Cave Creek Council Rejects Carefree Casa Rezoning 4-3 After Community Opposition

Council Denies Area 18 Mixed-Use Rezoning After Dismissing Applicant's Density Claims and Conditions Inconsistencies

On January 18, 2023, the Cave Creek Town Council voted 4-3 to reject the first reading of a zone-change ordinance for a 1.4-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Barbie Lane and 53rd Street, denying developer Janet Moore's application to rezone from Desert Rural (DR-43) to Commercial Buffer (CB) for a mixed-use apartment and office project dubbed Carefree Casa. The decision came after more than two hours of heated testimony from over a dozen residents and marked a significant reversal from the Planning Commission's 6-1 recommendation for approval—though with conditions that council's version had stripped away.

The vote exposed deep fractures over Area 18, a 30-acre swath designated for mixed-use development in a 2010 general plan amendment and reaffirmed in 2021, and prompted council to direct the Planning Commission to work with residents on a comprehensive framework for the entire area before future applications proceed.

Key Speeches

"We have nothing to do with Zen. I'm only coming before you as a zoning change. I'm coming for a zoning change that was part of the plan—907 people voted for the general plan. They're not in this room right now, but they voted for this. They've already approved it." — Janet Moore, applicant

"The applicant began construction without obtaining a work permit. A stop work notice was issued. The applicant was cited and fined on November 17th. The applicant representative stated that the property to the east is an artist's studio and he has told me he is fine doing this rezoning request. That is not true. Carlos Page is here today. He is a nationally recognized artist who lives in that property." — Karen Teats, Saguaro West resident and opposition leader

"There's too many unknowns in this plan, there are too many inconsistencies, there are too many variables. I don't understand why the condition wasn't applied to this project perhaps just because of the size, but that should have been explained and it was eliminated from this proposal for some reason that we're not sure of." — Vice Mayor Kathryn Royer

"So I would suggest that no matter what happens on this vote, that we take the Planning Commission to work with the staff and try to figure out what is the right thing to do in this area because it's not just this property, there are still seven other properties. One way or the other they're going to go through this. Let's figure out what the folks there can live with." — Councilmember Dusty Rhoades

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Moore presented the property as a 1.4-acre blighted former commercial space that she purchased to develop as rental apartments with a commercial office component. She argued the property is already mixed-use zoned and was designated for such use in 2010 and 2021 general plan amendments. She emphasized the project would bring tax revenue to sustain the town's fire department and open-space preservation and would buffer the high-traffic commercial uses (Abrazo Hospital, Sprouts, Tractor Supply) from the adjacent Saguaro West residential neighborhood by stepping density down via commercial-buffer zoning rather than high-density retail.

• Staff recommendation: Luke Drees (Planning Director) and Stephen Perales (Planning Staff) presented the application as consistent with Area 18's mixed-use designation and explained that the general plan identifies mixed-use without a per-acre density cap (unlike the Multiple Residential land-use classification, which is capped at 8 dwelling units per acre). They noted the applicant has not yet submitted a site plan and the project would require future department review. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval with a condition limiting uses to "residential rental units" and "commercial office suites." However, the ordinance brought before council on January 18 omitted the "commercial office suites" restriction, applying only the residential rental limitation.

• Public comment: Nine speakers testified over approximately 90 minutes. Opponents included Julie Goldhammer (52nd Street resident, real-estate background), Mike Johnson (52nd Street), Jill Andrews (Markway resident), Carol Perry (Saguaro West, long-term resident citing 1989 annexation vote and 2000 Spur Cross Conservation election), and Mark Cloud (Saguaro West, Cave Creek Unified Schools employee). Gary Sprague (Maricopa County resident at 53rd Street) spoke against. One resident spoke briefly in favor of owner-occupied housing over rentals. Karen Teats (Saguaro West resident and opposition organizer) delivered a 15-minute structured testimony citing the October 31 permit violation, misrepresentation of neighbor Carlos Page's support, and inconsistencies between the Planning Commission motion and council version.

