2035 general plan update - scottsdaleaz.gov...2035 general plan update february 18, 2021 virtual...

Page | 1

2035 General Plan Update February 18, 2021 Virtual Open House

Summary Report

On February 18, 2021, Long Range Planning held three (3) virtual open house sessions with the public to gain input and feedback regarding the draft 2035 General Plan. In particular, the virtual sessions were focused on garnering input specific to the draft Vision Statement, the Land Use Element, and major amendment criteria – as per the interest and direction of City Council. All three (3) sessions included the same presentation materials and polling questions. The first section, below, provides an aggregate summary of polling results and summary of key discussion that occurred. The second section details all polling results and comments collected for each individual session (Morning, Noon, and Evening).

Summary of Open House Results Over the course of the three (3) virtual sessions there were 51 total participants out of 70 total registrations. It was not mandatory for participants to contribute to the polling or verbal conversations that occurred, therefore polling participation fluctuated throughout each session. This section of the report is an aggregate summary of the polling conducted and includes a synopsis of discussions heard, specific to the various topics outlined below. 1) Vision Statement: City Council directed staff to garner public input on three (3) vision statements, including the existing 2001 General Plan Vision Statement, the 2014 Task Force Vision Statement (including 3 Community Aspirations), and a Vision Statement submitted by Vice Mayor Janik. Polling questions and results included:

• What is your preferred Vision Statement for Scottsdale? o Existing 2001 Vision Statement – 1 (7%) o Task Force 2014 Vision Statement – 20 (48%) o Vice-Mayor Janik Proposed Vision Statement – 18 (43%) o None of the Vision Statements Presented – 3 (2%)

• Does your choice fully communicate your vision for the future? o Yes – 25 (60%) o No, it is missing something I’d like to suggest – 17 (40%)

Attendees were generally split between preferring the Task Force 2014 Vision Statement (48%) and the Vice-Mayor Janik Proposed Vision Statement (43%). Several participants stated that, although they polled in favor of the 2014 Vision Statement, they also liked many aspects of Vice Mayor Janik’s Proposed Vision Statement, including that they felt that it was more direct. Several participants suggested that aspects of both the 2014 Vision Statement and Vice-Mayor Janik Vision Statement could be combined. Finally, participants noted that all the vision statements generally lacked touching upon topics such as education, arts and culture, fiscal sustainability, citizen engagement, and diversity and inclusion. 2) General Plan Major Amendment Criteria: The draft General Plan includes existing major amendment criteria brought forward from the 2001 General Plan (Criteria 1 through 4) as well as three (3) NEW criteria (Criteria 5 through 7). Polling questions and results regarding the amendment criteria included:

• Do you support the first four existing (1‐4) major amendment criteria and the process for which major amendments are determined?

o Yes – 27 (84%) o No – 5 (16%)

Page | 2

• Do you support the NEW major amendment criteria (5‐7) and the process for which major amendments are determined?

o Yes – 29 (91%) o No – 3 (1%)

The majority of attendees supported both the existing and new criteria as depicted in the draft 2035 General Plan. A few attendees discussed that the process could be seen as too burdensome for the development community, while others stated that the amendment process is too simplistic and too easy for developers to navigate. A few attendees noted that they felt this discussion was too technical for them to provide input, and therefore abstained from polling. 3) Land Use - Employment: The draft plan includes the proposal to combine the Employment and Office land use categories into a single category, as both the General Plan Task Force and the recent Citizen Review Committee did not find enough distinction in having two individual land uses that generally provide for the same intensity of uses with similar character. One polling question was provided regarding this proposal:

• Do you support the combination of the Employment/Office land use designation? o Yes – 32 (97%) o No – 1 (3%)

The majority of attendees supported this proposal. An attendee voiced their concern for neighborhoods that are adjacent to sites that are currently Office land use designation. 4) Land Use – Desert Rural Neighborhoods: There has been community discussion, and City Council interest, to include the addition of a new “Desert Rural” Neighborhoods General Plan land use designation for those properties that are currently zoned as R1-130 or R1-190. This proposal would affect both the acreage makeup of land use designations citywide, and potentially the major amendment criteria. Polling questions regarding this proposal included:

• Do you support the creation of a new Desert Rural Land Use designation? o Yes – 29 (83%) o No – 6 (17%)

• Do you support the land use amendment matrix associated with the creation of a new Desert Rural Land Use Category?

o Yes – 28 (80%) o No – 7 (20%)

The majority of attendees supported both the proposal for the creation of a new “Desert Rural” Neighborhoods General Plan land use designation as well as its inclusion within the General Plan land use amendment matrix showing a change from Desert Rural to all other land use categories, excluding Natural Open Space, as a major General Plan amendment process. Attendees discussed that the new land use category would: provide additional, necessary scrutiny by City Council; preserve large-lot, equestrian parcels; increase the city’s fiscal sustainability by attracting those that can afford these types of properties; and, lessen the adverse effects of sprawl. Others in attendance voiced their concern for existing landowners that would be affected by this proposal as well as stating that they felt that the potential clientele for large-lot homes is so minimal that it may not be worth creating this process specifically to attract such.

