Scottsdale enters a new year, with new leaders and a unique opportunity to bring the city together and work toward a unified vision.
This is entirely possible and if you listen to most citizens it is definitely desired.
It rubs against the grain of some people who make it their business to keep things stirred up. They write anonymous digital newsletters that never have anything positive to say. They stand on the eroding planks of their political pulpits to criticize but never support or praise ideas offered by well-intended citizens to keep the city vibrant and progressing.
That’s the world we live in today, from the national level down to what’s happening in each of our neighborhoods.
It doesn’t mean we have to let it get in the way of progress.
The city’s General Plan is a good place to start. It’s intended to unite residents around a common vision for the city.
It’s long overdue. Mostly because the city has been so politically divided over the past few years that efforts to update the document have failed, even though state law mandates it.
Perhaps most important, is this. The General Plan is a visioning document – not a set of rules and regulations. That’s why laws and ordinances are created. The Plan is about building the kind of city that residents want to leave for their children and grandchildren. It’s really not about us; it’s about what kind of city we want to leave for future generations.
Some people are hung up on that. Some people can’t get out of their own way.
It’s a lot easier to unite people around a vision – a positive vision – for the kind of city they want to work toward than it is to bring people together to debate rules and regulations. The latter are important, but they come later.
Last week the city council thankfully squashed a proposal to create yet another General Plan citizens task force to review the capable work already delivered over the past year by the Citizens Review Committee. Council members, showing wisdom and common sense in their 7-0 vote, instead decided that they would serve as the “task force” to review the work – which they would have done anyway, as their stamp of approval is required on whatever version is sent to the ballot.
There will be plenty of time in the months ahead for every city resident who desires to review the plan and provide feedback on it before council gets its final look. Another task force would have threatened the timing of the process that puts the plan on the November 2021 ballot for voters to decide.
This needs to get done this year. It’s simply time to make it happen. Doesn’t mean it’s easy. It can get bogged down in politics (and it almost did) or by critics who will look for ways to derail it, including those who hide their names behind their comments. This is not an exercise in negativity, rather just the opposite: a chance to position the city for what it should become, not for what it should prevent.
The General Plan process is a test of leadership, a chance to unite residents around a common vision. That’s exactly what the city needs right now.
Don Henninger, executive director of SCOTT, can be reached at donh@scottsdale.com
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.
There are
two ways in which General Plans for Scottsdale are enabled and governed:
Arizona State statutes and the Scottsdale City Charter. These two documents allow for – and even
require – General Plans for Scottsdale and also provide guidance in what it
should include and how it is to be managed.
Any General Plan adopted by the City of Scottsdale is required to comply
with these provisions.
First, we
will look at the applicable State statutes for General Plans. Of particular importance is the definition of
a “General Plan”: it “means a municipal statement of land development policies,
that may include maps, charts, graphs and text that set forth objectives,
principles and standards for local growth and redevelopment enacted under the
provisions of this article or any prior statute.” As we will find, this doesn’t mean that the
plan is just a land use map. The important
element of this definition is that it states that a general plan is essentially
aspirational, general in scope and not enforceable law.
Within the
statutes there is an extensive listing of elements, i.e., components or
sections, of a general plan. These are
the required elements that all cities of the size of Scottsdale are required to
have:
Land Use – This includes provisions
that describe the type and intensity of preferred land uses, provisions for
compact and infill development, considerations regarding air quality and solar
access and an assurance of a broad variety of land uses.
Circulation – This includes plans and
provisions for major and local highways and streets, bicycle routes and for
other modes of transportation.
Open Space – This includes provisions
for open spaces, recreational resources and access to them, as well as how they
relate to the regional systems.
Growth Area – This includes
provisions to concentrate development where infrastructure is available and its
availability can be managed, natural resources and open spaces will be
conserved, and transportation systems can be made more efficient.
Environmental Planning – This
includes provisions to conserve air and water quality and other natural
resources.
Cost of Development – This includes
provisions on how development will pay its fair of the cost of additional
public services it will generate.
Water Resources – This considers
current and future water resources available to the community and how they will
be managed as the community grows.
Conservation – This focuses on how
local natural resources will be conserved and sustained.
