Cave Creek rejects site plan streamlining, demands comprehensive zoning reform first

Cave Creek Council Blocks Site Plan Streamlining, Signals Appetite for Broader Zoning Overhaul

On February 7, 2023, the Cave Creek Town Council narrowly rejected a proposal to remove Planning Commission review from ministerial site plan approvals and shift those decisions to the Town Council consent agenda. The 2-5 vote on Ordinance Z-2022-05 halted what proponents framed as administrative efficiency but what opponents portrayed as a premature erosion of public process and design accountability. More significantly, the defeat opened a wider and more contentious conversation: the town's entire zoning ordinance—pieced together decades ago from Maricopa County boilerplate and amended piecemeal—no longer serves Cave Creek's needs or character, and council members now signal a willingness to undertake comprehensive reform before making further procedural changes.

Key Speeches

"I have great respect for our staff and the work they do… but here's the problem: many of our regulations are relics of Maricopa County when Cave Creek was a wide spot behind Black Mountain. Our town has changed in many ways since 1986 and our regulations need an active and informed review… Let's slow down. We need to take a look around for best practices and then act deliberately to be inclusive and transparent with our governance." — Council Member Elkmont, advocating deferral of the ordinance pending comprehensive zoning review.

"No matter what the ordinances might say or be changed to… whether the Planning Commission or the Town Council has any discretion over a site plan that is in compliance with whatever our codes may be… doesn't change the analysis… Really what this is about is a situation where we have no discretion. Why are we taking up our time with this? You know, by the time it reaches the Planning Commission the Town Council staff has already reviewed it… we have no ability to say no, so even if we change it to anything we have no ability to say no. This is a waste of time." — Council Member Overton, arguing the ordinance is immaterial because discretion is absent either way.

"I am one hundred thousand percent in favor of what Council Member Elkmont said… we need to do something about the arbitrary nature of our zoning ordinances in general… It seems a bit arbitrary…" — Julie Goldhammer, resident, speaking to inconsistent use restrictions and lack of density standards in the commercial buffer zone.

"The Planning and Zoning Commission of old Cave Creek would probably never have come in and proposed to make this change and to remove the Public's access to the forum… Why would we not want to have a perimeter defense with our Planning and Zoning Commission… to partner with the applicant… the Chevron gas station at Cave Creek Road and Carefree Highway… the way it was designed and the way we partnered with the applicant—that's what we don't do as well anymore… If this is such a minor administrative change, what is the feeling in the room that this is so critically important that it goes through? What am I missing here?" — Council Member McGuire, expressing concern that removal of Planning Commission review weakens the town's ability to shape development character proactively.

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Planning Director Luke Sims presented the proposal as a technical fix, noting that staff, building official, town engineer, utilities manager, and trail coordinator already review site plans for compliance before they reach the Planning Commission. He emphasized that discretion is absent—if an applicant meets code, approval is mandatory.

• Staff recommendation: Sims recommended approval, arguing that other municipalities (Sedona, Scottsdale, Wickenburg, Queen Creek, Carefree, Paradise Valley) handle ministerial site plans administratively. He noted that SB 1103 (a 2023 Arizona bill approved on an 8-0 bipartisan vote) would authorize municipalities to delegate site plan approval to staff without a public hearing, so long as objective standards are met. He also offered two options: full administrative approval or approval by Town Council on a consent agenda, allowing removal for public discussion if a resident objected.

• Planning Commission Chair's position: Chair Bruckner acknowledged the Commission's recommendation to remove itself from ministerial reviews but noted the Council's original concern: that removing a public forum before the Commission might deprive residents of a chance to voice opinions and generate ideas for future code amendments—even if those opinions could not change the outcome of a particular application.

• Public comment: Five speakers addressed the council. Paul Defender advocated rescinding residential fire sprinkler mandates on personal-choice grounds (referred for future discussion). Carol Perry, David Phelps, Monroe Shumate, and Julie Goldhammer all spoke to the inadequacy of the commercial buffer zoning category, the lack of design review, the arbitrary nature of use restrictions, the absence of density limits, and the need for comprehensive zoning reform. Perry noted that "buffer" does not mean "protection" in the current code and requested an intermediate zoning category between commercial and residential. Goldhammer highlighted that the general plan mentions "density" 24 times and is keyed to "low density," yet the commercial buffer ordinance lacks any density requirements. Phelps cited examples of poor design (Sprouts, AutoZone, Tractor Supply) alongside good design (Walmart, the town core) and argued that design review, used in Sedona, Flagstaff, Scottsdale, and Carefree, was the path forward.