Page | 3

Virtual Open House Polling & Notes This section of the report provides the individual results for each session conducted on February 18, 2021. Planning staff polled attendees and took notes related to discussion of such at each session. Both the polling results and individual comments are provided for each session, below:

2.18.21 – Morning Session (8:30am – 10:00am) 16 total participants out of 25 total registrations. Morning Session, Poll 1, Results:



Morning Session, Poll 1, Discussion Notes:

• Autonomous vehicles imply there will be changes to the built environment. Public parking could be utilized by other uses – housing, open space, etc. This move is not so far off. Should the GP address this? Should it be in the Vision Statement?

• I don’t see education for children and the quality of such within the vision statements. The 2014 is a well-crafted vision statement. 2014 states vibrant downtown…. Shouldn’t it state Old Town?

• I chose the 2014 vision statement. Does the nod to Innovation and technology include smart city initiatives or transportation upgrades? It appears these things could be included in the future as a result of the Vision’s wording.

• Are there next steps for filling this out with more specifics (solar energy/water issues), other than generalizations of sustainability in the vision statement. Did you try comparing with San Antonio (cities w/rivers running through them) and their vision statements/general plans.

• I support the Janik Vision Statement; however, it needs recognition of the fiscal sustainability of attracting affluent high-end residents, so that they can bring their wealth and knowledge to Scottsdale. This aspect would bring us more fiscal sustainability.

• Citizen Engagement should be added to the Community Prosperity aspiration. Add “and be engaged” to the statement.

Morning Session, Poll 2, Results


o Yes – 10 (91%) o No – 1(9%)


o Yes – 11 (100%) o No – 0 (0%)

Page | 4


• Although these are technical questions, I support both as well as the Desert Rural concept. In North Scottsdale there is a tremendous amount of up-zoning. We have traffic, noise, and infrastructure concerns as a result. Previously-approved developments within this area that have yet to be built are a looming issue as well.




• No discussion occurred regarding this poll.




o Yes – 11 (100%) o No – 0 (0%)


• There is always a profit in subdividing larger lots for multiple smaller lots, so the breakdown of

fees isn’t helpful – developers will always work to recoup this minimal cost. We used to have a

larger equestrian community years ago, so it is important to preserve these properties moving

forward. The new Desert Rural land use category provides additional scrutiny by the Council and

makes sense to have. These types of subdivision requests need to be scrutinized.

• I support the new Desert Rural land use category as it will strengthen Scottsdale’s fiscal

sustainability by attracting people that can afford these larger-lot properties.

• Is there going to be a session that addresses the Urban Areas of Scottsdale? I am more

concerned with those things that specifically affect Old Town.

Morning Session, Wrap-up Discussion Notes:

• I am pleased that the CRC was composed of Boards/Commissions as they have a great

perspective. However, I am concerned that there isn’t a Fine Arts Commission as other

neighboring Cities have. Would have liked them to have a seat at the table.

Page | 5

2.18.21 – Noon Session (11:30am – 1:00pm) 19 total participants out of 24 total registrations. Noon Session, Poll 1, Results & Discussion



Noon Session, Poll 1, Discussion Notes:

• My vision is to expand aquatic opportunities for the citizens of Scottsdale. We have the lands/facilities/weather to have national swim meets here as well as for senior citizens. Pools should be more available. This addition would help fight obesity. Furthermore, we need open aquatic swim as well as platform diving opportunities.

• I like the 2014 Community Vision; it is short and to the point and forward looking. I also think that the statements provided by Vice-Mayor Janik could be incorporated into such. Finally, we need to encourage more diversity, equity, and inclusion – which should be reflected in the Vision Statement.

• I agree with Vice Mayor Janik’s vision as it is to the point and direct. The only thing missing from our vision is that we need to support more effective and cohesive mass transit throughout the city.

• Although I didn’t select the 2014 Vision Statement, I think it is missing something regarding arts and culture within the exceptional experience text.

• I like the Vice-Mayor Janik Vision Statement; however, it seemed too lengthy and could be shortened.

Noon Session, Poll 2, Results


o Yes – 7 (70%) o No – 3 (30%)


o Yes – 9 (90%) o No – 1 (10%)


• Several attendees abstained from being polled as they didn’t feel that they understood the amendment criteria well enough to intelligently provide input or vote.

• No other discussion occurred regarding this poll.

Page | 6




• No discussion occurred regarding this poll.




o Yes – 10 (71%) o No – 4 (29%)


• Several attendees abstained from being polled as they didn’t feel that they understood the Desert Rural proposal enough to intelligently provide input or vote.

• Are some of these proposed Desert Rural Areas already developed? Does that mean there could be a home there already? If things were left the way that they are today, could landowners split 5-acre parcels into five, 1-acre parcels, and could they then become commercial or would they remain residential?

• In the north area of the city there are many neighborhoods with densities higher than 1-per-acre from previous actions. Would this change mean that there will not be areas with densities higher than 1-per-acre in the future?

