Cave Creek approves Beverly Drive commercial rezoning 5-1, rejects Planning Commission reduction
CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA — April 28, 2016

Cave Creek approves Beverly Drive commercial rezoning 5-1, rejects Planning Commission reduction

Council approved controversial general commercial rezoning for Beverly Drive area and rejected a proposal to reduce Planning Commission membership from 7 to 5 members following substantial public opposition.

Council Rejects Planning Commission Cut but Approves Contested Beverly Drive Rezoning After Heated Debate

Cave Creek's April 28, 2016 council meeting delivered a split outcome on two consequential governance decisions. The council voted 5–1 to rezone parcels at the northwest corner of Beverly Drive and Ocean View to General Commercial zoning, overriding strong objections about inadequate residential protections. Minutes later, it decisively defeated a motion to shrink the Planning Commission from 7 to 5 members, voting 3–4 after nearly two hours of public testimony from residents and former commissioners who warned that downsizing would undermine citizen representation and development review quality.

The two votes bookended a meeting that exposed fractures in council thinking about growth management and governance structure. Councilman Jerkins emerged as the lone dissenter on the rezoning and joined the majority against the Planning Commission reduction, while Councilman Bunch proposed the commission cut and supported the Beverly Drive rezoning on economic grounds.

Beverly Drive Commercial Rezoning

Applicant Presentation

Staff presented the rezoning of parcels described as located at the northwest corner of Beverly Drive and Ocean View. The item was Ordinance 2014-2-12. No attorney for the applicant was identified in the transcript. The applicant had previously presented the matter and requested general commercial zoning. Staff noted that the applicant had been advised of the uses allowed under the general commercial designation and the site plan would return to the Planning Commission for further review.

Council Discussion

Councilman Bunch opened with support for the rezoning.

"I think we will over this last time how it's going to go but I support it because where they said this is an important part of you forward became creek without development opportunities that could make for a pretty strong economic benefit from counseling this comes with it." — Councilman Bunch

He acknowledged changes from the originally presented concept but framed the rezoning as essential to Cave Creek's economic future.

Councilman Jerkins offered the motion's sharpest critique, arguing that the rezoning lacked protections comparable to commercial buffer zoning used along Carefree Highway. He stressed that once a parcel is zoned General Commercial, the Planning Commission and council have limited ability to refuse a developer's proposal if it meets general commercial guidelines.

"I wasn't in favor visit the periphery and I'm not going to support at this time it's regardless of what's drawn on me on the depiction of what could go into this property all this does is resumed at the general commercial it doesn't ensure the tractor supply's when I come there it doesn't need to be sure that there's going to be any protection setbacks or whatever associated written protecting the resin that are near this from the impact of development and sweet we were very careful and I think in the what was done along the north side of carefree highway to ensure some protection of the residents of the residential residents on the north side a special area to plan by virtue of the fact that we adopted a specific plan with different requirements and made it commercial buffer none of those protections are in place here." — Councilman Jerkins elaborated on his concern that the town should not solve fiscal problems by placing burdens on a small subset of residents:

"and sweet we were very careful and I think in the what was done along the north side of carefree highway to ensure some protection of the residents of the residential residents on the north side a special area to plan by virtue of the fact that we adopted a specific plan with different requirements and made it commercial buffer none of those protections are in place here and this council I gentlemen I think we need to be mindful of our responsibility to need honor dress the financial woes of the town by placing the burden of those loads largely on the backs of a small subset of the people we can't solve the town's problems on the backs of just a few residents when we make decisions about me sewing we have to be very mindful of the large impact that is half those decisions can have our and will have in this case on a very small number of the folks in town." — Councilman Jerkins

A council member (identified in the brief as supporting the item) noted that rezoning and site plan review were separate processes and that setbacks, architecture, and disturbance issues would be addressed when the site plan returned to the Planning Commission. Jerkins countered that this framing offered false comfort: once zoning is General Commercial, the council has "very little leeway in justifiably refusing a developer."

