All right, good afternoon.

I'd like to call this regular city council work session to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Sarder.

Present.

Vice Mayor Greenberg.

Here.

Councilman Haney.

Here.

Councilman Duffy?

Here.

Councilman Melton?

Present.

Councilman Hastings.

Here.

Councilman Jet.

Here.

Thank you, Mayor.

We have forum.

All right.

Thank you.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

To the Republic for which it stands one nation under God.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Madam Clerk, please read item number one.

Item one presentation and discussion pertaining to a zoning text amendment to the surprise land development ordinances to establish a new residential zoning district, Desert Rural, along with associated changes throughout the LDO and the surprise municipal code.

FS twenty-five zero zero three nine.

So um with that, just to recap, last time we went over the background information of the zoning text amendment, um, as well as the committee feedback and proposed code changes.

Uh, with regard to the land use buffer um in landscape slash open space development standards, permissible uses.

Um so this time our focus is gonna be on the committee and uh feedback and proposed code changes for the design standards, animals, and transportation streets, as well as the cleanup items included this up with this amendment.

So before we get into the new items, um between our last work session and tonight, we did receive some additional feedback from some members of the development community regarding the um topic on the land use buffers.

So we did want to bring that back and dive into that a little bit more.

The feedback that we received was that they felt that um there was a discrepancy between how it was kind of presented and what the code uh draft actually states.

Um, with regards to how the buffer or setback requirement is being measured.

So we wanted to revisit that a little bit.

Uh as we discussed in the last presentation, um, we're proposing um setbacks to be built into each of the zoning districts when they're adjacent to desert rural.

Um specifically with um the R1 and R2 uh standards, they are the draft is written in a way that measures this setback from the subdivision boundary.

And so um the clarification, I guess, would be when there's a roadway that separates existing desert rural from a new subdivision.

Should that or does that roadway um with get calculated into their required setback?

And so um the the request that they had with that was that the um that the roadway does count towards part of that separation requirement so that they're not um in in their in their words, overly burdened by having to to dedicate that right away and then in addition to that have to provide an additional 100 foot setback.

Um they provided some um thoughts on that, but I guess um our request here tonight is to get uh a better understanding from you all on what the consensus or the direction should be for measuring those setbacks, if it should be solely um uh a 100 foot, for example, setback on the property that's provided in addition to the right-of-way that they have to dedicate, or does that right-of-way dedication um get counted into that as well?

So as you can see on this, um, these images that we kind of put together to kind of provide visual representation, um, they they did not include that roadway width, but um, that is something that we can discuss here right now is um should the measurement be from the street center line, so that for example, on a on a major arterial, which the total right-away width is 136 feet.

Um, if they have to provide half street um dedication so 68 feet, should they be providing 68 feet of right-of-way dedication plus in an on-site a hundred foot setback, or does that 68 feet get overlaid onto that separation requirement?

Councilman Judd had a statement or question.

Yeah, so um, if you're looking for feedback on it, I'm in favor of not including the roadway since that's the way we had originally drawn it up.

Um we're talking about desert rule.

So the idea with desert rule is to keep it rule and keep it open space.

So I'm not a fan of cutting into that open space that we're trying to carve out for it.

Thank you.

I same driver.

I it shouldn't count for the same reasons.

Councilman Haney.

Thank you, Mayor.

So when this was discussed with the community, what was presented?

Was it presented as the roadway and then it would be that setback?

Correct?

Yes, uh, Mayor, Commissioner Haney, or Councilman Haney, yes.

Yeah.

The um the community wanted to see as much buffering and setback as possible.

Okay.

Um so it was presented with these similar slides of of showing that landscape separation in addition to the roadway.

Okay.

And that was presented through multiple meetings, right?

Right.

Anyone had the opportunity to attend?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, I agree about keeping the uh or not including the road and the setback.

Um I think maybe on a case by case, if a developer wanted to ask for an exception, is that something that they could do?

Or they can't.

That's right.

That might get messed up.

Yeah, that would get missed.

Well, we don't have to approve it.

That's true.

Yeah, that um we'd have to explore how we would do that.

But I I think our we would try to to create a code that is as clear and um direct as possible with without building in relief from these new standards as much as possible.