• I support the creation of Desert Rural. I am concerned that more density attracts more density. I am also concerned with sprawl.

• I am against the proposed Desert Rural land use category. I think that the existing Rural Neighborhoods General Plan land use designation fits the northern areas of the city. It doesn’t seem compelling enough to change that amount of land to this new designation, when there is not very much clientele interested or attracted to the large-lot residential market.

• The General Plan that was ratified 20 years ago seems to have been ignored over time. Does this draft of the plan have more teeth to it, or will it be ignored similarly?

2.18.21 – Evening Session (5:30pm – 7:00pm) 16 total participants out of 21 total registrations. Evening Session, Poll 1, Results


Page | 7


Evening Session, Poll 1, Discussion Notes:

• I am in favor of the 2014 Task Force version; however, it is missing something. I agree that Vice-Mayor Janik’s version is an excellent Vision Statement as well. I appreciate that the Janik Vision Statement includes things such as live/work/play and technology. It appears that the text in the Janik Vision Statement about preserving/expanding open spaces includes placemaking, which I support too. Finally, I like that the Janik Vision Statement includes aspects such as inclusion and diversity. It seems like there could be value in reviewing the 2014 Vision against all of the detail provided in the Janik Vision Statement.

• I think that there should be a strong Arts and Culture statement in the Vision statement. The Vision needs to discuss not only heritage, but also how we move forward. We need to be #1 in that regard, and a destination arts and culture attraction. This needs to be in the vision statement.

• I support all the previous comments. We need a Vision statement somewhere between 2014 and the Janik Vision Statement in terms of specificity and length.

• Something that came out of the branding of downtown Scottsdale was that it appeared we did not have inclusivity. In terms of inclusivity, I think we need to be more honest at how we have inclusive aspirations within the vision statement.

• We need to be better at cultural institution-building like some of our neighboring communities. We need to have leadership values in that regard. Both in terms of non-profit and private arts/culture entities.

• I would reinforce previous comments regarding the arts. The city appears to spend money and provide “lip-service” to the arts, but not the leadership to make it happen. Other cities have better leadership than we do in terms of the arts. We do have arts programming, but we are taking it for granted. I would like to see the arts supported better within the vision statement. More action and strength is needed.

• I support the Janik Vision Statement. I agree with the others regarding Old Town and the Arts. We are world-class and we need to add more value to it. Our vision needs to place a high value on our world-class arts district.

Evening Session, Poll 2, Results


o Yes – 10 (91%) o No – 1(9%)


o Yes – 9 (82%) o No – 2 (18%)

Page | 8


• One new consideration should be that when any parcel is seeking 50% or more density than currently allowed, that would trigger a major amendment.

• I would have preferred this to be worked out as a multiple-question process instead of lumping all of the criteria together. Furthermore, and although I like the criteria, I am not sure I like the process involved in discerning such.

• Where do schools fall into this major amendment criteria? When thinking back to the first polling question, the vision statement should speak to education.

• All the amendment criteria seem overly simplistic and do not reflect on impacts. As it stands, the Council has more power than seems necessary. At what point does the dollar amount of a development proposal reflect when voters can weigh in and not just City Council? It seems like the general public should be able to weigh in as well. That is why I disagreed with the amendment criteria in the poll. Finally, I also agree with the 50% or more density suggestion from one of the other attendees.

• Major Amendment Criteria can be very burdensome; however, I do agree with the 10-acre citywide aspect of the proposal. The General Plan can sometimes be misaligned with underlying zoning, which can create a process which would otherwise be unnecessary. We currently have a rigorous process. I don’t want to discourage downzoning as a result of an even more rigorous process.




• Although I support this proposal, we should have consideration for single family homes adjacent to current “office” buildings in that they wouldn’t all of a sudden be adjacent to larger, more intense employment-type “office” users.




o Yes – 7 (70%) o No – 3 (30%)


• I live in the north area of the city and the biggest thing we are seeing is suburban development happening in the middle of rural areas. Clustering that occurs creates residential lots that are half-acre and less. These are not “large-lot” properties. We will lose estate homes and

Page | 9

equestrian facilities if this continues, which will lose the city a lot of money. We need to honor western heritage by preserving these large lot residential areas.

• Has there been a survey to the landowners that would be affected by this proposal? Although I personally enjoy large lot properties, I see the problem here is that there may be landowners up in the north who have large amounts of land area that will be affected by this and may try to legally challenge this proposal. This could be a problem from a personal property rights standpoint.

• I support the Desert Rural proposal. It seems like the major amendment criteria is arbitrary and ultimately gives too much power to the City Council. Too many amendments have been approved by City Council.

• My observation is that the only folks that benefit from higher density in these rural areas are the developers. The neighbors do not benefit. The monetary cost to a resident or developer to apply for a Major Amendment is not excessive.

Morning Session, Wrap-up Discussion Notes:

• I did a search/find of “educate” or “education” in the draft General Plan, and only found six (6) instances. Education is important to businesses coming in and jobs to fill. Arts/Culture institutions are educating through programming. The city should partner with Scottsdale Community College and include such in the General Plan.