• Council discussion: Tom Augherton expressed support for the project as consistent with the 2010 general plan amendment process and said commercial-buffer zoning was a "taper down" from high-traffic retail that was originally envisioned for Area 18. He moved approval. Councilmember Bunch seconded to enable discussion. Councilmember Augustine lamented the loss of the Windmill House historic property and urged staff to preserve "the essence of Cave Creek" during zoning changes. Kathryn Royer stated she could not approve due to unknowns, inconsistencies, and the removal of commercial-office conditions that had provided residents some protection from undefined density. Councilmember McGuire said he could not support the project without clarity on the final plan. Dusty Rhoades acknowledged Area 18 extends beyond this parcel and proposed the Planning Commission work with residents to define what mixed-use could accommodate in that area before future applications. Robert Morris voted no.

• Vote: The motion to approve first reading of Ordinance O 2023-01 failed 3-4.

  • Yes (3): Tom Augherton, Councilmember Bunch, Councilmember McGuire
  • No (4): Cynthia Driskell, Dusty Rhoades, Kathryn Royer, Robert Morris

Opposition

Number of speakers: 9 public speakers; Karen Teats represented additional residents; over 400 Cave Creek residents signed a petition opposing the rezoning.

Main concerns:

1. Undefined density and commercial buffer ambiguity: The CB zoning classification lacks a per-acre density cap, and opponents noted the term "commercial buffer" has been a source of "consternation and concern" to Planning Commissioners themselves (per Board Chair Boris, October 20, 2022). No clear limit on the number of apartments or office suites was disclosed by the applicant, despite Planning Commissioner Tim Anderson directly asking at the November 17 hearing. Applicant declined to specify, citing the commercial-buffer allowance. Opponents worry the project could eventually accommodate far more units than the 8-per-acre cap of Multiple Residential zoning.

2. Removal of Planning Commission conditions: The Planning Commission motion (November 17, 2022) recommended approval conditional on uses being limited to "residential rental units" and "commercial office suites." However, the ordinance brought to council on January 18 removed the "commercial office suites" restriction, leaving only the residential-rental limit. Opponents viewed this as a loss of protections and questioned why the same conditions applied to the neighboring Zen project (also seeking CB rezoning for apartments) were not carried forward to this application.

3. Traffic and infrastructure inadequacy: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) data cited by Teats show single-family residences generate 9.4 car trips per day, while multi-residential units average 6.7 trips per dwelling unit. The intersection of Cave Creek Road and Carefree Highway was already congested; drivers were using 52nd Street as an alternate route, prompting installation of three stop signs at 52nd and Zenith. A fatality accident occurred in the area within the week prior to the hearing. Opponents questioned whether the town's emergency services and road infrastructure could handle additional density.

4. Misrepresentation of neighbor support: Moore claimed in her presentation that the neighbor to the west (the artist property to the east, Carlos Page) had no objection. Page attended the hearing and testified in opposition, contradicting Moore's claim. Karen Teats cited Page 29, lines 1-36 to 1-362 of the Planning Commission minutes as containing the false assertion.

5. Permit violation and credibility concern: Moore began stucco work on the property on October 31, 2022, without obtaining a work permit. A stop work notice was issued, and the applicant was cited and fined. While Moore attributed this to ignorance of permitting rules, opponents viewed it as a sign of disrespect for town processes.

6. Density incompatibility with established residential neighborhoods: Saguaro West is one of the oldest Cave Creek residential subdivisions, with homes on three-quarters of an acre or larger, and many residents have lived there for decades. Apartments, especially rentals, were characterized as introducing transient populations that generate higher police calls, noise, and activity. Jill Andrews emphasized loss of privacy inherent in living next to a multi-story building.

7. Water, dark-sky, and lifestyle concerns: While Moore countered some claims (e.g., that Phoenix supplies water, so town supplies would not be strained), opponents raised environmental and quality-of-life issues. Two-story buildings would disrupt dark skies and views. Lighting required for apartment safety would further compromise the night sky that residents had valued.

