In response to my article titled “First We See It, Then We Don’t,” on 7/6 Ernie Bunch posted that Brenner’s Hill and Saguaro Hill were included in the 2005 General Plan and the proposed 2016 General Plan as part of the town council’s “wish list” for open space, and therefore any removal/reduction of these two open space parcels from the proposed 2016 General Plan did not have to comply with Arizona’s statutory process for amending General Plans.  In a follow-up email Planning Director Ian Cordwell affirmed the same.

Wrong.  It is against state law for any town council to include their “wish list” for open space in any General Plan.  Arizona Revised Statute 9-461.06(N) specifically states: “N. In applying an open space element or a growth element of a general plan a municipality shall not designate private land or state trust land as open space, recreation, conservation or agriculture unless the municipality receives the written consent of the landowner or provides an alternative, economically viable designation in the general plan or zoning ordinance, allowing at least one residential dwelling per acre. If the landowner is the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce this subsection, a court shall award fees and other expenses to the landowner. A municipality may designate land as open space without complying with the requirements of this subsection if the land was zoned as open space and used as a golf course pursuant to a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to article 6.1 of this chapter before May 1, 2000 and the designation does not impose additional conditions, limitations or restrictions on the golf course, unless the land is state trust land that was not planned and zoned as open space pursuant to title 37, chapter 2, article 5.1.”

How many other parcels of open space are included in the proposed 2016 General Plan that is really only the town council’s “wish list” and not open space at all?  Why are there 1,232 acres of open space missing from Table 4, Open Space Element of the proposed 2016 General Plan?  These 1,232 acres are part of the 4,000 acres of open space the mayor and council are wanting to preserve through a mitigation banking scheme.  Without their designation as open space in the proposed 2016 General Plan, are they open space, or are they just the town council’s “wish list” for open space?

Demanding more than personal opinions from every candidate should be the priority of every Creeker in this election.  If not satisfied with the answer about our open space provided by candidates, Creekers should vote “NO” on the proposed General Plan, Proposition 492.  

Who you cast your ballot for is your voting right.  But, only when Creekers know the facts can Creekers be informed voters on August 30th.   And, the future of Cave Creek depends on every Creeker being an informed voter. 

That’s what’s on my wish list.
Janelle Smith-Haff

If you'd like to post a comment, please remember the rules: be nice, be polite or be deleted.

At tonight’s town council meeting, the mayor and members of town council voted to submit their proposed General Plan to Cave Creek voters for final approval.

The town incurs no penalty for not having a General Plan. 

The proposed General Plan will permanently change Cave Creek in many ways.  Here are some of the ways:

• Decreases property values by increasing density.
• Increases density through the loss/reduction of DR zoning.
• Allows commercial rezoning approvals in residential neighborhoods.

 
Our General Plan should preserve our Cave Creek lifestyle and conform to Arizona law.  In an article dated 1/31/16 appearing under the topic “General Plan” on the website www.cavecreektownhallblog.com it was pointed out that the designated planning agency under Arizona statutes and Cave Creek’s Town Code was the Planning Commission, not the town’s Planning Department.  In that same article it was also pointed out that the Planning Commission members’ approval of Resolution 2016-04 unlawfully delegated the authority of the Planning Commission to the Planning Department. 

Tonight, Resolution 2016-04 was approved by the mayor and members of town council without amending the Resolution unlawfully delegating the authority of the Planning Commission to the Planning Department.

Let’s take our time and get it right.  Vote “NO” on August 30, 2016. 

April 4, 2016

This article involving the  Open Space Agreements and its effect on the 2016 proposed General Plan is posted under the topic "Open Space" on CaveCreekTownHallBlog.
Thanks.

Why are 1,232 acres of open space missing from the proposed General Plan?
Please read the article posted on this blog and titled "The Cave Creek Shuffle" under the topic "Open Space."
Thanks

In response to inquiries, the following definitions for terms used in the General Plan are provided:

PLANNING COMMISSION is the Town of Cave Creek Planning Commission.  The authority of a Planning Commission is based on Arizona statutory law.  [source: Town Ordinance, Appendix A – Glossary of Terms and Definitions, at pg. 16].
 