Draft Scottsdale General Plan 2035Case: 1-GP-2021Virtual Open HouseFebruary 18, 2021

February 18, 2021 Virtual Open House Slide Deck

1 of 75

• Provide general overview of General Plan Update Process

• Request input on Council specific items.

• Receive any other comments from the public to be forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council for consideration.

Open House Format

2


2 of 75

The General Plan is:• Community Vision/City Policy

• Community‐wide Goals

• Guides Decisions

• Legal Mandate

• Framework for More Specific Planning

• Establishes the Mixture/Location of Land Uses

What is a General Plan?The General Plan is NOT:• Zoning

• Rigid or Static

• Budget

• Specific Project

• Capital Project

• Master Plan

• “Just the land use map”

3


3 of 75

Required under ARS 9‐461.05• Update required every 10 years

• Enhanced Public Outreach• Planning Commission Recommendation

• City Council Adoption• Voter Ratification

2001 General Plan• City Council Adopted October 30, 2001• Ratified by public vote March 12, 2002

Arizona State Statutes & 2001 General Plan

4


4 of 75

2009 – 2011• 19‐member General Plan Working Group

• One person from each board/commission

• Extensive citywide public outreach• 2011 Draft Plan included content retained from 2001 General Plan

• Added new state statute required elements

• City Council Adopted October 25, 2011• Not Ratified by the Voters March 13, 2012

2001 General Plan Update

5


5 of 75

• March 13, 2012 – Special Election

• Proposition 430 – Not ratified by voters

• 2001 General Plan Remains in Effect

2012 Polling Results

6


6 of 75

2012 – 2014

• Visioning Town Hall – 100 Citizens

• Council‐appointed 25‐member Task Force• 32 public meetings

• New Elements created by Task Force• Arts, Culture + Creative Community • Healthy Community

• New state statute required elements added

• Extensive citywide public outreach• 5 Community Workshops – Plan Content• 6 Community Open Houses – Plan Review• Ongoing Online Engagement• Meetings with Individuals/Community Groups

• Base Plan ‐ Current General Plan Update Process

2035 General Plan Update

7


7 of 75

• Airport Advisory Commission

• Development Review Board

• Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission

• Historic Preservation Commission

• Human Relations Commission

• Human Services Commission

Citizen Review Committee Appointments

• Industrial Development Authority Board

• Library Board• McDowell Sonoran Preserve Commission

• Neighborhood Advisory Commission• Parks & Recreation Commission• Tourism Development Commission• Transportation Commission

Boards and Commissions with General Plan related content:

8


8 of 75

• 13 Member Committee• Boards and Commissions related General Plan content

• 13 Public Meetings (April – Dec. 2020)• Completed charge earnestly/on time all during COVID restrictions (electronic meetings)

• Respectful of previous Task Force work, public comments received

• Reviewed entire draft plan• Considered all public comments received (300+) • Took final action on plan in December 2020

• Public outreach• Ongoing online engagement• Meetings with individuals/community groups• Vast majority of comments received by commission were at the very end of process (200+)

Citizen Review Committee Process

9


9 of 75

• Phase 1 – Data Collection and Analysis (completed)

• Phase 2 – City Staff Technical Advisory Committee Review (completed)

• Phase 3 – Citizen Review Committee (completed)

• Phase 4 – Public Outreach & State Required Adoption Process (Jan – Jun 2021)

• Phase 5 – Consideration of Voter Ratification (November 2021)

Process and Timeline – Current General Plan Update

10


10 of 75

• 3 Sections – Preface, Chapters, Appendix

• 8 Chapters – Organize the Elements

• 23 Elements

• 17 State Mandated Elements

• 6 Community Created Element

• Character & Design (2001)

• Arts, Culture & Creative Community

• Community Involvement (2001)

• Healthy Community

• Economic Vitality (2001)

• Tourism

CRC 2035 Draft Plan Organization

NEW

NEW

NEW

11


11 of 75

CRC Draft 2035 General Plan Organization

12


12 of 75

• CRC Draft 2035 General Plan

CRC Modifications to Plan

City Staff TAC Input

Citizen Outreach (2014 ‐ current)

(NEW) = Content created by GP Task Force

‡ = State Required Content

Maintaining RED or GREEN text indicates CRC acceptance of the suggested edits for inclusion in plan.

If RED or GREEN text has LIGHT BLUE strike through lines this indicates that the CRC has recommended striking the suggested edits.

CRC Draft Plan

13


13 of 75

Pertaining to the Character and Design Element, consensus to:• Maintain the Character and Design Element• Direct staff to generalize height within the plan• Retain the Character areas as proposed – both adopted and anticipated future areas

• Keeping the Rural/Rural Desert Character Types to be representative of similar areas citywide

• Restoring original language in CD 1.2, 1.4, and 7.5

Direction Received From City Council on the Draft Scottsdale General Plan 2035

14


14 of 75

Section 1 – Preface

Vision Statement


15 of 75

City Council Request – 2/9 Work Study SessionTest the following vision statements with the public: • 2001 Vision Statement; • 2014 Task Force Vision Statement with the Community Aspirations; and

• Vice Mayor Janik’s proposed Vision Statement.

