General Plan series #5

by Don Hadder

For the past 25 years there essentially has not been any significant amount of vacant land available for development in Scottsdale south of the CAP aqueduct.  This was true of the area in Scottsdale south of Shea by 1985.  As a result, any land use changes in these areas will be the result of some sort of redevelopment activity.

There is relatively little privately held vacant land north of the Central Arizona Project aqueduct in Scottsdale.  Through the development of master planned projects and a substantial amount of in-fill development, most of the available private lands in this area have been developed or are committed for development.

Therefore, the bulk of the remaining vacant land in Scottsdale is owned by the Arizona State Land Trust.  These lands were assigned to the State over 100 years ago as part of the process of statehood in order to support education and certain community services.  As such, they have special protections under State statutes, particularly in Sections 37-331 through 37-334 of the State laws.  Any planning or zoning actions by local jurisdictions must be consistent with these provisions.  

Of these lands, there are two main locations of probable future development: about 3,600 acres located along the east side of Pima Road from roughly Dixileta Road north to Stagecoach Pass Road and also about 1,000 acres straddling the Loop 101 Freeway from Scottsdale Road to Bell Road.

The first area has zoning that in ranges from two-acre lots (R1-70), through 1, 1/3 and ¼ acre lot single family districts to resort use (R-4R).  Given the infrastructure improvements necessary to serve this area, it is likely that this will be auctioned as one large master-planned development.  This area, in effect, would probably become the last master-planned development to be developed in Scottsdale and would be a highly desirable parcel for that reason. 

The other area, along the freeway, has a long history of planning and entitlements.  Most of the area has had Planned Community District (PCD) zoning for over 30 years.  It has also been the subject of the Regional Use Overlay and the Greater Airpark Character Area Plan policy updates.  Over the past few years, development is beginning to occur across this area, and one the freeway upgrades are completed, there will likely be increased interest for development in this area.  These lands are the last remaining lands for developing significant employment uses in the city on vacant land.  These lands are in direct competition with freeway frontage sites in the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community and the City of Phoenix.

For the most part, the die is cast for these large areas of vacant land.  Refinements and adjustments on these sites may occur in the future, but the main direction for their development has been established.

As time passes, more and more of the potential for land uses to respond to regional, demographic and economic changes will be through the redevelopment and revitalization of lands that are already developed.  It is much more difficult to project such trends and changes and it will be necessary to provide for flexible and responsive ways to respond to the challenges that will come in the future.

Don Hadder is a retired city planner, long-time resident of Scottsdale and a local historical resource.

See Don’s entire series HERE.

General Plan Series #4

By Don Hadder

The City of Scottsdale is part of a large metropolitan region; its development impacts adjacent communities. In turn, what happens outside its borders impacts how development functions within its borders.

For most of the areas surrounding Scottsdale, future land uses essentially are already established or will be. Three adjacent areas have enough volatility to impact future uses in Scottsdale.

The first is the “Rio Verde Foothills” area that is east of Scottsdale and north of the McDowell Mountain Regional Park. This roughly 23-square-mile area is not incorporated in any town or city and is regulated by Maricopa County. The Rio Verde Foothills Area Plan that the county has adopted accommodates only low-density single-family residential uses. No schools, offices, retail uses or other non-residential uses are part of the plan. 

Assuming one house for every 2 to 3 acres, the total number of homes across this area could range from 5,000 to 7,500. Only two roads are entering this vast area: Rio Verde (from Scottsdale) and Mustang Way/Forest Road (from Fountain Hills). Assuming that traffic from this area splits in both directions, the impacts on Rio Verde/Dynamite Road would be roughly 25,000 to 38,000 trips per day. This traffic will also lead to a greater demand for service and retail uses in northern Scottsdale than what the resident population would typically support.

The second are of volatility is the portion of northeast Phoenix bounded by the CAP aqueduct on the south, Cave Creek Road on the west, Jomax Road on the north and Scottsdale Road on the east. This area is also roughly 23 to 24 square miles.

However, in terms of planned and zoned land uses, this area is much more intense. The currently approved plans in Phoenix would accommodate around 100,000 dwellings units of all types. As an entire city, Scottsdale, with a land area of about 185 square miles, currently has a little over 110,000 residences. This area’s overall density could be 6 to 7 times that of the entire City of Scottsdale.

This area is also planned for a very wide range of employment, service, retail and civic uses. In and of itself, it would be one of the largest cities in Arizona at build-out. Of particular note is that at the northwest corner of Scottsdale Road and the Pima Freeway (101), the approved zoning allows for buildings up to 190 feet tall.

There is substantial development already in this area, particularly at the Desert Ridge project, as well as the American Express and Mayo Hospital campuses. As this area continues to develop over the next decades, it will have significant impacts on transportation systems, visual character, retail and service provisions and demands for public services. In general, the most intense land uses of this area are along the Pima Freeway corridor and lessen to the north.  There will be a need for additional transportation corridors parallel to the freeway to relieve the possible congestion at the freeway interchanges.