The key distinction Jerkins pressed was between General Commercial and Commercial Buffer. He argued that the allowed uses differ materially between the two designations, with General Commercial permitting roughly 24 uses while Commercial Buffer is more restrictive. The director of planning (referenced in the transcript but not named) confirmed that the difference had "less to do with setbacks than the allowed uses" and explained that Commercial Buffer was adopted in the Carefree Highway special area plan to provide "an actual buffer to those residences."

One council member asked whether the applicant had engaged with local residents. Jerkins replied that he had been approached by one resident who was in favor, and had conversations with "a couple others" but that was "the extent of the conversations I've had with residents." He also questioned whether conditional rezoning might be more appropriate, but was told that the applicant was requesting General Commercial zoning and staff had notified them of the allowed uses; the council was asked to decide whether to grant General Commercial or not.

Jerkins restated his position that Commercial Buffer would be more appropriate and that the time to ensure residential protections was now, at the rezoning stage, not later during site plan review:

"I'm suggesting that commercial buffer would be more appropriate and here's my reasoning okay once this becomes general commercial other than simply wanting something the Planning Commission and the council has very little leeway in justifiably refusing a developer the setbacks associated with general commercial developer comes in here and proposes a development that needs the guidelines in general commercial okay there's that's what's going to happen on that piece of property now is the time when considering rezoning to ensure that future actions they provide the benefits of setbacks and such to the residents there that are affected by development in this area to simply say to ourselves but it's going to come back to council and it's going to come back to the planning and zoning and doesn't guarantee there's going to be any protection general commercial has completely different set of guidelines architectural setbacks and everything else and there's commercial bumper." — Councilman Jerkins

Another council member questioned what Jerkins would prefer if not General Commercial. Jerkins indicated Commercial Buffer, mixed-use residential, or other options should be considered.

Vote Outcome

Final: 5–1
Yes: Councilman Bunch, Councilwoman Rike, and three others (names not fully stated in transcript)
No: Councilman Jerkins

The motion passed and the rezoning to General Commercial was approved on second reading.

Project Details

Planning Commission Membership Reduction Proposal

Applicant/Proposer Presentation

Councilman Bunch brought Ordinance 2014-11 to reduce Planning Commission membership from 7 to 5. He framed the proposal as a response to staffing constraints.

"a problem going back seven or eight years ago we had five members in the planning department there were five people in there goes he and of course there was Larry sorry there was family there was number E and Luke was in there as well we had people now currently I think the allocation is three and a half is a Corinthian yeah you've got you baby Luke and m / a half-time 3831 half Amery half of marine EMP which is better than a lie half of a lot of people the issue back then was with seven people we were fairly busy at the time of the development and there was in on the amount of time spent with the staff and trying to figure out answers to the questions that the de planning commissioners had in my mind with now having three a happy one half less people in that department and more things coming forward it would seem to me that cutting up coming the number back could possibly be beneficial to staff." — Councilman Bunch clarified that he was bringing the item for council consideration without taking a position initially, and explained that with fewer planning department staff (3.5 versus historical levels) and more development activity, reducing commission size might ease staff workload. He noted the terms of three commissioners were set to expire December 31, and one would need replacement under a 5-member model. He did not characterize the proposal as politically motivated and said it had been on his radar two to three months prior, before a recent temporary position was filled.

Public Comment

Number of speakers: 6
Duration: Approximately 60–90 minutes (not precisely stated)

The public comment period revealed organized, sustained opposition to the reduction. Speakers included Tom Mitchell (identified as a former Planning Commission member), Dr. Allen (identified as chair of the Water Planning Committee), Sarah Vannucci (resident attending planning meetings for 20 years), David Smith (resident), and Roy Robertson (resident with prior government service in San Diego).

Main Concerns Raised

  1. Loss of representation: Reducing from 7 to 5 members would undermine citizen representation. Tom Mitchell noted that seven members had been standard for 25+ years and allowed "better and broader representation and playing growing matters." He warned that reducing to five risked having only three members present at meetings, which would not represent diverse interests across town.

  2. Minimum statutory requirement: Mitchell cited Arizona statutes (ARS § 9 and related provisions) establishing that towns incorporated with populations over 1,500 must have seven council members and that Planning Commission minimum is five members. He argued that when Cave Creek's town code was developed, drafters intentionally provided for seven Planning Commission members parallel to the seven-council structure to ensure robust citizen input.