16


16 of 75

• Vision statements are inspirational, lofty, & ambitious ‐they don’t contain details or steps for achieving goals

• City is reaching build‐out, vision more likely to maintain/enhance than a bold new vision

• Public input – maintain/enhance all that Scottsdale offers today

• Vision Statements are not state mandated

General Plan Vision Statements

17


17 of 75

• General Plan 2030 (2012)

• Provides extensive background/history

• Future/forward looking in last paragraph

• Contains details/steps

Town of Carefree -Vision Statement

18


18 of 75


• Future/forward looking

• Motivational & inspirational

• Defines its current status and where its heading

• Contains some details/steps

City of Phoenix -Vision Statement

19


19 of 75


• Future/forward looking

• Communicates shared values

• Inspirational – incorporates values, but does not get into details/steps

Town of Gilbert -Vision Statement

20


20 of 75

• Visioning background and history:• 100 citizens participated in drafting a Town Hall Vision Statement

• Town Hall Vision Statement – taken out to public for further comment/refinement

• General Plan Citizen Task Force –further refined and created the Vision statement found in baseline 2035 Draft Plan (2014)

Task Force Draft 2035 General Plan Vision Statement

2014 Task Force Vision

21


21 of 75

A Vision for the Future The community values set forth above are an integral part of this vision statement and are incorporated herein.

We will be a city founded on and adhering to its community values, which leverages its rich Southwestern history, where the pastis celebrated, while managing our future based on preserving those values. We will be an active, globally interconnected, andmulti-generational city where residential neighborhoods and commercial districts co-exist harmoniously with each other and the environment; where a culture of wellness is promoted; where people are committed to and respect each other; and where growth is managed responsibly and with respect for nature, sustainability, wellbeing, character, and unique environmental assets such as our Sonoran Desert and our McDowell Sonoran Preserve. We will be a vibrant and welcoming city with a unique international reputation for natural beauty, innovation, arts and culture, economic vitality, and livability.

We will continue to create a safe, attractive, vibrant and sustainable city for ourselves, our children, our visitors and future generations.

We will be a city where citizens are esteemed active primary stakeholders in their city government.

We will preserve, protect and enhance neighborhoods, and historically significant structures and sites, while protecting property rights.

We will be a city that draws visitors from around the world because of its internationally recognized brand reflected in its physical appearance; desert vistas; amenities; world-class events; resorts; equestrian heritage; high quality of life; healthcare resources; thriving, unique and walkable downtown; and its arts, culture and recreation opportunities.

We will create an innovative and sustainable city that is economically prosperous, an honest place to do business and that allows a multitude of opportunities for all citizens.

We will create, grow and attract diverse, world-class businesses and entrepreneurs that leverage technology and innovation to fuel the local community and benefit the global economy.

We will have a thriving, well-educated workforce; strong, safe neighborhoods; and a wide range of innovative, efficient and effective mobility options that connect to citywide and regional networks.

We will be a city that promotes meaningful open spaces with new development and that respects and preserves Scottsdale’s mature neighborhoods, the Indian Bend Wash Greenbelt, canal banks, neighborhood parks, and a thriving downtown.

We will be one of the finest cities in which to live and a place where the Southwest and the 21st Century join hands.

Town Hall Vision Statement

22


22 of 75

General Plan 2035 Visioning Background:Task Force Vision Statement Discussion

• Future Tense – describe community of the future• Short/Memorable• Create a visual vision statement using themes• Remove redundancy in Town Hall Vision Statement• Keep integrity of Town Hall Vision Statement• Needs to apply to entire city/General Plan

23


23 of 75

Scottsdale will be an and the . Our will foster and . Scottsdale will thrive by

that encourage and

Our Primary Community Aspirations:in the

and

‐ Scottsdale will continue to offer a that are and

and services . Our neighborhoods will advance

Scottsdale will be a

. Our citizens shall have .

Vision

24


24 of 75

2014 Task Force Vision 2020 CRC Vision

25


25 of 75

City Council Request – 2/9 Work Study SessionTest the following vision statements with the public: • 2001 Vision Statement; • 2014 Task Force Vision Statement with the Community Aspirations; and

• Vice Mayor Janik’s proposed Vision Statement.


26 of 75

2001 Community VisionEach of us has a vision of what Scottsdale should be like in the future. Although our visions are different, they share commonqualities and reference points. We hope to create a safe, attractive city for ourselves, our children, and for future generations.We envision a city where the natural environment is protected, where excellent services are provided, and where citizens aretrue partners in their city government. We aspire to create a city that is economically healthy and a good place to do business.We envision a city that has balanced mobility options and connections to citywide and regional networks. We see our communityas a great place to live now and in the future.

Many characteristics combine to make Scottsdale what it is now. The physical setting of the Sonoran Desert, the character of ourdowntown thriving businesses and industries providing diversified employment, a historical emphasis on arts and culture, and avariety of neighborhoods, each unique in character, allowing for a broad range of lifestyles.