Most compelling arguments:

• Karen Teats's meticulously documented 15-minute presentation, citing transcript page numbers and Planning Commission audio, demonstrated the inconsistency between the conditions the Planning Commission voted to impose (November 17) and what council was being asked to approve (January 18). This raised questions about process integrity.
• Julie Goldhammer's observation that "commercial buffer" does not appear anywhere in the general plan and her recommendation to rezone to Multiple Residential (MR) instead, which would impose an 8-unit-per-acre cap, provided council with a concrete alternative framing.
• Carol Perry's historical testimony about the 1989 annexation and 2000 Spur Cross Conservation election vote (where Saguaro West residents had to fight for provisional ballots) established long-term community commitment and investment in Cave Creek governance.
• Mark Cloud's statement that even a Planning Commissioner admitted confusion about whether the general plan allowed 8 units per acre and noted he voted for the general plan without fully understanding the implications, lending credibility to residents' concerns about unclear language.

Organized groups: Saguaro West Homeowners' Association represented by Carol Perry and Karen Teats; 400-signature petition circulated in November 2022 opposing the rezoning.

Support

Number of speakers: Approximately 2 brief comments supporting the project or its proponent; Tom Augherton and Councilmember Bunch voted yes.

Main arguments:

1. Consistency with 2010 and 2021 general plan amendments: Moore emphasized that Area 18 mixed-use designation was approved after multi-year neighborhood meetings in 2010 and reaffirmed by voters in 2021. Council directed staff in 2010 to bring forward Area 18 due to the town's need for "areas where commercial development is a viable option" to generate revenue for land preservation and services.

2. Tax revenue necessity: Moore argued that slow growth requires funding to sustain preservation of 3,300 acres (Cave Creek Rec Park and Spur Cross), fire department operations, and infrastructure. Only 2% of Cave Creek land is commercial; the town had lost approximately $4 million in tax revenue from a Home Depot decision in prior years.

3. Appropriate buffering: Rather than high-traffic retail (which had originally been contemplated for Area 18), commercial-buffer zoning with residential apartments provides a softer transition from the intense commercial uses (Abrazo Hospital, Sprouts, Tractor Supply) to the Saguaro West residential zone. This is consistent with sound zoning practice (density stepping down from major arterials).

4. Applicant credibility: Moore presented herself as a long-time Cave Creek resident, past member of the town's Preservation Committee, and experienced realtor who had invested personal funds in the property and hired a well-regarded local builder (Don Fredericks) to ensure design quality.

Councilmember arguments in support:

• Tom Augherton stated he had "absolutely" been against the project initially but reconsidered because CB zoning was a "taper down" from what was originally envisioned (high-traffic retail) and is therefore more appropriate for the location.

Project Details

• Case number: Z-22-03
• Applicant / Developer: Janet Moore, doing business as Carefree Casa of Cave Creek LLC and More Realty Group
• Local builder: Don Fredericks
• Location / Address: Northwest corner of Barbie Lane and 53rd Street, Cave Creek, Arizona
• APN: 211-46-027a
• Current zoning: Desert Rural (DR-43)
• Proposed zoning: Commercial Buffer (CB)
• Parcel size: Approximately 1.4 acres
• Proposed uses: Residential rental apartments with a commercial office component
• Conceptual plan details: Moore stated the property was previously used as a bed-and-breakfast (pre-2000), later as office space on the lower level, and has three existing rental units in a former structure. The applicant had prepared a conceptual site plan with a surveyor and builder (Don Fredericks) but had not submitted a formal site plan or view application, citing the cost of full design before zoning approval.
• Density and unit count: Applicant did not disclose a specific unit count, stating only that she had a "proposal" with apartments. No three-bedroom units were mentioned. She contrasted her proposal with the neighboring Zen application, which she claimed would have had excessive density and poor parking/setback design.
• Planning Commission recommendation: Approved 6-1 on November 17, 2022, with the condition: "Residential uses shall be limited to residential rental units. Residential subdivision prohibited, including but not limited to condominium plots, town on plats, and single-family residential lots."
• Condition discrepancy: The Planning Commission motion as recorded included language limiting commercial uses to "commercial office suites," but the ordinance brought before council on January 18 omitted this language, limiting only residential uses. No explanation was provided for the removal.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 3-4 (Failed)
• Yes (3): Councilmember Tom Augherton, Councilmember Cynthia Driskell [Editor note: Cynthia Driskell vote is not clearly stated in transcript; based on context, Tom Augherton and Bunch moved/seconded; McGuire is listed as yes], Councilmember Thomas McGuire [note: transcript shows Tom Augherton made motion, Bunch seconded; votes recorded as Tom Augherton yes, Bunch yes, McGuire yes]
• No (4): Councilmember Joe Freedman [absent; voting pattern unclear], Councilmember Dusty Rhoades, Vice Mayor Kathryn Royer, Mayor Robert Morris
• Final tally clarification per roll call: Tom Augherton (yes), Councilmember Bunch (yes), Councilmember McGuire (yes), Dusty Rhoades (no), Kathryn Royer (no), Robert Morris (no). One additional council member's vote was recorded as "no," bringing the total to 4 opposed. [Note: Transcript shows "council member no" after McGuire yes, then "councilmember Dusty Rhoades yes" (no), "vice mayor Roy no," "mayor Robert Morris no," which totals 3 yes, 4 no.]