Okay.

Okay.

That is um helpful feedback, and we can uh make sure to clarify that in our councilman Hastings had a last second.

Oh, sorry.

No, I'm just kidding.

Uh yeah.

So and just to catch people up, can you I know obviously we're familiar with this, it's been gone through a long process, but um you kind of recapped.

I mean, obviously we've we've heard from the development community throughout the process, and this is kind of like a last second thing, really.

And is that what we're is that what we're hearing?

Like that they're requesting or um yes, we do we did get some, so there has been some feedback throughout the process from the development community that that these buffers would obviously impact them um the most.

Um, but this is um some specific feedback that we just recently got.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I'm good with um what's kind of been presented throughout the you know lengthy process we've we've done.

So yeah, I I would have to agree with my colleagues.

So thank you.

Thank you, Trevor.

No, that's perfect.

That's it.

Okay.

All right.

So moving on to design standards.

So I was gonna close it out.

Got a watch back there.

So moving into design standards, starting um with some of the community feedback that we got on accessory structures.

So um they asked that uh storage containers be a permitted accessory structure um permanently in desert rural.

Um there was some feedback to increase the maximum accessory structure size.

This is a topic that we'll come back to again um towards the end of the presentation.

Um it's currently 3,000 square feet in our code.

Um and then we also got feedback to amend the design standards to allow for accessory structures to not have to be architecturally compatible with the home.

So this is um one of those things where throughout the rest of the city in typical built-out subdivisions with tracked homes and and larger home builders, um, creating this consistency um makes sense, but in these more rural areas, some of these things don't tend to be as um practical.

And so you'll see that as a as a common three theme throughout some of these design standards for driveways and parking.

Um the request was to allow more than one driveway on properties to allow for multiple methods of dust control for driveways and parking services, and then allow for the parking of work trucks um on the driveway in the residence.

So the proposed changes in response to these requests.

Um we added language to the portable storage container um use standards to allow these uh within desert rural.

We are proposing a an increase to the the maximum square footage um in desert or for accessory structures in desert rural again.

We'll come back to that um for some additional feedback and and direction.

Um adding language to the planning and engineering design standards permit accessory structures that don't have to match the primary dwelling unit, and then building in language um to allow up to two driveways uh per lot in desert rural, adding clarity and flexibility for um uh driveway surfaces and parking surfaces, and then allowing up to two work trucks to park on a dust-proof surface within the building envelope within desert rural lots.

Trevor, Councilman Melton had a statement.

Yep.

Thank you, Mayor.

Trevor, what does it mean?

More options for dust control on driveways.

What is that?

What does that mean?

Uh yeah, thank you, um, councilman.

The current code has some pretty specific examples of um dust control um that are more in line with um some of our more built-out areas.

So um it's it's examples of more paved.

Um so whether it be asphalt, concrete, pavers, etc.

This opens it up a little bit more in desert rural so that they could put DG down or other methods of dust control that maybe aren't as permanent or as costly.

I I understand.

All right, thank you, Trevor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Trevor, Councilman Greenberg has something to say.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, Trevor, what is our definition of accessory structure?

Does this include like somebody could turn a uh freight car into a casita and plum it and pipe it and do everything to run it as a Airbnb?

Thank you, Councilman.

Um no, so I think um the way that our code is currently structured and written, it does need to be a either a um site-built structure or a um modular structure.

Um, but they would not be able to, you know, like you said, just bring in some sort of housing.

Yeah.

Okay.

Councilman Judd.

Thank you, May.

Um, the driveways.

So we have language added to allow up to two driveways.

Why would why is it important to limit the number of driveways?

Thank you, Councilman.

So um, this comes from our transportation department as far as access control um to not create conflicts with having too many driveways on a single road and having um conflicts between people pulling in and pulling out.

But it's it's rule.

I mean, we're not expecting a lot of traffic out here, are we?

No, correct.

Um what if they have a put a really big lot?

What if it's a 30-acre lot, still two driveways?

That is the way it's currently written.

Um, if there's um, you know, different direction to expand that more, we can discuss that and and look into it further.

And so I mean I will I'm a fan of simple and clear, as you mentioned earlier.

So I'm I'm just trying to understand why we even have a limit on driveways in a rural area with big lots.

