Regular City Council Work Session: Desert Rural Zoning Text Amendment – May 19, 2026
Regular City Council Work Session: Desert Rural Zoning Text Amendment – May 19, 2026
The Surprise City Council held a work session on May 19, 2026, to continue discussion on a zoning text amendment (FS25-0039) creating a new Desert Rural residential district. The session focused on feedback from the development community and residents regarding land use buffers, design standards, animal regulations, and transportation. No formal votes were taken; staff received direction to finalize a third draft.
Discussion Items
-
Land Use Buffer Measurement: Staff presented a discrepancy between prior presentations and the draft code regarding whether road right-of-way counts toward the required setback between Desert Rural and adjacent subdivisions. Council consensus: the buffer should be measured from the subdivision boundary, excluding the roadway width. Councilman Judd stated the road should not count because the intent is to preserve open space. Councilman Haney confirmed the community was presented with a landscape separation in addition to the roadway.
-
Design Standards – Accessory Structures: Feedback requested allowing storage containers in Desert Rural, increasing the maximum accessory structure size (currently 3,000 sq ft), and removing architectural compatibility requirements. Staff proposed a 6,000 sq ft cap, but the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested a conditional use permit for larger structures. Council discussed using lot coverage (25% for one-acre lots) instead of a fixed cap, referencing Maricopa County’s approach. Councilman Judd favored no cap beyond lot coverage; Councilman Hastings asked for comparative data from other jurisdictions.
-
Design Standards – Driveways: Staff proposed allowing up to two driveways per lot (up from one) to balance rural needs with transportation safety (limiting conflicting left turns). Councilman Judd argued for no limit, citing the rural character and low traffic. Councilman Haney supported two driveways unless residents push for more. Councilman Hastings noted that future changes could impact existing residents. Council leaned toward the two-driveway limit but remained open to future adjustments.
-
Landscaping and Fencing: Requests to allow decorative antique farm equipment (not considered blight) and to expand fencing materials to include barbed wire, chain link, etc. Staff proposed language to permit these in Desert Rural. No council objections.
-
Animal Regulations: Residents found current livestock rules (one animal per half acre, no size distinction) too strict. Staff proposed a new ratio: one large livestock animal (e.g., horse) and six medium animals (e.g., goats) per half-acre of dedicated space, with an exchange rate of one large to two medium. Councilman Judd cited Maricopa County’s recent removal of animal limits and argued for no restrictions. Councilman Haney noted conflicting feedback from residents (some wanted more, some wanted caps) and suggested more resident workshops. Staff agreed to research further and revisit.
-
Transportation Standards: Residents opposed streetlights, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and paved roads in Desert Rural. Staff, with transportation department, proposed a new cross-section for internal roads: minimal paved width, no curbs or sidewalks, no street lights. Major roads (collectors, arterials) will maintain current standards. No council objections.
Key Outcomes
- Direction on Buffer: The land use buffer setback between Desert Rural and adjacent subdivisions shall not include the roadway width; it is measured from the subdivision boundary.
- Direction on Accessory Structures: Council generally favored regulating accessory structure size by lot coverage (25%) rather than a fixed square footage cap. Staff will remove the 6,000 sq ft cap and rely on lot coverage, but will ensure language prevents commercial uses.
- Direction on Driveways: The limit of two driveways per lot in Desert Rural is acceptable to council; staff will include this in the draft.
- Direction on Animals: No final decision; staff will research further (reviewing county and state guidance, Cave Creek’s code) and conduct additional community outreach before proposing revised regulations.
- Next Steps: Staff will incorporate feedback into a third draft, update the city website, and provide the draft for public review. A future work session is anticipated.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com