Recreation – This focuses on public
facilities used for all types of recreation.
Public Buildings – This focuses on
all facilities that serve the public including municipal and school buildings.
Conservation, Rehabilitation and
Redevelopment – This focuses on reducing blighted areas.
Safety – This focuses on provisions
to maintain the safety of the public during natural and artificial hazards.
Bicycling – This focuses on
provisions that accommodate and support bicycling.
Energy – This focuses on energy
conservation measures and greater use of renewable energy resources.
Neighborhood Preservation and
Revitalization – This focuses on promoting safe and attractive neighborhood
environments.
These are
the required elements, but it is also possible for local communities to add
elements that relate to local needs, conditions, priorities and
aspirations. In addition to these
elements, other sections of the statutes require that the community have an annual
public works (capital improvements) plan that demonstrates how the General Plan
is being implemented.
These
statutes also include provisions on how the General Plan is to be prepared,
heard and approved. The General Plan is
approved for up to 10 years, after which the community is obligated to prepare
an updated version or seek re-approval of the current plan. Unlike in most states, this plan is to be
ratified by the voters of the community.
Amendments to the various elements can be made at any time in between
ratifications by a majority vote.
However, “Major Amendments” to the Land Use plan, as determined the
local community, are to be considered only once per year and require five votes
to be approved. City Council approvals
of changes to the General Plan are done through the use of a resolution, not an
ordinance, since these are statements of policy and not law.
When
Scottsdale first approved its General Plan there were no enabling statutes in
Arizona State law. Therefore, the city
amended the City Charter to include a provision that allows it to have a
General Plan. The City Charter as it is
currently amended also includes provisions that allow for local area plans and
allow its policies to include provisions for the preservation and enhancement
of the environment.
At both the state and local levels of governance, a general plan is considered to be a very important statement of direction for the future growth and evolution of a community, guiding its physical layout and appearance as well as assuring that the broad range of public infrastructure and services will be provided in a manner that supports the physical layout.
As the process moves forward to seek community acceptance of an updated General Plan, it is important to recognize the rich and complex legacy of General Plans in Scottsdale. This is a unique story and heritage in Arizona. It is also has created the setting each of us enjoys and depends on as we live, work, play and learn in Scottsdale.
The
beginnings of general planning in Scottsdale were not notable. In 1961 the
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Department came out with Chapter 1 of “A
Comprehensive Plan for Scottsdale, Arizona.” It included an economic and
physical review of the Scottsdale area through 1960 and a “Future General Land
Use Plan.” It had seven land use categories and covered what were
unincorporated areas that were later annexed by Phoenix. At the time Scottsdale
had no planning staff, so this was done as a service to the fledgling but
rapidly growing Town of Scottsdale.
A year later
a second chapter subtitled “Major Streets, Highways, and Parking” was
prepared. This analyzed existing and
projected traffic conditions and included alternate highway and street plans,
street cross sections and a “Suggested Central Business District Plan of
Development.” These plans were used to guide decisions by the county and to a
degree those by the new City of Scottsdale, but there is no indication the city
ever adopted these plans.
In 1964, the
City Council retained the planning firm of Eisner and Associates to create a
“Comprehensive General Plan” for the city. Up to this time, most plans prepared
for cities focused on two components: land use and transportation. The new plan
as outlined by the consultant and envisioned by the city would include a broad
range of components that would guide the city in all of its various
aspects.
For a city
that essentially had no parks, no municipal water system, had relied on the county
for road construction and did not have a clear economic foundation, this was a great
hope. Through the process of creating
this plan, an Arizona Town Hall session was held in 1966 to develop citizen-based
goals and aspirations for the community. Finally, in July 1967 the Comprehensive
General Plan for Scottsdale was adopted. To assure this plan had standing,
provisions were added in November 1967 to the City Charter establishing the
General Plan as a function of the city. This was the first comprehensive plan
adopted by any city in Arizona and later became a guide to the creation of state
statutes enabling general plans for all cities and towns.
Photo: Scottsdale Historical Society
Soon,
however, it became apparent to the City Council, Planning Commission and
planning staff that it was not keeping up with the dynamics of a rapidly
growing and changing community. A major Scottsdale Town Enrichment Program
(STEP) community involvement gathering was held in late 1969 and early 1970 in
order to continue to identify the goals and aspirations of the community.