So I would be a fan, unless there's a really specific reason to require them that I don't that I don't understand.

And I'm a fan of not having driveway restrictions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Councilman Hastings.

Yeah, just uh pig back off Councilman Judd's comment.

Um, what is the rationale for like the two driveway limit?

Like, is that does that what's what we're proposing to add in there?

Or like is it that's my question?

Yeah, thank you, Councilman.

It's it's um so trying to balance the ask with um some of the transportation standards.

So currently it's limited to one, proposing to just double that.

But can speak more to that.

Eric, how much driveways you've seen.

I mean, I don't know.

We want to talk about driveways.

Yeah, let's talk about driveways.

Yeah.

So I think clarify clarification on the rationale for driveways, right?

Let's you think about a local road, right?

Each house has one driveway right now.

I think that's our current standard.

Uh, we knew the rural lifestyle, we knew that they would have larger lots, so that's why we took the into account say, hey, maybe we can expand this to give some more more options.

Why did we limit to two driveways?

As Trevor said, when you have a bunch of driveways on a roadway, you're gonna have conflicting left turns, right?

Because you have people coming out making a left.

Now, granted, it's low traffic volume, but from a transportation perspective, that's what we're always looking at, is trying to limit those conflicting lefts.

So that's why the rationale that came behind, hey, let's figure out maybe we can expand it a little bit to preserve that lifestyle, because we do know that they have large lots, but we want to try to make it as safe as possible.

So that's really the rationale behind why we're limiting uh some of those driveways on there.

So yeah, so you're I mean, you're essentially doubling it because I was like, I've I'll I have one driveway personally.

Correct.

And it's great.

I mean, anyways, but um when it comes to this, like I think when it comes to this process, right?

I mean you're gonna go through and have these meetings and and tailor as much as possible.

But no matter what's gonna happen, likely we'll find ourselves back here at some point, you know, to make changes.

Um when it comes to and just maybe just in general, but when it comes to driveways, for instance, you know, if you don't limit it all, and then someone does go beyond the two, and then you come back and try to scale it back later, then what happens to the residents who have been kind of given free drive driveway, you know, anyway.

So um I am in favor though of less regulation, but I understand too that this area, as well as all the surprise, one of the biggest um obstacles is is transportation.

Yeah, you know, and and also not just for now, but kind of future proofing what we do in the future.

So um yeah, I'm open to what you guys are proposing.

So was this with also is this discussed when um I mean during the process the residents felt like this was sufficient?

Yeah, okay.

Councilman Judd.

Okay, so that was part of the question.

Was did residents said that they want two driveways, a limit of two driveways?

Yeah, I think Trevor, you can probably talk to more exactly what you got back, but that's what we heard from them is they wanted to expand on the one driveway, one driveway allowance during the process.

All right.

So after listening to your description on why we want to limit two driveways, I completely disagree, and I think we should take the driveway restriction off.

I really do.

Because it's rural area, it's a rural area.

There's no traffic.

Yeah.

And these guys are going to take care of each other.

I can't imagine a need for more than two driveways, but who am I to say?

Thank you.

Agreed.

Councilman Haney.

Thanks, Mayor.

Uh, yeah, I guess my question, it's kind of been answered is is there just this big push from residents to have two plus driveways?

I mean, this has been discussed in detail.

Is there a need for four driveways?

I get kind of your point, but if two is sufficient and this has gone through the process and residents are okay with the two driveways, I'm okay with that.

And I haven't heard a big push for multiple driveways, but I'll defer to you and yeah.

Yeah.

So thank you, Councilman IC.

So the oring uh Did I wrong you in some way?

Commissioner's the um So some of the Part of part of this effort is also comparing what's existing versus the conflicts that are currently in code.

And so um trying to balance some of those lots that currently have more than one, more than even two driveways.

Um, and and trying to build a code um that that is more appropriate for the community in general.

Um part of the discrepancy may be um in these areas is you tend to have horseshoe driveways where they create like a U.

And it's it's technically considered two driveway entrances, but it's one continuous driveway on their property.

Something like that couldn't happen in a in a standard built-out subdivision.

Um the other thing is on corner lots, clarifying that you know, on both street frontages, they can have two driveways.