The third of these areas is the freeway corridor within the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. Unlike the other areas, this one will have no residential units. Therefore, as can already be seen by current development along this corridor, the freeway will be lined on both sides with employment, service, retail and recreational/cultural uses. This development will likely reduce the viability for some employment, service and retail sites in Scottsdale’s southern and central parts.  It will also create greater demands on the traffic carried by the Pima Freeway. On the other hand, it will also tend to increase the demand for housing in nearby areas of Scottsdale.

The impacts of these areas will occur over the next 20 to 30 years. There are infrastructure limits and hurdles that will affect the development timing and patterns of each of these areas, but each one is of a magnitude that will impact parts of Scottsdale in both predictable and unpredictable ways.

Don Hadder is a retired city planner, long-time resident of Scottsdale and a local historical resource.

See Don’s entire series HERE.

For the past few weeks, we’ve been asking Scottsdale residents to share their aspirations and hopes for the city as it enters a new era.

We’ll continue asking, and the more we do the more we’re likely to hear answers that come down to a few common themes:

The desire to unite the city under a shared, inspiring vision and the willingness to embrace change that builds on the values that have made the city such an appealing destination for residents, workers and visitors.

It’s up to residents to make it clear that they expect city leaders to deliver on those goals.

A few examples.

Jen Sydow of Scottsdale Community College hopes that leaders “will embrace their role for change and continue to work together to accomplish the vision and values that citizens desire. Together, as colleagues in our community, we position ourselves to view our work with renewed purpose, greater creativity and a sense of urgency … If we recognize the importance of adopting an equity-minded approach to leadership, and facilitating greater inclusion, we can come together as a city and achieve the ultimate goal of Scottsdale’s General Plan: reflect a coherent vision of hopes, dreams and aspirations of a diverse population.”

Julie Cieniawski, governing board vice president for the Scottsdale Unified School District, hopes that “our leaders and residents mutually partake in a reflective process and act accordingly to come together as a community and acknowledge that our current actions impact our future … our future includes lots of questions that are best answered by each of us individually and then put into action collectively as residents and by our leaders.”

They both nailed it. Our values and dreams are personal; and where they come together, we find ways to work with each other to make them happen.

Scottsdale residents for a long time have embraced some shared values that make the city unique: Incredible geographic diversity, international reputation for tourism, a remarkable level of community services, high property values and among the lowest taxes of any city in the Valley.

We’ve been paying a lot of attention to the city’s General Plan process. If it achieves its primary goal it will be a visionary path to how the city evolves and grows while protecting the values that make it special.

It’s a laborious, tedious process and one that is not for the feint of heart. That’s one reason why it has taken the city nearly two decades to update it. But it is important. In fact, it’s legally required.

It is not a document to establish rules, regulations and ordinances. That would be a much easier exercise. Anyone who has labored over creating vision or mission statements for any organization has felt the pain of the process, especially if you are short of patience.

The next few months are crunch time for the city’s “vision statement” as residents will get a chance to weigh in with feedback on it. You don’t have to read all 300-some pages of the document to do so. The executive summary is brief with highlights of the plan’s nine sections. Reading that alone would be worthwhile.

If you care about the future of the city you live in, you should take the time to look at the key points and ask yourself:  Are we aspiring to be an inclusionary community that builds on the values that we embrace individually and strive to achieve together as a community?

Let’s put politics and personal agendas aside and focus on building a city we want to leave for the next generation.

Don Henninger, executive director of SCOTT, can be reached at donh@scottsdale.com

General Plan Series #3

By Don Hadder

In common discussions about land use policies and regulations, it is common to hear the terms “land use plan” and “zoning” interchanged.  This is not a correct use of the terms and can lead to misconceptions about approvals and processes that involve these terms.  These are distinct terms that have a relationship with each other but also have different meanings and purposes.

In the State of Arizona statutes that govern municipal planning, the General Plan Land Use plan is a set of “objectives, principles and standards” that may include “maps, charts, graphs and text.”  In the same section, there is a definition of “Zoning Ordinance” that defines it as “a municipal ordinance regulating the use of land or structures, or both.”  Typically, a zoning ordinance has two main components: the ordinance language and a zoning map.  Within the ordinance language there are provisions that focus principally on the types of land uses allowed as well as the physical parameters and limits of the structures and improvements that contain the used allowed.

The Land Use plan within the General Plan is a general guide for the arrangement of the types and broad range of intensity of land uses as projected to a future date – often 15 to 30 years into the future.  For most cities, such a plan has a limited number of land use categories.  Scottsdale’s 2001 General Plan Land Use Map includes 11 land use categories: 3 are primarily for residential uses, 4 are focused on types of business uses, 2 are for open space uses, 1 is for mixed-use areas and the last is for municipal and civic uses.  All general plan components are approved through a resolution, which is an official statement of city policy and practice.

The Zoning Ordinance in Scottsdale is a highly complex set of regulations, processes and limitations.  It is divided into 11 main chapters or sections covering various subjects from the zoning districts to general provisions to landscaping, and more.  Within the districts, there are 15 that are primarily for residential and supportive land uses, 13 districts for various types of business uses, 2 for primarily open space uses, 5 mixed-use districts, 5 specialty use districts and 7 overlay districts that are combined with the other districts.  Clearly there is not a one-to-one relationship between the Land Use plan land use categories and the zoning districts.  The zoning ordinance also includes the Zoning Map, which specifically applies the zoning districts to properties across the city.