MIXED USE:  Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A "single site" may include contiguous properties.” [source: Technical Design Guideline – Landscaping at pg. 7].

ARTERIAL ROAD – A major street that is intended to carry the greater portion of through traffic from one area of the TOCC to another and is generally positioned at one mile intervals. Major and minor arterials are designated in the current Town General Plan. [source: Technical Design Guideline – Transportation at pg. 6].
 
COLLECTOR ROAD – A minor street that provides both access service and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. Collector roads are specifically designed to accommodate shorter trips and to feed the arterials. [source: Technical Design Guideline – Transportation at pg. 6].
 
LOCAL ROAD – A minor street that permits direct access to abutting lands and connections to the collector and arterial roads. It offers the lowest level of mobility and contains no bus routes. Service to through traffic movements is deliberately discouraged. [source: Technical Design Guideline – Transportation at pg. 6].
 
PRIVATE STREET - A street not owned or maintained by the TOCC. [source: Technical Design Guideline – Transportation at pg. 6].
 
PUBLIC STREET – A street owned and maintained by the TOCC.  [source: Technical Design Guideline – Transportation at pg. 6].
 
HISTORIC TOWN CORE: The boundaries of the Historic Town Core are generally located between Spur Cross Road on the west and Scopa Trail on the east and the Grapevine Road alignment to the north and Skyline Drive alignment to the south. [source: Technical Design Guideline – Trails, at pg. 5].
 
SITE: Any lot or parcel of land, or contiguous combination of lots and parcels under the same ownership, or unified control, where related site work is to be performed. The subject land shall have access to a public or an approved private street. [source: Technical Design Guideline – Landscaping at pg. 9].
 
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: Areas that are:
1. WASH AREAS: The area within twenty feet (20’) from and including the designated FEMA floodway, which has the presence of a channeled drainage way evidenced by a drainage path with or without vegetation.

2. RIDGE LINE AREAS:  The ridgeline is formed by opposing slopes on a mountain or hill. The ridgeline area to be preserved is that area from the ridgeline to a distance of fifty feet (50’) from the ridgeline.

3. PEAK AREAS: The peak is the top point of a mountain or hill formed by opposing slopes from all sides. The peak area to be preserved is that area from the peak to a distance of one hundred feet (100’) from the peak.

4. STEEP SLOPES: Any land that has a slope of twenty percent (20%) or more.
 
Janelle Smith-Haff
02/13/2016

Approval of General Plan Draft:

On January 28, 2016 the Planning Commission submitted a formal request to the mayor and town council members asking for their approval of the General Plan drafted by Planning Department and Planning Commission members.  Because Arizona state law requires that the General Plan be approved by residents, the Planning Commission recommended the mayor and town council members approve Resolution 2016-04 setting an August 30, 2016 date for voter approval of the General Plan by residents.

Approval for Mixed-Use in Residential Zones and Approval for Walled-In Subdivision Developments:

The General Plan approved by the Planning Commission members includes the following provision:  “B.2. Allow non-residential land uses that are comparable to and compatible with surrounding development.”

Additionally, the General Plan approved by the Planning Commission now allows walled-in subdivision developments to be built in Cave Creek.  The provision that was deleted by the Planning Commission is the provision that has prohibited walled-in subdivision developments in Cave Creek to the present time.  The Planning Commission’s deleted provision appears at p. 23 and stated:  “Conserving the dispersed single family housing development pattern that is not compatible with mixed-use, walled developments.”

Inadequate Public Input:

Arizona law requires the Planning Commission to conduct public meetings and hearings during its drafting of the General Plan.  The claim by numerous residents is that January 28, 2016 was the first occasion for public input in front of Planning Commission members.  The Planning Commission has denied that claim. Resolution R2016-04, approved by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the mayor and members of town council on January 28, 2016, recites that public input was afforded to residents through two public meetings as well as a public hearing before the Planning Commission’s approval of the General Plan draft on January 28, 2016. However, there is no evidence of residents being afforded public input at two public meetings as well as a public hearing. 