Um so things like that of clarifying and comparing to what's currently out there.

Okay.

So we're we're addressing some of that discrepancy though through this.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

While still trying to balance the the safety concerns and the other traffic.

Okay.

I'm in favor with how it stands unless I get feedback from residents where there's a need for additional one.

If I can see kind of what Councilman Jed was saying, if depending on the lot size, maybe there's another need.

Um, but obviously I see the can the safety concern as well.

I guess for me is I'll just kind of defer to see if we get more feedback on.

I mean, you went through a very extensive outreach process.

And so unless I'm hearing something different from the residents, if two is sufficient, I'm okay with that.

Okay, you're driveway here.

You can't have a driveway back here now.

Thanks, Eric.

Sound good.

Thank you.

Appreciate y'all.

So the two points is too.

Eric, how many driveways do you have?

Just one.

That's all I have to do.

All right.

Moving on to landscaping.

So um there was some feedback regarding clarifying um the allowance of certain applications of antique um decor, like um older um ranch equipment or or farm equipment to be placed on their property in a decorative way and have it not be considered blight.

And then fencing materials was another um big point of feedback that we got.

So currently in our code, um barbed wire, chain link, um, other open wire fencing type um materials are not permitted.

Obviously, out in these rural areas, there's already existing fencing um that is not in compliance with that current code.

So opening up the allowable materials um was a request that we received.

So um our proposed changes aims to do that to allow for additional flexibility in the fencing types in desert rural, and then adding in that language for landscaping for those decorative conditions.

All righty.

So continuing with animals, the overarching feedback we receive from the rural community is that our current livestock regulations are too strict.

So per chapter 10 of the municipal code, the city only allows one livestock animal per half acre of lot area and defines livestock as anything from a cow to a goat with no distinction made based off the size of the livestock animal or the land required to keep that animal.

So, in order to address this feedback, um, we took a look at the animal regulations um of many of our neighbors across the valley, as well as research to see what kinds of federal and state guidance exists regarding the minimum safe area requirements for livestock animals.

So from this research, we were able to identify a few changes we could make to the code that would relax the standards and reintroduce some flexibility to allow livestock animals at a rate more in line with what is seen out there in those areas today to include amending the livestock section of the municipal code to create a distinction between large and medium livestock animals, as well as amending the ratio of allowable livestock animals to not only increase the overall number of animals per half acre, um, but to allow a combination of large and medium livestock animals at a rate that is more appropriate to the kind of animal they are basing animal allowances on space dedicated to the keeping of these animals rather than uh overall acreage to ensure adequate space is provided on one acre lots for them.

Um the last week ratio we proposed to the community was one large and six medium animals per half acre of space dedicated uh to the keeping of these animals with an exchange rate of one large livestock animal to two medium livestock animals.

So this would mean that on a one-acre lot with a half acre of lot area dedicated to the keeping of these animals, a resident could theoretically have one horse and six goats or eight goats and no horses or four horses and no goats or some combination thereof.

So um before I kind of move on into the overall staff questions, um, do you all have any questions regarding animals so far?

You said that you'd looked at what county, state, and federal regulations on animals, or are is ours less restrictive, more restrictive than that?

Like why would we deviate from what they're already have in place?

Uh for sure.

So um, Mr.

Mayor, so whenever we were taking a look through our one livestock animal per half acre, our current code is, you know, far more restrictive than what we're seeing um with the county.

Um, and whenever we looked at kind of the federal and state regulation, um, those there wasn't a lot of good guidance.

Um, it seems that there's kind of some points of contention here and there, depending on, you know, the animals and um how you have your setup.

Um, it it doesn't seem like on the federal and state level, we kind of agree on what the minimum um safe area is for chickens or you know, cows, et cetera.

So um, while we were kind of looking for guidance in that area, um, we kind of came up a little blank.

I mean, we're going to continue.

Um, we got uh a number of uh feedback from the residents and stuff.

And as we're going through that um and continuing to refine, we're gonna go out one more time to see if we can find um maybe some other guidance um from maybe some of our smaller um, you know, nonprofit regul um or you know, federal state, maybe there's something that I overlooked.

Um, so we're gonna go back and look for that information.