Under the State statutes, all zoning “shall be consistent with and conform to the adopted general plan of the municipality.”  The determination of this is done through the evaluation of each rezoning case and established through the City Council approval of the rezoning case, including the stipulations that are applied – which become an extension of the Zoning Ordinance as well.  With each rezoning case there may be a determination that it constitutes a change in the Land Use plan designation.  If the proposal is deemed to be a change in the designation, there will need to be a parallel General Plan case.  As defined in the General Plan, if this rises to the level of being a “Major Amendment” of the General Plan, it can be heard only once a year and requires a higher threshold of approval.

Both the general plan and zoning ordinances are documents that are expected to change as the community ages, grows, economic conditions evolve and the aspirations of the community change.  Not allowing for any change would be a violation of the intent and sense of fairness built into the enabling statutes as well as the long-term traditions of planning and zoning, both locally and across the nation.

Another aspect of these provisions that often becomes confused focuses on what a “variance” is.  Under the State statues and embodied within the Zoning Ordinance, a variance is a very specific and limited term.  All variances under these laws are reviewed for consideration and determination by a Board of Adjustment.  The action of the Board of Adjustment is limited to specific properties under limited criteria and is a quasi-judicial action – not a legislative action.  The City Council has no role in the variance process.  Unfortunately, there often are general comments that describe a rezoning case (which is a legislative action) as a ‘variance’.  It is not.  A rezoning case is an action to adjust the established policy regarding land use types and intensity on a property and is not a ‘breaking of the rules’.  It is applying new rules to the property.  A variance is an exception to the rules where it has been determined the rules are not fair and reasonable.

In reviewing and understanding the General Plan, it is important to understand what it is and what it is not.  Believing the General Plan has power that it really does not have can lead to controversies that are not valid and over time causes the completeness and breadth of the plan to be overlooked.  It can and should be a powerful statement of the hopes, aspirations, priorities and values of the community for its future.

Don Hadder is a former Scottsdale City Planner.

Part 2

By Don Henninger

We don’t need any reminders about how valuable steady, sustainable, sensible leadership is in our country, from the national to the local levels. In Scottsdale, we’re fortunate to have a good leader in city manager Jim Thompson.

I caught up with him just a few days before the city’s new mayor and three councilors were sworn into office to get his take on where the city is as 2021 unfolds with its rookie slate of leaders now on board.

The council will be holding a retreat in February to identify issues and strategies for the year ahead. That will set the direction for what they think is important and the tone on how they intend to work together to get things done.

Leading up to that retreat, here are a few notes from my conversation with Thompson and his view from the city manager’s office:

–Until the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us, everything is up in the air; as he says, it’s a huge impediment that affects everything. Any economic recovery – particularly in the city’s tourism sector – will be stalled until more people are vaccinated. It doesn’t help that Arizona continues to post the highest infection rates in the country. That image discourages the desire for people to visit here and dims hopes for a meaningful tourism rebound. And that means a large segment of the city’s small businesses, many of which rely on the hospitality industry, will continue to struggle.

–Surprisingly, perhaps, the city’s financial picture is a bit brighter. The assumption was that the tourism slump would leave a huge hole in the city’s revenue stream. Not the case, he says. Led by strong car sales and high housing values, city revenues are $17 million ahead of a budget that was significantly cut back due to the virus. It also would be only $2 million behind the original budget that was created before those reductions.

–The General Plan will be one of the most important issues in the year ahead, and already is getting a lot of attention. Thompson’s hope is that the progress made by the Citizens Review Committee over the past year continues and citizens make time to weigh in with their input during the public hearing process. He offers a reminder that the plan is a visioning document not a regulatory one, which is the purpose of zoning laws.

We offer this suggestion, as well. With all the citizen input already gathered and with the public hearings to come in the months ahead as part of the review process, the city should not create another layer of bureaucracy, as it now is considering. It’s redundant, likely will add nothing to the feedback already received and yet to come. The council will vote Jan. 19 on adding a task force for more review. We hope they vote no.

–Public safety pension funding remains important as well, as the city continues to pay down on the balance needed for the police and firefighters’ pensions. The city also continues to gradually hire firefighters as nearly two-thirds of the department will be eligible for retirement in 2025, the 20th anniversary of the city taking over that service from Rural Metro.

–Leadership talent is an ongoing topic and it’s well-known that the city will need to replace three key positions: treasurer, clerk and police chief. But many of the city’s department heads also are nearing retirement age and the need to build a succession pipeline is important.

–We’ll end with a four-letter word: jobs. Creating jobs will continue to be one of the most important goals for the city in the year ahead. As he notes, Scottsdale is not a bedroom community. Job growth is the key to being a great city and sustaining its high level of services and low tax structure. It’s not about serving the existing population as much as it is serving future generations.

Here’s hoping the year ahead is one of growth and prosperity for the city’s future.

Don Henninger, executive director of SCOTT, can be reached at donh@scottsdale.com