This led to
the city hiring another consultant, Wilsey and Ham, to prepare an update to the
General Plan. They retained the Brookings Institute to conduct another public
outreach visioning program, which built on the earlier Town Hall and STEP
efforts. The city over time decided that the consultant was not being responsive
and set out to establish an updated General Plan using internal staff
resources. This resulted in a parallel course of south (south of Indian Bend
Road) and north portions of the General Plan to be developed, reviewed and adopted
as one plan in July 1974. Unfortunately,
given the way this plan was prepared, there is no remnant available for review.
The next key
component of the General Plan was the NorthEast Area Plan (NEAP) that was
adopted in the fall of 1976. This was the first comprehensive general plan
prepared by city staff. It included significant environmental analysis,
transportation modeling, water resources analysis and economic forecasting. It
also established ongoing city policies such as mountain preservation,
protection of washes and other desert areas, scenic corridors, collocated parks
and schools, neighborhoods oriented around shopping centers and community
service centers, and many other planning concepts. It also became the
map-oriented model of general planning that would prevail for the next 25
years.
Since the
city-wide general plans had become a series of separate individual function
plans, the city reformatted the General Plan into a consolidated format in
1980-81. The map approach was used to guide the physical direction and character
of the rapid growth continuing to occur in Scottsdale. This plan base soon
became expanded when the city essentially doubled in area from 1981 to 1984.
Through the Scottsdale and Tonto Foothills mega-area plans, the city’s General
Plan was expanded to cover the roughly 184-square-mile area of the city.
Throughout
this “big picture” process, a number of other planning activities were
conducted. To respond to growth
hot-spots, several area studies were prepared. Some were fully adopted as parts
of the General Plan, while others served as unofficial guides for development
activity. In addition to these studies,
the city created a series of infrastructure “Master Plans” that, although not
adopted into the plan, became critical elements of evaluation and planning to
assure the General Plan was viable and reasonable. Among these were plans for
parks, water systems, sewer systems, transportation components and flood
control.
The
“Scottsdale Visioning” and “CityShape 2020” citizen involvement programs of the
early to mid-1990s were intended to build on the earlier STEP activities and
consider the changing future, economic conditions and evolving physical
conditions of the community. These efforts created vision statements and
guiding principles. In response to this, the city produced an updated General
Plan in the late 1990s that re-introduced the many policies and goals that were
guiding the community but not spelled clearly in a document. Combined with the
State Growing Smarter Act, the General Plan went through a full review process
in 2000-01 that led to the currently adopted General Plan.
Key
questions for the General Plan
Have we recognized those parts of our
city that likely will not change in the foreseeable future?
Have we accurately considered those
parts of the community that need improvement, will be subject to change or are
likely no longer going to be viable or desired?
Have we recognized all the differing
ages, lifestyles, economic engagements, trends in business activity, regional
trends, changes in adjacent communities, etc. that will impact how and where
our city functions?
Have we considered what we need to do
to maintain and sustain what we already have and enjoy in our city?
How are we assured that the plan
reflects and respects the needs and aspirations of all residents?
And most important, what kind of
community do we want to grow into in the future? A community that stands still ultimately
fails – our city could be so much more than what it is.
Statement:The General Plan includes zoning guidelines. Fact: There are no such things as zoning guidelines in the General Plan.
· The terms
“zoning” and “guidelines” have no direct relationship to a General Plan.
A General Plan includes goals, policies and plans that are based on the values
and aspirations of a community.
· Zoning
refers to state regulations that provide limits on the use of land and the
physical character of the improvements on the land.
· The state
requires consistency between the General Plan and zoning, but the General Plan
includes elements, such as transportation and public services, that go well
beyond the zoning ordinance in scope and function.
· Guidelines
refers to a quasi-regulatory set of processes and limits that provide
substantial detail about the design of a broad range of infrastructure,
including transportation, water, sewer and drainage systems.
· The key
point is that these terms have specific meanings and functions and that loosely
combining them indicates a lack of understanding in how city development
guidance and processes work. Too often these terms are merged together in an
indistinct manner that renders their meaning ambiguous at best.