The passage of time inevitably brings changes. Scottsdale today differs from the city of twenty or fifty years ago and is differentnow than the city it will be in twenty or fifty years. The task facing us is to retain the most important characteristics of our city inthe face of changes we cannot control, and manage as well as possible, those forces we can control.

Unanimous agreement about the future is not the goal of the General Plan. Rather it strives to create balance and blending ofopinions to form a community that collectively manages change. Only then can we retain the community’s unique characteristicsand still welcome the future. The Scottsdale General Plan strives to reflect a coherent vision of the hopes, dreams, andaspirations of a diverse population ‐ senior citizens and children, long‐term residents and newcomers, those living in establishedneighborhoods and those living in newly created neighborhoods.


27 of 75

2035 Community Vision & Aspirations –’14 Task ForceScottsdale will be an exceptional Sonoran Desert experience and the premier southwestern tourist destination. Our diverse neighborhoods will foster outstanding livability through connected, healthy and sustainable communities. Scottsdale will thrive by attracting and retaining business centers of excellence that encourage innovation and prosperity.

EXCEPTIONAL EXPERIENCEScottsdale is a special place in the Sonoran southwest. Our community will continue to draw visitors, businesses, and new residents from around the world because of our natural desert beauty; vast open spaces and environmental assets; high standards for design; world‐class events and resorts; vibrant downtown; and distinctive heritage and culture.

OUTSTANDING LIVABILITYScottsdale will continue to offer a variety of multi‐generational lifestyle choices that are responsibly planned, connected, attractive, and supported with appropriate infrastructure and services for urban, suburban, and rural living. Our neighborhood experiences will advance well‐being and safety through promotion of physical and social connection.

COMMUNITY PROSPERITYScottsdale will be a thriving, prosperous city that attracts and grows world‐class businesses, leverages technology, encourages innovation and creativity, and cultivates a well‐educated workforce. Our citizens will have opportunities to prosper.


28 of 75

2035 Community Vision (Vice Mayor Janik)A Vision for the FutureVISION STATEMENT ‐ Bulleted Town Hall Statement

Scottsdale will…• Be a safe, attractive, vibrant and sustainable city founded on and

adhering to its community values, and managing our future based on preserving those values.

• Embrace our heritage where the past is recognized and inclusivity is celebrated.

• Be an active, globally interconnected, and multi‐generational city where residential neighborhoods are safe, protected and preserved and harmoniously co‐exist with commercial districts and the environment.

• Preserve and expand our meaningful open spaces.• Promote a culture of wellness.• Be a place where people are committed to and respect each

other, and where citizens are primary stakeholders in their city and government.

• Manage growth responsibly and with respect for nature,sustainability, wellbeing, character, historically significant structuresand sites, and unique environmental assets such as the SonoranDesert and our McDowell Sonoran Preserve.

• Be a vibrant, economically prosperous, and welcoming city with aunique international reputation for natural beauty, innovation,opportunity, arts and culture, economic vitality, and livability.

• Continue to draw visitors from around the world because of ourinternationally recognized brand reflected in our city's physicalappearance; desert vistas; the Preserve; world‐class events; resorts;equestrian heritage; high quality of life; healthcare resources;thriving, unique and walkable downtown; and arts, culture andrecreation opportunities.

• Create, grow and attract diverse, world‐class businesses andentrepreneurs that leverage technology, innovation, and a thriving,well‐educated workforce to fuel the local economy and benefit theglobal economy.

• Have a wide range of innovative, efficient and effective mobilityoptions that connect to citywide and regional networks.

We will be one of the finest cities in which to visit, live, work, and playand a place where the Southwest and the 21st Century join hands.


29 of 75

City Council Request – 2/9 Work Study Session

1)What is your preferred Vision Statement for Scottsdale? A. Existing 2001 Vision StatementB. Task Force 2014 Vision StatementC. Vice‐Mayor Janik Proposed Vision StatementD. None of the Vision Statements Presented

2) Does your choice fully communicate your vision for the future? Yes No, it is missing something I’d like to suggest


30 of 75

City Council Request – 2/9 Work Study SessionTest the following with the public: • Employment/Office land use designation combination; and• The proposal of a new Desert Rural land use designation and the association of a major amendment process


31 of 75

Section 2 - Chapters

Chapter 1 – Land Use Element

General Plan Amendment Criteria


32 of 75

State Statute Requirements - ARS 9-461.05 • General Plans are required under ARS 9‐461.05 to include criteria that identify and allow for amendments

• Each municipality establishes own criteria

• Criteria defines what constitutes major & non‐major (minor) amendments

Scottsdale General Plan is & must remain legally amendable

33


33 of 75

General Plan Amendment CriteriaMajor amendment: “substantial alteration of the municipality’s land use mixture or balance as established in the existing general plan land use element.”