• Council discussion: Elkmont opened with a motion to defer, noting that comprehensive zoning reform is a general plan goal and was recommended by the town's recent strategic plan study group. He called for "a comprehensive direction that will serve us into the future" rather than piecemeal changes. Overton countered that ministerial acts with no discretion should be streamlined, and that the zoning details—buffer zones, design standards, density—were separate policy questions. Dusty Rhoades asked whether the town could add design guidelines and commercial style standards to the ordinance; Sims cautioned that design guidelines pose legal risk (property owners need objective, enforceable standards; too-vague guidance invites claims of arbitrariness; too-rigid standards remove all discretion and invite lawsuit if an applicant argues compliance). Roy expressed interest in design guidelines but wanted a joint Planning Commission–Town Council session to explore them. McGuire voiced discomfort with removing Planning Commission review, recalling the town's prior success in shaping development (e.g., the Chevron station at Carefree/Cave Creek Road) through proactive partnerships with applicants, and questioning why the urgency to pass an "insignificant" change tonight. Tom Augherton worried that moving approval to the consent agenda would not actually save time, since residents could still force removal and discussion, and that design standards and buffer-zone protections should be addressed simultaneously. Robert Morris characterized the ordinance as a technical administrative matter separate from zoning policy, but agreed to schedule the joint session.

• Vote: The motion to approve the second reading of Ordinance Z-2022-05 failed 2-5. Yes: Robert Morris, Bunch. No: Elkmont, McGuire, Dusty Rhoades, Roy, Tom Augherton. (Overton voted yes to move the question, preserving his right to reconsider, per parliamentary practice, though the motion itself failed.)

Opposition

• Number of speakers against: 4 council members (Elkmont, McGuire, Dusty Rhoades, Tom Augherton) and 4 residents (Perry, Phelps, Shumate, Goldhammer).

• Main concerns:

  1. Removing Planning Commission review weakens public process and resident voice, even if the outcome cannot change.
  2. Proceeding with piecemeal procedural changes without addressing underlying zoning code issues (commercial buffer inadequacy, lack of design review, arbitrary use restrictions, missing density standards) is premature and risky.
  3. The town's ordinances are outdated Maricopa County boilerplate (from 1986) and need comprehensive refresh before further amendments.
  4. Commercial buffer zoning, despite its name, provides no "protection" to adjacent residential neighborhoods; intermediate zoning or design review is needed.
  5. Recent developments (Sprouts, AutoZone, Tractor Supply) exemplify poor design outcomes under current code; other towns (Sedona, Scottsdale, Carefree, Flagstaff) have design review and manage development better.
  6. The general plan prioritizes low density and design; current zoning does not reflect these goals.
  7. Moving approval to Town Council consent agenda does not achieve efficiency gains if residents can still force removal and discussion, and it shifts the public forum away from Planning Commission (where partnership with applicants historically shaped better outcomes).

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Elkmont's argument: Comprehensive zoning reform is a stated general plan goal and was recommended by the town's recent strategic plan study group; piecemeal changes risk unintended consequences.
  • McGuire's argument: The Planning Commission has been a partner in shaping development character for decades; the Chevron gas station (cited as a success) was shaped through proactive Planning Commission engagement with the applicant. Removing that forum in the name of efficiency weakens the town's ability to influence design and character.
  • Goldhammer's argument: The commercial buffer ordinance is arbitrary and lacks objective standards for density, building height, and use restrictions; some uses require site plan review, others do not, with no clear logic. Any zoning changes should include design standards.

• Organized groups: No formal organizations filed or spoke, but resident commenters appeared to be coordinated informally.

Support

• Number of speakers in favor: 2 council members (Overton, Bunch) and Planning Director Sims.

• Main arguments:

  1. Ministerial site plan review—applications that comply with all code requirements—should be administrative because the town has no legal discretion to deny them.
  2. Current process delays applicants who are exercising their rights under valid zoning; streamlining saves staff, Planning Commission, and council time without changing the substantive outcome.
  3. SB 1103, a statewide bill approved 8-0 on a bipartisan vote, encourages municipalities to delegate ministerial approvals to staff; the trend nationwide is toward less commission and council review for compliant applications.
  4. A consent-agenda approach preserves the option for residents to request removal and council discussion if desired, so transparency is not eliminated—residents simply would not be required to sit through Planning Commission review and then Council review for administrative rubber-stamps.
  5. The zoning ordinance itself—what uses are allowed where, buffer-zone requirements, design standards—is a separate and future policy question; the site plan process reform does not preclude that discussion.
  6. Other communities (Sedona, Scottsdale, Carefree, Paradise Valley) handle ministerial site plans administratively.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Overton's argument: The ordinance text, buffer-zone definitions, design standards, and density limits are all separate ordinance items; this ordinance only addresses the process for reviewing applications that already comply. Changing the process does not change what is allowed, so it has no bearing on the residents' concerns about design or density. Council can (and should) address those in a separate, comprehensive zoning review.
  • Sims' argument: Staff review already involves multiple departments (building, engineering, utilities, trails, traffic); a ministerial site plan is one that passes all those checks and meets the objective criteria in the code. There is no discretion at any level, so requiring it to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and then the Council is procedurally redundant and delays applicants with valid rights.