The town’s website establishes that the first occasion for public input in front of Planning Commission members on the General Plan was January 28, 2016 – the date the General Plan draft was approved by the Planning Commission.  The town’s website reflects the following General Plan hearing dates and what transpired on those dates: 

March 19, 2015 –There are no minutes reflecting a Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 2015. 
April 2, 2015 – There was no Planning Commission meeting on this date.
April 16, 2015 – Cancelled.  Lack of quorum.
May 20, 2015 – Cancelled.  Continued to 9/17.
September 17, 2015 – Cancelled.  No reason stated.
September 24, 2015 – Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission  at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
October 1, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission  at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
November 19, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission  at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
December 3, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission  at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
December 17, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission  at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
January 28, 2016 – During the regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission approved the proposed General Plan and forwarded the draft to the mayor and town council members.

Planning Agency:

Not to be confused with the town’s Planning Department of which Ian Cordwell is the Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission is the designated planning agency under Arizona statutes and Cave Creek’s Town Code.  Ian Cordwell is not a Planning Commission member.  These facts were affirmed by the Planning Commission members during the January 28, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. 

So why, with full acknowledgment of their statutory duty as the town’s planning agency, did the Planning Commission members approve Resolution 2016-04 which designates the Planning Department as the town’s planning agency? 

In the Planning Commission’s rush to approve the General Plan draft and accompanying Resolution the Planning Commission members delegated their statutory requirements to the town’s Planning Department employees; something they have no legal authority to do. 

Amendments to the approved General Plan draft:

There were a number of amendments to the General Plan draft submitted by Planning Commission members during the January 28, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.  Because of the number of amendments, the new draft incorporating the amendments will have pages deleted and sections of text, sentences, and words deleted, added, and/or removed, and this will result in the renumbering of pages throughout the entire document.

In spite of this, the Planning Commission instructed town staff to forward the new draft directly to the mayor and members of town council without further review by the Planning Commission members.  This results in a General Plan that the Planning Commission has not reviewed prior to submission to the mayor and members of town council. 

The abdication to town staff of the Planning Commission’s legal responsibility with respect to the General Plan is especially egregious due to the fact that all Planning Commission members are fully aware of errors that were made in the first draft prepared by town staff.  One example of those errors involves the Circulation maps, as the map details are inconsistent with the text details in the General Plan. 

Dissolution of Planning Commission:

The General Plan and Resolution 2016-04 approved by the members of the Planning Commission on January 28, 2016 exhibits a sweeping overhaul of the way future governance is to be conducted in this town. 

Under Arizona law and the town’s present form of governance, the Planning Commission is the planning agency vested with oversight in matters related to land use, including planning, zoning, etc.
As discussed above, however, due to the Planning Commission’s approval of the draft General Plan and Resolution 2016-04, the planning agency will be the town’s Planning Department, not the Planning Commission.  Thus, the legislative authority the Planning Commission once exercised in land use issues will now be exercised solely by staff in the town’s Planning Department.

There is no legitimate, legal way to equivocate or rationalize the Planning Commission’s delegation of its statutory authority.  Town staff is not the planning agency, nor does it have or share any of the powers and responsibilities which Arizona law confers on the Planning Commission. Yet, that is apparently what has occurred and has occurred with knowing compliance by Planning Commission members.

The General Plan is the document that will direct the development of Cave Creek for the next decade.  If approved by the mayor and members of town council, the next decade will bring mixed-use in residential neighborhoods and permit walled-in subdivision communities to be built in Cave Creek. 

If you don’t share this vision of Cave Creek a “no” vote on the General Plan is one way to prevent this from occurring.

Share your opinions with your Cave Creek neighbors and with the mayor and members of town council.  Their email addresses are: [email protected];  SL[email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Janelle Smith-Haff
1/31/2016
[email protected]
 
Share your thoughts, questions, or comments below.  Just remember the rules: Be nice … be honest … or be deleted.

(All social media links are not currently active.  To leave a comment or to read the comments of others please use "Comments" button.)