Major Amendment Minor Amendment

Occurs one time per year Can occur any time per year

Min. 2 Planning Commission hearings

Min. 1 Planning Commission hearing

2/3 majority of Council to adopt(5 out of 7)

Regular majority of Council to adopt(4 out of 7)

Enhanced notification to surrounding jurisdictions

Regular notification process

All other analysis remains the same for major and non‐major (minor) amendments

34


34 of 75

What does the Amendment Criteria Do?PROTECTS:

• Increases in the intensity and density to specific land uses (primarily residential);

• Decreases in the intensity and density of specific land uses (mixed‐use/commercial – economic engines);

• Uses important/vital to keep Scottsdale fiscally, socially & environmentally sustainable (resorts/tourism, natural open space, cultural)

QUALIFIES/DIRECTS A PROCESS• Qualifies a proposal using the community’s criteria to determine a Major or Non‐Major amendment to the established land use plan

• Allows for flexibility to respond as necessary

Land Use Category Description Density/Intensity

Rural Neighborhoods Large lot, single‐family neighborhoods

1 dwelling per 1+ acre(s)

Suburban Neighborhoods

Medium to small lot single‐family neighborhoods

2 – 8 dwellings per acre

Urban NeighborhoodsSmall‐lot single family and multi‐family dwellings/ apartments

8+ units per acre

Mixed‐Use Neighborhoods

Combination of higher‐density housing, commercial and/or office uses

8+ units per acre

Resorts/TourismHotels, resorts, supporting services, low to medium density residential

Contextual

Commercial Uses that provide a variety of goods and services Contextual

Office A variety of office uses Contextual

Employment

A range of employment‐oriented uses, including light industrial to office uses

Contextual

Natural Open Space

Significant environmental amenities/hazards, suitable for low‐impact recreational activities

N/A

Developed Open Space Public/private recreation areas and drainage facilities N/A

McDowell Sonoran Preserve

Mountain and desert lands in the City’s Preserve N/A

Cultural/Institutional & Public Use

Variety of public/private facilities, including government uses, schools, hospitals, airport

Contextual35


35 of 75

36


36 of 75

37


37 of 75

2001/Draft 2035 General Plan Criteria Change in Land Use (#1)

38


38 of 75

Planning Zones A, B (10+ acres)Planning Zones C, D + E (15+ acres) 10+ Acres Citywide

2001 General Plan 2035 Draft Plan2001/

Draft 2035 General Plan

Criteria Area of Change

(#2)

39


39 of 75

40


40 of 75

Scottsdale General Plan 2001Criteria 2 - ComparisonPhoenix: 3,200+ acresCave Creek: 10+ acresCarefree: 5+ acresMesa: 320+ acresFountain Hills: 40‐80+ acresGilbert: 40‐160+ acresChandler: 40‐320+ acresParadise Valley: No Acreage CriteriaScottsdale 10+ acresScottsdale: 118,099 total acres or 184.5 sq. miles

41


41 of 75

Scottsdale General Plan 2001 Land Use Amendments

• Since *2001 Adoption/2002 Ratification:• 147 amendment applications • 30 major amendments approved• 68 non‐major amendments approved• 2 major amendments denied• 1 non‐major amendment denied• 44 applications withdrawn (39) or expired (5)

*Updated as of January 2021

100% of major amendment cases were determined as a result of Criteria 1 and/or 2

42


42 of 75

2035 Draft Plan2001/

Draft 2035 General Plan

Character Area Criteria

(#3) &

Water –Wastewater

InfrastructureCriteria

(#4)

2001 General Plan

43


43 of 75

NEW Draft 2035 General Plan Amendment Criteria

(#5)

44


44 of 75

NEW Draft 2035 General Plan Amendment

Criteria(#6)

45


45 of 75

NEW Draft 2035 General Plan Amendment Criteria(#7)

Regional Use

Overlay

Mayo Overlay

Shea Overlay

46


46 of 75


1) Do you support the first four existing (1‐4) major amendment criteria and the process for which major amendments are determined? Yes No

2)Do you support the NEWmajor amendment criteria (5‐7) and the process for which major amendments are determined? Yes No


47 of 75

Section 2 - Chapters

Chapter 1 – Land Use Element


48 of 75

• Goals Include:• LU 1 Enhance economic viability & character• LU 2 Sensitively integrate land uses• LU 3 Maintain a balance of land uses• LU 4 Land use patterns that support mobility• LU 5 Land use patterns that conserve resources• LU 6 Improve economic well‐being• LU 7 Protect the Scottsdale Airport

• General Plan Amendment Criteria• Future Land Use Map

CRC Draft Plan: Land Use Element

49


49 of 75

State Statute Requirements - ARS 9-461.05 a) Designates the proposed general distribution & location of land uses b) Includes a statement of the standards of population density & building intensity

recommended for the various land use categoriesc) Identifies specific programs and policies that the municipality may use to promote infill

or compact form development activity & locations where those development patterns should be encouraged

d) Includes consideration of air quality & access to incident solar energy for all general categories of land use

e) Includes policies that address maintaining a broad variety of land uses including the range of uses existing in the municipality when the plan is adopted, readopted or amended

f) Includes sources of currently identified aggregates from maps that are available from state agencies, policies to preserve currently identified aggregates sufficient for future development and policies to avoid incompatible land uses

