regional stables might be a solution – it’s still in its infancy.
M/C 6-0 by Voice Vote.
M/C to adjourn at 10:04 p.m. by
voice vote.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED
BY:
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Carrie A. Dyrek Vincent Francia
Town Clerk Mayor
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the
foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Regular
Session of the Town Council of Cave Creek held on the 7th day of
November 2005. I further certify that
the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
Dated
this __________ day of
__________________ 2005
SEAL ________________________________________________
Carrie
A. Dyrek, Town Clerk