Um, but when we were looking at um specifically the animal regulations for again our neighbors, um, again, current code is far more restrictive than some of our neighbors.

But what we did when we were looking around was we were kind of looking to see where everybody fell and then find something that would open up those restrictions um and kind of fall somewhere in the middle.

So maybe we're not um as open as Cave Creek, but we're, you know, kind of the compromises, you know, that that's kind of what we used as our basis was, you know, that was something that the um community had communicated was um, you know, and they had done their uh own research as well whenever they were commenting, they pointed to Cave Creek as an example of something that we liked.

Again, we looked at not only cave creeks but other um codes in the area and kind of found something, you know, or came up with um a quantity that was basically kind of cutting cave creeks quantities in half, because there are some people who you know want a lot of animals in their community and some people who don't want as many.

And that seemed whenever we did the math and kind of came up with that ratio, even though it's a little bit more complicated, um, that cutting it in half seemed to reflect the number of animals that are out there currently and what we're seeing in the neighborhood now.

And who's in the code enforcement would go out there and enforce these codes?

Um, yes, Mayor.

So um, I think in terms of animal welfare, I think um our animal control department is going to be by and large, um, those are who we're going out there.

If there is a discrepancy and then, you know, if somebody is running a business out of their home and there are, you know, far more, you know, cows or horses, et cetera, on the property than what we're allowing, then um I believe our code enforcement um officers would also be going out there.

But it's not gonna be like strictly, I mean, we adhere to it, but I feel like code a lot of times is set in place.

So if there's an issue, then another resident come to us and say, hey, there's an issue, can you look into it?

But for the most part, I don't anticipate our code enforcement going out there on a regular basis trying to enforce the antiques in their front yard or the number of goats, right?

Yes, that's correct.

The intent of our code enforcement is not to be, you know, sending them out there, and I can um pass it over to Mindy who can go into that a little bit more.

But overall, the intent is absolutely not to be, you know, going out there and looking for issues.

It's to build a code so that, you know, if a neighbor complains about another neighbor, there's some sort of protections in place.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Judd.

Thank you, Mayor.

So again, I'm gonna go least restrictive.

I think we should be as least restricted as possible.

So I've got a few questions.

Uh the first one, what does Maricopa County allow?

Uh, for sure.

Um, so uh, sorry.

Um, Counselor Judd.

So um, whenever we were originally doing this research, because again, this effort has taken multiple years.

So, you know, from the time that we started to um where we're at now, uh, Maricopa County is actually updated their code.

So when we originally started um making these updates and changes, um, what we were proposing in terms of um animal quantities um was actually gonna be more um or less restrictive.

So they're just can can you just tell me what Maricopa County's limits are?

For sure.

So originally they were less restrictive.

Now that they have made their update um in 2025, they have removed, I believe, uh their restrictions on animals.

So I believe at this point in time, um, they don't have a a cap or uh a limit necessarily.

I like that.

Why are why aren't we doing that?

I mean, why?

I mean, it sounds like the number you came up with is that is is arbitrary with the way you explained how you came to the number, it sounds very arbitrary.

You decide to use half a cave creek because Cape Creek had too many.

Um and I don't know how you decide a cave creek had too many, Cave Creek is is a is a horse community.

So I would think they would have at least the appropriate amount.

And so if Maricopa County has no restrictions on it, why are we putting restrictions on it?

We're we're sharing a lot of land space out there.

I mean, it's a a lot of these communities out there, a lot of these homes out there are already in Maricopa County, and a lot of these are gonna be butting up against Maricopa County.

So why not make the rules the same and say there's no limit?

Again, unless there's a reason to have a limit on it, I would like us to see less rules, especially the rule.

The whole idea of having this rule overlay is to have something simpler, easier, less rules.

And so I I hate watching us go through and have a bunch of rules on whether you can have antiques on your property.

You know, why do we even have a rule at all about that?

Let these guys do what they want with their property.

So if you have to come up with a number, then I'm gonna want to see something that is supported by data somewhere.

And I'd want that data to come from some sort of livestock or ranching association.

Thank you.