50


50 of 75

51


51 of 75

52


52 of 75

53


53 of 75

54


54 of 75

55


55 of 75

56


56 of 75

57


57 of 75

• Maintains Existing Land Uses• Combined Employment and Office Categories• Mapped Developed Open Space• Mapped Natural Open Space• Circle Designation References are Case Specific

• Removal of Resort Stars

• Addresses Airport• Goal/Policies• Noise Contours Map

2035 General Plan Future Land Use Map

58


58 of 75

59


59 of 75


1. Do you support the combination of the Employment/Office land use designation? Yes No


60 of 75

• No proposal to amend any of the land use designations ‐ including Rural Neighborhoods

• Community discussion regarding the addition of a new “Desert Rural” Neighborhood land use

2035 General Plan Land Use Map

61


61 of 75

• “Desert Rural” Neighborhood land use category created from zoning categories:

• R1‐130 (1 unit per 130,000+ SF lot)• Approximately 3+/‐ Acres

• R1‐190 (1 unit per 190,000+ SF lot)• Approximately 4.5+/‐ Acres

2035 General Plan Land Use Map

Major Amendment Minor AmendmentOccurs one time per year Can occur any time per year

Min. 2 Planning Commission hearings

Min. 1 Planning Commission hearing

2/3 majority of Council to adopt(5 out of 7)

Regular majority of Council to adopt(4 out of 7)

Enhanced notification to surrounding jurisdictions

Regular notification process

62


62 of 75

• Rural Neighborhoods: • If want a maximum density of 1 house per 1 acre:Rezoning of Residential District $1,350 + per acre fee

Rezoning per acre fees: 0‐20 acres No added fees 21‐100 acres $80/acre 101‐600 acres $63/acre 601+ acres $58/acre

• Desert Rural Neighborhoods:• If want a maximum density of 1 house per 1 acre:Rezoning costs would be the same as under the Rural Neighborhoods scenario

Major General Plan Amendment +$4,635

Minor General Plan Amendment +$2,320

City Fees


63 of 75

RuralRezoning to 1 unitper acre

Desert Rural Rezoning + Minor GP Amendment

(+ $2,320)

Desert Rural Rezoning + Major Amendment

(+ $4,635)

R1‐130 Parcels

5 acres (Avg Size)

$1,350 $3,670 $5,985

10 acres $1,350 $3,670 $5,985

20 acres $1,350 $3,670 $5,985

40 acres $4,550 $6,870 $9,185

293 acres (largest parcel)

$19,809 $22,129 $24,444

R1‐190 Parcels

6 acres (Avg Size)

$1,350 $3,670 $5,985

10 acres $1,350 $3,670 $5,985

20 acres $1,350 $3,670 $5,985

40 acres $4,550 $6,870 $9,185

152 acres (largest parcel)

$10,926 $13,246 $15,561

Sample City Fees: Proposed Desert Rural


64 of 75

65


65 of 75

66


66 of 75

Citywide – 118,297 acres

• Desert Rural Neighborhoods: 6% (7,578 acres/1,374 Parcels)

• Rural Neighborhoods: 20% (23,400 acres)

Desert Foothills CAP – 5,522 acres

• Desert Rural Neighborhoods: 24% (1,351 acres)


Dynamite Foothills CAP – 8,778 acres

• Desert Rural Neighborhoods: 25% (2,193 acres)


Land Use Acreage Result

67


67 of 75

“Undeveloped” includes all parcels designated as “vacant” by the County Assessor Office.

68


68 of 75

Change in Land Use Category – Desert Rural Option

69


69 of 75


1) Do you support the creation of a new Desert Rural Land Use designation? Yes No

2)Do you support the land use amendment matrix associated with the creation of a new Desert Rural Land Use Category? Yes No


70 of 75

Next StepsFebruary and March

2021

March and April 2021

June 2021

November 2021

• Other City Boards, Commissions, Community Open Houses

• Remote Planning Commission Hearing• City Council Study Session• Planning Commission Recommendation Hearing

• City Council Adoption Hearing

• Public VoteMeet w

ith com

mun

ity m

embe

rs/group

s

71


71 of 75

• Monday, March 15, 2021 –3 sessions

• Monday, March 29th, 2021 –3 sessions

Additional Virtual Open House Opportunities

72


72 of 75

Keyword “General Plan Updates”

73


73 of 75

Need more information?

Erin Perreault, AICP

Long Range Planning Director

[email protected]

480.312.7093

Adam Yaron

Principal Planner

[email protected]

480.312.2761

Taylor Reynolds

Project Coordination Liaison

[email protected]

480.312.7924

74


74 of 75

Draft Scottsdale General Plan 2035Case: 1-GP-2021Virtual Open HouseFebruary 18, 2021


75 of 75

2035 general plan update - scottsdaleaz.gov...2035 general plan update february 18, 2021 virtual...

Documents