  3. Compromise of development review quality: Multiple speakers argued that fewer commissioners mean fewer questions asked and fewer diverse expert perspectives. David Smith stated: "the more input you have to that the better the outcome will be" and criticized the idea that fewer commissioners would streamline proceedings. He noted that seven people with different expertise and knowledge areas produces better outcomes.

  4. Cliquishness risk: Dr. Allen warned that "reducing the numbers you will you invite cliquish concentrations" and that smaller bodies risk becoming "weighted one way the other." He argued that diversity of opinion is what prevents bias.

  5. Attendance problem, not size problem: Dr. Allen pointed out that the real issue was inconsistent commissioner attendance, not the total number of seats. He proposed that the council adopt an attendance policy requiring commissioners to explain absences or face removal, rather than shrink the commission. He cited both the Planning Commission and Water Planning Committee as suffering from no-shows.

  6. Comparative analysis: Sarah Vannucci noted that comparable towns—Carefree, Paradise Valley, Wickenburg—maintain seven-member commissions and some (Carefree) require council members to attend commission meetings as liaisons. She also mentioned that Carefree is proposing an Arts Commission, suggesting growth in civic structure rather than contraction.

  7. General plan vetting concern: David Smith noted that the town is undertaking a general plan revision and emphasized the need for robust input: "what's coming this year is revamping of the general plan my personal feeling is the more input you have to that the better the outcome will be."

  8. Historical precedent: Roy Robertson, who served on San Diego planning bodies with 11 members, noted that even with larger bodies, reducing complaints required diverse perspectives. He stated: "the number of complaints went down because everyone had a different thought to bring to the council."

Most Compelling Arguments

Organized Opposition

No formal opposition group was named, but the speakers appeared to be community members with direct experience in planning: former commissioners, long-time meeting attendees, and residents with prior municipal service. The testimony was coordinated in timing but not attributed to a single organization.

Council Discussion

Council members who spoke against the proposal emphasized representation and development review quality.

One council member stated:

"I think cave creek the diversity of opinions in cave creek deserves a seven-member Planning Commission so I'm not going to support it." — Council member (name not fully clear in transcript)

Another highlighted the value of the minutes and back-and-forth dialogue:

"I valued the recommendations of the Commission then I'd value them today I think seven folks and asking questions offering opinions if you read the minutes are very helpful you get the back and forth and ok some of the questions are invested every once in a while I would come across something may I didn't think of that but I think that's very valuable and they brought views of seven citizens i think is valuable." — Council member (name not fully clear)

A third council member connected the question to Cave Creek's growth trajectory and the breadth of knowledge on the commission:

"cave creek is growing their presidents number of acres number of projects getting bigger large systems being bigger the columns are getting bigger drug problems a game bigger frankly reducing the number we disenfranchised so many more portions of the town's so many groups of the residents frankly I would believe that we should increase they don't work five thousand nine eleven given that half of them could be gone they're also happen depending upon 5 to make the decision for 5,000 and they feed us all of this information that frankly we don't have the depth knowledge of all the experts that are on there that we as a council if we just wouldn't occur to us." — Council member (name not fully clear)

Robert Morris (identified in closing remarks as the speaker) delivered a lengthy statement emphasizing the value of broad civic participation and process transparency. He praised Councilman Bunch for bringing the matter before the community and council in open session, stating that even if the council discusses an item that "may stir up some of the moment of some emotion in the community" it demonstrates that "the council does not discuss items unlawfully we discuss them in public." He then reflected on the historical purpose of seven-member bodies:

"the purpose to me that seven number teensie Commission's or water Commission's or seven-member Council sir is to get as many people involved in the government as possible the more people involved in government even at this moment initial level five thousand citizens I think makes for a better community." — Mayor Morris

He also cautioned against the dangers of smaller bodies becoming weighted in one direction and noted that he does not attend Planning Commission meetings to avoid signaling mayoral preference on agenda items.