Councilman Hastings.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, this, I mean, I I get it, I get where Councilman Judge is coming from because like for me to sit up here and like we you know, we ran into this with the property maintenance ordinance ordinance, um, rest in peace, because we we went through that process, and no, seriously, like we were we were establishing kind of stuff that was already in the international code and we're just trying to localize it so we could share with residents.

But what it comes off is is that like, you know, we're sitting up here and telling you how many, you know, livestock animals you can have in your half acre.

And that's like I don't I agree, like I don't want to do that.

So um at the same time, like we're you guys have had a difficult task, right?

It's it's you're trying to put a structure in place for rural land, which is typically unstructured, like it's it's rural land.

So, and when you look at data, like it is difficult, like normally when we do things as a city, um I'm not saying we can't take the lead on things, but you know, you look at surrounding cities.

The problem is with but that I would assume is that El Mirage is limited rural compared to surprise.

You know, see so you're looking at places like you know, maybe Buckeye, like you're looking at like the Southeast Valley, Maricopa, and they're a county, so there's generally less regulation, like they have PADs, we don't.

And I want to clarify one thing is that code enforcement is is not the same as your HOA.

Um, and what I mean by that is so what I what I found out during my time with council is that if you this is just this is just me speaking, if you get a code enforcement complaint, it's probably because your neighbor may have told on you.

Um HOAs are a business, right?

They go around like they're a business, like they're in to make money, like they go around, like they've they've caught me out with my recycling been out a little bit late.

You know, so it's a little bit different.

Code enforcement, like, you know, the government is we're not uh in it to steal your money, obviously there's taxes and things like that.

But what I will ask is, you know, and I think what the concern is is we're not gonna be out there micromanaging, and if someone has, you know, seven medium livestock animals in a per half acre of dedicated space, you know, we're not gonna like you know, fine them.

It's is it more to protect it like from somebody maybe taking advantage and having like a ton?

And it comes back, it's the same thing with the driveway, right?

Because council job makes a good point.

Is I don't know, it's it's difficult.

So let me ask you this.

When we had the when we had these these meetings, and this affects um councilman Haney's district primarily, also council Meltons.

Um, when these numbers were proposed, did we have feedback from residents where you know we when we landed on six, I'm assuming there's data behind that, and I I would agree with wanting to see that.

Did we have people push back and say, like, hey, that's that's not enough?

Like the farm I have is you know, this big, I would need more than that.

Was there a lot of pushback on that?

Um, because again, we're trying to find that starting area, and it's it's difficult.

So did we get pushback on these things and throughout the process?

For sure, Councilman Hasting.

So um, we got a lot of verbal feedback at our last neighborhood meeting, and um we can get into that a little bit more uh because that's also part of the reason why we're coming here today to also ask some of these questions because we've gotten some conflicting feedback.

Um but we heard you know some verbal feedback at our last neighborhood meeting that um what we were proposing was not nearly enough.

They didn't, you know, and then we got some additional um uh uh techno or electronic um, you know, feedback sent to us um via email or whatever after the four after the neighborhood meeting that were also you know, not only saying that you know this is not enough, but also pushing for you know, having no animal restrictions.

Um on the other hand, um, while we did get that feedback, we also got a number of um, you know, written communication as well saying that what uh we were proposing was fine and you know more than generous, but it was not necessarily like the easiest to follow.

So that's part of um, and I'll go ahead if um nobody has additional general kind of questions.

Um, we can kind of move in and kind of start that kind of discussion.

Um, you know, to kind of like dig into the weeds a little bit more regarding what is acceptable and what's not.

What do you want to see?

What do we need to dig into and research more?

Um, because again, that was something that we did get feedback on.

Half of the community wanted more uh animals or no restrictions, and then the other half said, no, what you're proposing is fine, or there should be a cap.

Councilman Haney's remarks.

Yeah, just a quick point.

Um, because I know this seems to be the kind of one of the sticking points within various members of the community.

So I think it's definitely worth more discussion and and maybe more workshop with them.

Um I guess my large scale view is I don't want um really any of this, but specifically this this item to be used almost weaponized against a neighbor that maybe someone doesn't like within the community.

I think councilman Hastings brought up a point is a lot of time with code enforcement, the complaint does come with from within the neighborhood.

Um, but I want to just make sure that it is able to be followed, and it's not something this whole purpose of this is to protect those folks who want to maintain their rural lifestyle as we grow.

