Les, Thanks for the reply and good insight!

Personally, I think the 2002 General Plan had it right, placing a future resort and commercial center east of Pima where the demand will be. It also seems logical because it adds the needed value to land east of Pima where the value is needed to acquire the 400 acres and rezone and provide additional protection for land already in the preserve. It simplifies and reduces the scope of the transaction. It also provides more flexibility for the future by not increasing the value of land that the city might want to acquire (all or in part) east of Scottsdale Road. It’s also fair to homeowners who purchased since 2002 because the zoning map shows the above zoning east of Pima and the planned preserve map shows the parcels west of Pima.

As for the size of the resort. Of course nothing is cast in stone until it is actually built BUT a concern, no matter where it goes, is the scope of the final associated development, e.g. Fairmont Princess and Biltmore AND the demand. The Boulders and el Pedregal are in the process of being sold again. When I was told about this proposed re-zoning by city staff back in the spring, I raised the objection of the impact of a large resort and was told that was not what was being discussed that a “boutique” type resort was what they had in mind.

75 acres is small for a resort. Could the 40 acres of commercial be switched to resort as well? If that raises the value to satisfy the ASLD, than a larger resort would be a better fit for the scenic drive (visually) and could raise the value the whole area through better branding by having a world class resort named for it.

Just curious.

Thanks for posting this information. I have some questions.

I assume that the preserve commission made the recommendation to shift the commercial and resort/tourist zoning from east of Pima to Scottsdale Road and the Scenic Drive. Why was this done, considering that

1) There is no zoning of that type east of Pima – north of Dynamite, and the Scottsdale General Plan calls for additional neighborhoods to be built in the future. Won’t those neighborhoods create a demand for commercial in the future?
2) I’ve been told by a representative of the state land department that the commercial and/or resort/tourism could be shifted to any of the state land east of Pima (as shown on the map), i.e., and not necessarily where it is shown in the 2002 Scottsdale General Plan. Does’t it make more sense to shift the zoning to those areas because a) it does not increase the value of parcels the city wants to buy for the preserve, and 2) it provides for future demand?
3) Won’t shifting the commercial and resort/tourism zoning to Scottsdale Road between Jomax and Happy Valley, increase the value of that land and make it more difficult for the city to complete the preserve, add ANY lands in the “postage stamps,” and create a trailhead near Scottsdale Road?
4) Isn’t there enough commercial zoning along or near Scottsdale Road, north of Pinnacle Peak Road to meet current and future needs? Why put more commercial here?

Les