Vote Outcome

Final: 3–4 (Motion Failed)
Yes: Councilman Bunch, Councilwoman Rike
No: Councilman Jerkins, and three others (identified in brief as Councilmen Monroe, Monahan, and the Mayor)

The motion to reduce Planning Commission membership from 7 to 5 failed. The council did not pass the ordinance.

Next Steps & Continuance

In response to Dr. Allen's pointed remarks about attendance, Robert Morris acknowledged the suggestion and indicated the council would bring a future agenda item addressing commission member attendance policies. One council member proposed continuing the current item to add tenure/attendance language before a future vote, but this does not appear to have been formally acted upon. The mayor noted:

"well since you were so proactive here and took on the hook on the charge tilted of the window I got knocked off your horse maybe take up the challenge of casting a future agenda item that might address dr. Alice yeah I think that's a good plan." — Robert Morris (paraphrased from transcript)

Vote Breakdown

Ordinance 2014-2-12 (Beverly Drive Rezoning)

Ordinance 2014-11 (Planning Commission Reduction)

Controversies & Context

The Rezoning Debate: Fiscal Pressure vs. Residential Protection

The Beverly Drive rezoning exposed a tension between the town's fiscal constraints and the protection of existing residential neighborhoods. Councilman Jerkins repeatedly framed the decision as a binary: either the town solves its financial problems on the backs of a small set of residents or it seeks a more equitable path. He did not dispute that General Commercial zoning could bring economic benefit but insisted that the cost—unlimited uses and minimal setback requirements—would fall disproportionately on nearby residents.

The transcript indicates that the town has faced multi-year financial pressures. Jerkins' language about "honor[ing]" the town's "financial woes" suggests this is a persistent issue. The fact that the town has previously adopted a commercial buffer zoning category along Carefree Highway (with a special area plan) suggests a deliberate policy choice to balance commercial opportunity with residential protection in sensitive areas.

The rezoning passed despite Jerkins' objections, indicating council majority support for prioritizing development potential over the more restrictive commercial buffer model. However, the debate was substantive and the dissent was clearly reasoned, not perfunctory.

The Planning Commission Reduction: Staff Workload vs. Representation

The proposal to reduce the Planning Commission from 7 to 5 members framed itself as a staff efficiency measure. Councilman Bunch pointed to reduced planning department staffing (3.5 versus historical levels) and argued that smaller commission would mean fewer questions and thus less staff time spent answering commissioners.

However, public comment and council discussion reframed the issue as one of representation and process quality, not efficiency. The overwhelming consensus was that:

  1. The problem is not the number of commissioners but inconsistent attendance.
  2. Smaller bodies invite groupthink and bias.
  3. Civic participation should be maximized, not minimized.
  4. Seven members provide diverse expertise that council members lack.

The fact that Dr. Allen—a water planning committee member—explicitly proposed an attendance policy fix rather than size reduction suggested the public had already diagnosed the real problem and offered a solution. This left Councilman Bunch's proposal appearing as a proxy for something else, or simply not addressing the actual issue.

Robert Morris closing remarks, while not explicitly endorsing the reduction, reinforced the view that broad participation in government is a value in itself. His point about not attending Planning Commission meetings (to avoid signaling mayoral preference) and his emphasis on process transparency and open discussion suggested a philosophical opposition to the reduction, even if he did not use that language.

Political Undertones

Dr. Allen explicitly warned against the "citizen speculation that politics is at play here regarding the composition and effectiveness of the Planning Commission." He referenced historical conflict between council and Planning Commission, noting that council and the former town manager had once proposed a 60-day automatic escalation rule that would have sent unresolved commission items automatically to council. This, he argued, was an attempt to "neuter the Commission's role."

This historical context suggests a pattern of tension over the Planning Commission's independence and power. The reduction proposal, whether intentionally or not, could be read as another move to diminish the commission's influence—by reducing both size and thus advisory weight, and by implicitly assuming that more questions from commissioners are a problem rather than a feature.

No council member explicitly accused Bunch of political motivation, but the subtext was present.

Duration

Other Agenda Items

The transcript mentions upcoming items for future meetings, including a specific area plan and appointments to the Planning Commission, but these were not discussed in detail at this meeting.