Project Details

Not applicable. This agenda item was procedural, not a development proposal.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 2-5 (Failed)
• Yes: Robert Morris, Council Member Bunch
• No: Council Member Elkmont, Council Member McGuire, Dusty Rhoades, Vice Mayor Roy, Tom Augherton
• Abstentions / absences: None stated in transcript

Outcome & Next Steps

Ordinance Z-2022-05 failed on second reading. Tom Augherton immediately moved to table companion Items 4 and 5 (Ordinances Z-2022-02 and Z-2022-03), which were contingent on Item 3's approval. Motion to table passed unanimously.

Scheduled actions:

• A joint Planning Commission–Town Council meeting is scheduled for March (specific date TBD at time of meeting) to address comprehensive zoning ordinance review, including commercial buffer zoning, design review standards, density requirements, use restrictions, and other code issues raised by residents and council members.
• The site plan review ordinance (Z-2022-05) is not dead; it can be re-introduced after the comprehensive review, or council may decide to abandon it in favor of integrated zoning reforms.

Controversies & Context

Historical context: Cave Creek's zoning ordinance is largely based on Maricopa County boilerplate from the 1980s, with incremental amendments over decades. The commercial buffer zone, a key point of contention, was designed to transition from commercial to residential but does not currently restrict density or mandate design standards.

State preemption: SB 1103 (cited during debate) authorizes Arizona municipalities to delegate ministerial site plan approvals to staff without public hearings, so long as objective standards exist. This reflects a statewide trend toward streamlining development review. However, Cave Creek has chosen not to adopt that approach tonight and instead to slow down pending broader zoning reform.

Fiscal pressure: Robert Morris mentioned in his public announcements that a proposed state bill to exempt food from sales tax would cost Cave Creek approximately $1.5 million annually (out of a $13 million general fund), which could create budget pressure to increase revenue from development. Some commenters (Perry) appeared concerned that this fiscal pressure might accelerate commercial zoning expansion near residential neighborhoods. This context underlies some of the urgency commenters felt about protecting residential buffers.

Community sentiment: Residents expressed frustration with recent commercial development (Sprouts, AutoZone, Tractor Supply) perceived as lacking design character, and cited the town's small, walkable, design-forward town core as a model. There is evident grassroots interest in design review and commercial-buffer strengthening. Commenters emphasized that this is a 50+ year old, established residential community with an engaged and diverse demographic, not a "retirement trailer park," and that residents deserve a voice in shaping the character of adjacent commercial development.

Planning Commission legitimacy: Multiple council members praised the Planning Commission's volunteer service and historical role in shaping development. McGuire's invocation of the Chevron gas station as an example of collaborative design success suggests council values the Commission's role and does not want to diminish it lightly.

Duration

• This item (Site Plan Review Ordinance, Item 3): Approximately 90 minutes, including presentations, council discussion, and public comment.
• Total meeting: Not explicitly stated in transcript. Meeting began with executive session, pledge, announcements, and covered approximately 5 substantive agenda items (Bike Week approval, Fire/EMS quarterly report, Site Plan Ordinance, two tabled items). Estimated total duration: 3–3.5 hours.

Other Notable Items

Cave Creek Bike Week Special Event (Item 2): Town Council unanimously approved the special event application for Bike Week (March 24–April 2, 2023), including road closures on Cave Creek Road March 25–26 and March 30–April 2. Town Marshal reported no cost to the town; sponsoring businesses (Roadhouse, Highway, and others) fund the event. Prior year's traffic management was praised. This item passed without controversy.

Quarterly Fire and Emergency Medical Services Report (Item 3, presented before the Site Plan Ordinance vote): Fire Director and Chief Ryan Tobin presented Q2 FY 2022-23 report. Key highlights: 630 total calls for service in calendar year 2022; 1,566 units assigned (reflecting mutual aid and multi-unit responses); 48 mutual-aid calls to the region. Recruit class (hired from Rural Metro employees and trained via an innovative "Bridge Academy" at the Phoenix Fire Academy) passed final certifications on December 7; all recruits "passed with flying colors." ISO grading evaluation completed; results pending (Director expects same or better grade than previous, possibly upgraded from 4 to 3 on the 1-10 scale). Firehouse Foundation grant for $28,000+ for trail-rescue equipment approved; formal council approval expected at next meeting. Council praised the recruit class and asked about traffic incident hotspots and fire sprinkler ordinance (referred for future discussion). Item was presentation-only; no vote required.