Outcome & Next Steps

The first reading of Ordinance O 2023-01 was denied. No second reading will be scheduled unless a new motion is brought forward in a future meeting.

As a result of the vote and council discussion, Dusty Rhoades proposed and council agreed that the Planning Commission, in coordination with staff and town residents, should conduct a comprehensive study of Area 18 to establish clear parameters for what types of mixed-use development are compatible with the area's character and existing neighborhoods before future rezoning applications are considered. Dusty Rhoades emphasized this should be an open process with resident participation, not a closed Planning Commission meeting.

The applicant, under town zoning ordinance rules, is barred from resubmitting a similar application for one year from the date of denial (January 18, 2024, at earliest). Moore indicated she could either wait a year and reapply or pursue a smaller development plan permitted under the existing DR-43 zoning (single-family home, accessory dwelling unit).

Controversies & Context

Permit violation: Moore admitted to stuccoing the property on October 31, 2022, without first obtaining a work permit. A stop work notice was issued, and the applicant was cited and fined. Moore claimed ignorance of permitting requirements and said she would have obtained the permit earlier if she had known. Opponents cited this as evidence of disrespect for town processes; Moore characterized it as a minor administrative issue.

Misrepresentation of neighbor support: Moore stated in her presentation and in Planning Commission testimony (per the November 17 minutes, page 29, lines 1-36 to 1-362) that her neighbor Carlos Page (artist, adjacent property to the east) was in favor of the rezoning. Page attended the council hearing and testified that this was false and that he was opposed. Teats emphasized this credibility issue, noting Page is a "nationally recognized artist" and long-term property owner who had spent over two years bringing his live-work studio into compliance with desert-rural building codes. The discrepancy raised questions about the accuracy of Moore's other claims.

Petition authenticity: Moore dismissed the 400-signature petition, noting that some signers may have been from Maricopa County, Peoria, or Scottsdale, and that some signed without reading what they were signing. She claimed she called Mayor Francia to verify his vote and learned he had signed under social pressure at a Christmas party despite initially voting for the general plan. Opponents, however, presented the petition as evidence of broad community concern within and near Cave Creek.

Inconsistency between Planning Commission and council versions: Karen Teats identified a significant process discrepancy: the Planning Commission voted (November 17, 2022) to recommend approval with a condition limiting commercial use to "commercial office suites," but the ordinance brought before council on January 18 removed this language entirely, leaving only the residential-rental cap. Teats noted that an identical application by Zen (for apartments in CB zoning on the property directly across the street) had received similar Planning Commission conditions, including landscape buffers and building-setback restrictions, which were not carried forward to the Carefree Casa ordinance. She questioned why protections were unequally applied and whether the removal of conditions was authorized or explained.

"Commercial Buffer" zoning ambiguity: Multiple speakers (Teats, Goldhammer, Julie Goldhammer) highlighted that "commercial buffer" is undefined in town ordinances and does not appear in the general plan, unlike "mixed-use" or "multiple residential." The term has been a source of confusion and contention among Planning Commissioners themselves. Goldhammer recommended the applicant be required to rezone to Multiple Residential (MR) instead, which would cap density at 8 units per acre and eliminate ambiguity. The absence of a density cap in CB zoning, combined with the removal of commercial-office restrictions, left residents with uncertainty about what could ultimately be built.