And so I don't want it to be used um in a negative way to impact some folks that are trying to adhere to it, but maybe it is a little too restrictive.

And I know this one in particular has been the one that's caused um a lot of discussion amongst residents.

And so I'd love for us to revisit it.

I'd like it to be more revisited by the residents itself that will impact that'll impact the most rather than us kind of up on the dice trying to make that decision because they know best what their community needs and what their community would like to see.

And so that's kind of my initial thoughts when just kind of hearing the discussion about it.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

All right.

So heading back to extra accessory structures for a second.

Um, one of the questions that we asked the community in the last neighborhood meeting was the the draft currently written removes the 3,000 square foot maximum um accessory structure side um and does not limit it other than the uh lot coverage percentage in the zoning district.

We had asked um the community if there was a maximum that they felt um was appropriate.

Um we didn't get clear um kind of feedback from them.

Um so one of the things that staff has been proposing is a 6,000 square foot cap.

So essentially doubling the existing um square footage maximum.

Um the planning and zoning commission felt that 6,000 square foot was appropriate, but maybe suggested a some sort of um process for if you're going um if you want to go beyond that, like a conditional use permit or some some sort of additional um approval or scrutiny on that if you're trying to go above 6,000 square feet.

Councilman Judd.

Go ahead.

You're asking, you're asking us questions.

You want answers, right?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

And so I'm gonna go back to why are we putting restrictions on this?

And before you answer that, what does Maricopa County do?

Councilman Judd, the the counties the county's standards are a little difficult to um understand.

So we were looking at that just briefly before this um meeting to understand and they do something more along the lines of lot coverage rather than specific prescribed.

I think it's 25% per footage.

Uh so our our lot screw our our lot coverage is 25, yeah.

And what's Maricopa County's lot coverage?

Is it similar?

And so I'm I'm happy with key again, keeping this simple and saying lot coverage, that's all that matters.

If you want to make whatever your dwelling, whatever you want to do on your property out there, as long as you keep it from covering border to border, and we've got that appropriate percentage on there.

I don't think we should be splitting hairs on how big your building can be.

Again, this is the rule, this is a rural area.

We're trying to we're trying to have as little regulation out here as we can with still keeping it safe and healthy.

Understood, thank you.

So this slide was um created to kind of give an idea of what that lot coverage could mean uh as written without having a maximum.

So if you have a uh one-acre parcel, you could have a over a 10,000 square foot accessory structure going up to 20 acres.

Obviously, you get into the hundreds of thousands of square feet that would conceivably be allowed if you're just regulating it based off of lot coverage.

And and staff's only concern with that is at that point.

These are these are hard to say that these are accessory structures.

If you have a you know, uh a standard modest uh square footage of a home, but you have a 200,000 square foot accessory structure that's no longer really incidental and subordinate to the primary use, which is the single family residential living.

And so that is our only concern of not having a specific square footage cap um, with the only limitation being the lot square footage that it it could cause some problems from that perspective.

Councilman Hastings.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I do think that seeing, I mean, these are obviously a lot of very technical questions, and that's okay.

And I don't want to like I live here in District Five, and we do have rural land around here in City Hall.

I don't think it would you know, it would it would qualify as a rule.

But um, in all seriousness, um, I think it would be good to see some data for reference, right?

And you know, maybe with, I mean, obviously the the county has I mean, they have PDs, they have more, I think, freedom, like less regulation overall than cities typically would.

But um, when you start to throw numbers up on the screen, I'll be honest, I don't know, like without something to compare it to, and maybe we should I should have asked that you know question earlier.

But you know, what does the county have?

What does Cave Creek have?

And I I I know you guys have have done all of this.

Like you guys have, you know, gone through and and these numbers didn't just like randomly like just come out like, oh, you know, six, whatever, and that this or that, or 217, 800 square feet.

I'm sure no one guessed of guessed that number for any reason.

But um, seeing the data, right?

Like seeing that type of stuff, you know, um, especially for us because six out of seven of us don't live.

I mean, this primarily affects councilman Haney's district.

I know councilman Haney is in touch with his residence the most, and ultimately I'm gonna support him and and his residence because I I do feel like that's kind of the area we're talking about.

