Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Desert Rural Overview topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surprise council reviews 'Desert Rural' zoning draft; seeks direction on buffers, animals and design standards
Summary
At a city work session, staff asked the Surprise City Council for direction on a draft "Desert Rural" zoning district covering buffer measurement, accessory structures, livestock limits and a pared-down rural street section; staff will post a third draft for further public review.
A staff presentation at a Surprise City Council work session reviewed a proposed "Desert Rural" zoning text amendment that would create a new residential district and change setback, design, animal and transportation rules to preserve a rural character while accommodating development.
The planner leading the briefing asked the council to clarify how buffer setbacks should be measured where a roadway separates Desert Rural from new subdivisions: "Should the measurement be from the street center line... or does that right of way dedication get counted into that as well?" the presenter said, seeking council direction on whether right-of-way widths should count toward a proposed 100-foot separation.
The question drew quick council reaction. "The idea with Desert Rural is to keep it rural and keep it open space," said Councilman Judd, who argued against counting the roadway toward the buffer. Several other members expressed support for preserving the full landscape separation shown in outreach materials.
Staff described other key elements of the draft: permitting portable storage containers as accessory structures in the district, expanding driveway and driveway-surface options to allow decomposed granite and similar treatments, and proposing a Desert Rural internal roadway cross-section with minimal paving, no curb and gutter, no sidewalks and no street lights (collectors and arterials would retain standard safety features).
On accessory structures, staff said the draft removes the current 3,000-square-foot cap and that planners were proposing a 6,000-square-foot cap with a conditional-use review process for larger requests. Planning staff noted a separate option is to govern by lot-coverage (the draft and county comparators use a 25% lot-coverage figure on one-acre lots).
On livestock, staff told the council that community feedback was mixed and that a compromise proposal would distinguish large and medium animals and set an exchangeable ratio (staff described "one large and six medium animals per half acre of space dedicated to the keeping of these animals"). Council members pressed staff for more data and said they wanted greater outreach to affected residents.
Staff said enforcement would be complaint-driven — animal-control and code-enforcement would respond to reports rather than undertake routine patrols — and emphasized the aim is to provide remedies for neighbor complaints rather than continuous inspections.
The meeting concluded without a formal vote on the text amendment; staff said they will finalize a third draft, post the legislative edits and continue outreach so residents can review the full proposal.