State land preemption risk: Planning Director Drees explained that the town's zoning ordinance constrains multiple-residential zoning (capped at 8 units per acre) due to a prior trade-off with the Arizona State Land Department. During annexation agreements to preserve open space in Rogers Wash, Willow Springs, and Apache Wash, the town had rezoned state land parcels along Carefree Highway between 28th and 32nd Streets to higher density and intensity in exchange for open-space preservation. The State Land Department subsequently notified the town that removing multiple-residential units from the commercial-buffer zoning in those areas could trigger a Proposition 207 (Private Property Rights Protection Act) claim for diminution of value. This historical constraint explained why the zoning code and general plan classifications do not align perfectly—a point of frustration for residents seeking clarity.

Transience and quality-of-life concerns: While Moore asserted she had been a landlord since 1985 and carefully selected tenants, opponents emphasized that rental apartments typically produce higher turnover, increased police calls, and ancillary impacts (noise, light, traffic from friends and visitors) compared to owner-occupied homes. Jill Andrews posed a poignant question: "Why do you think we live out here?" referring to the desire for privacy and a quieter lifestyle that apartments would disrupt.

Fire station and infrastructure strain: Opponents questioned whether the town's fire department and emergency services could adequately serve additional density. Mark Cloud noted that firefighters at the hearing had expressed concerns about response times during construction or operational strain from added demand.

Windmill House loss: Councilmember Augustine delivered a brief lamentation about the recent demolition of the Windmill House, an original Cave Creek homestead that had been listed by Moore and could have served as a visitor center or museum but was instead demolished to make way for infill development. Augustine noted that "Cave Creek changes one parcel at a time" and appealed for staff to preserve "the essence of Cave Creek" during zoning changes. While not directly related to Carefree Casa, this comment highlighted a broader tension between revenue-generating development and historic preservation.

Duration

• This item (Area 18 zone change): Approximately 2.5 hours (opening presentations, public comment, council discussion, and vote)
• Total meeting: Approximately 4 hours (including fire station remodel presentation and utilities crane truck purchase)

Other Notable Items

Fire Station Remodel Project: Council approved the Planning Commission to proceed with completion of the design (currently at 30%) and request for proposal (RFP) for contractor bids on a remodel of the fire station purchased in January 2022. The project must be upgraded to meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and includes new apparatus bays with exhaust evacuation, gender-neutral living quarters, ADA-compliant bathroom, and fitness area. Initial budget of $1.45 million was based on $215 per square foot (early 2021 estimate); recent comparables cost $550 per square foot. Architect Gerald Adams (Perlman) and Fire Director Jim Ford presented elevations showing a front entry with "Cave Creek character" while minimizing expansion to the existing footprint. Council discussion centered on whether firefighters would remain on-site during construction (unknown; either option affects timeline and cost). A backup generator grant application is being pursued jointly with Daisy Mountain Fire. Staff recommended proceeding with RFP before seeking new appropriations. Vote: Approved for design completion and RFP process (no formal vote recorded, but consensus indicated).

Utilities Crane Truck Purchase: Council unanimously approved authorization for the town manager to purchase a fiscal year 2023 crane truck for the utilities department maintenance group using state procurement contracts or best available pricing, for up to $100,000. Original budget estimate of $85,000 had escalated to $100,000 due to material-cost inflation; the gap was to be bridged using existing operational maintenance reserves. The vehicle market has been constrained; a chassis quote was offered but only valid if the town issued a purchase order within days. Vote: 7-0 (Tom Augherton, Bunch, Elkmont [possibly a transcription artifact], McGuire, Dusty Rhoades, Kathryn Royer, Robert Morris all yes).

Abrazo Hospital Helicopter Medevac Non-Issue: Robert Morris reported that Abrazo Hospital and a PMC company had posted notice of a public meeting regarding helicopter medevac landings at the hospital without notifying the town or council. The town had previously opposed medevac landings during hospital approval. The mayor sent a letter reaffirming the town's opposition. The hospital CEO apologized; the public meeting was cancelled. The hospital indicated no commitment to proceed and would consult with town staff before scheduling any future discussions. Status: Tabled as a non-issue; no further action anticipated unless staff initiates consultation.