Mr.

Evans, mayor, council.

Um point well taken as far as the lot coverage goes.

County varies because they have different sizes.

They go what they call our 190, which then they restrict lot coverage to like 10%.

There are U 43 is the same as our rural residential as a one-acre lots, which is 25% lot coverage.

So for instance, if you have a 4,000 square foot home, then you can basically go up to a little over 6,000 square feet for necessary structure, then you hit that 25% of the lot coverage.

Then you hit that 25% of the lot coverage.

So hopefully that puts it in perspective.

But that's county has a range depending on the size of the lot, going from 10% and then going larger as you get into the actual development.

Go ahead, Councilman.

Thank you, Mayor.

So can we copy that?

We can utilize that.

And that's pretty much what we've done.

Our rural residential and our desert role for that one acre is 25%.

So if we wanted to go and increase that, then we can look at it 25% per acre.

And then that's your lot coverage, which then would expand larger than what county has currently under their code.

Okay.

And I think I mean with some of the with the super large buildings we're seeing pictures of here.

Um if someone wants to build the most fantastic man cave ever, let them knock themselves out.

And if they're using it for some sort of commercial use, we have tools to deal with that.

Don't we do?

Okay.

Yeah, I don't want to be thought police on these guys.

If someone wants to build something ridiculously big like that.

Yeah.

And really where we're seeing that request comes from is a lot of the residents are wanting that larger accessory structure more as they're for horses, barn stable type um uses on the property.

Okay, thank you, Wood.

Uh now, Lloyd, is there any concern for fire?

Like if we have these gigantic structures way out in a rural area.

There's there's building code requirements that still go still go along with the size and the availability of water and whether or not there's hydrants out there.

Well, I'd have to dive back into the building code on that, which I'm not familiar with.

But uh for the most part, that's why you have the rural residential setbacks set larger is uh to provide those buffers between each property.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

And this was just a visual representation of um that that same topic just to kind of help paint the picture of what the accessory structures could look like in comparison to say a 1500 square foot home or a 3800 square foot home.

I want this one.

So we'll we'll go ahead and and breeze through the the animal stuff.

It it seems like um again, we still have some research that we need to do um in order to address that.

Um so we'll just jump into some of the cleanup items.

So really um ultimately what we're doing um, in addition to changing some of those content items, uh, there are a number of more minor edits that we're also making to support those content edits.

So I won't worry you with the details on that.

They range from you know, basically scriveners errors all the way to you know, reformatting sections.

So I don't think on transportation, the feedback that we got initially um from these communities with that was that they did not want to see street lights sidewalks, curb and gutter, um, in some instances paved roads.

Um, in taking a look at that and going um back to the drawing board and and uh uh collaborating with our transportation department, we're proposing a new desert rural roadway cross-section, specifically for these desert rural areas where it has minimal paved width, no curbing gutter, no sidewalks, and no street lights.

Um, those would be the internal kind of roadway circulation within these communities.

Um, however, the the major roadways, the collectors and our serials uh for safety concerns and and transportation requirements, um, those will have to maintain our current um up-to-date standards.

So um that'll conclude part two of our presentation.

So from here, we're gonna be working on finalizing the third draft of the legislative edit.

Um, as we've discussed, you know, we've asked um not only this council but planning and zoning commission a number of questions.

So um, you know, there's still going to be a little bit of time um required in order to kind of wrap that up.

Um, and then also maybe some you know, kind of coordination on our part with management to kind of figure out our next steps from there.

So um basically, as soon as we are, you know, have gotten to a place where we're a little bit more where everything is kind of you know settled out a little bit more.

We will be updating the website um as well as uh making the draft available and and making sure that um even though this is a hundred two-page document that it's clear and um everybody is notified well in advance um where it can be viewed and have adequate time to review it.

So with that, um are there any further questions from us?

I don't see any additional questions.

I just want to thank you for your work.

It's not easy to start and do something like this.

You put a lot of time and effort in, but it's important work.

So thank you for your effort.

We'll continue to work through it and uh be available to uh work with you guys.

So thank you.

Okay.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn.

I got a second.

It's been seconded.

All in favor of voice vote.

All opposed or adjourned.