SAN TAN VALLEY SPECIAL AREA PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY ... · 14/12/2016 · open preserves (San Tan...

SAN TAN VALLEY – SPECIAL AREA PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #1

MEETING SUMMARY

1

MEETING INFORMATION: San Tan Valley – Special Area Plan TAC Meeting #1

Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:00AM – 12:00PM Mountain Vista Middle School

MEETING ATTENDEES: Michael Goodman, Pinal County Board of Supervisor Elect, District #2 Steve Abraham, Pinal County Evan Balmer, Pinal County Kent Taylor, Pinal County Rachel Zenuk, Pinal County Kevin Kugler, Michael Baker International Matt Klyszeiko, Michael Baker International Evan Fisher, Michael Baker International Mark Eckhoff, Town of Florence

Michelle Green, ASLD Janeen Rohovit, SRP Steve Johnson, San Tan Valley Chamber of Commerce Brad Mecham, CAG Dorenda Coleman, AZDEMA Tim Strow, MAG Brian Sexton, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport

MEETING INTRODUCTION:

Pinal County along with project consultant, Michael Baker International (MBI) kicked-off the initial

meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the San Tan Valley Special Area Plan on

November, 15th 2016.

Kevin Kugler, the Project Director with MBI, began the meeting with opening remarks and thanked

the TAC members for their attendance and participation with the San Tan Valley Special Area Plan.

Mr. Kugler then introduced the project team, and invited the TAC members to introduce

themselves and identify their affiliations.

PRESENTATION SUMMARY:

Following introductions, Mr. Kugler presented an overview of the San Tan Valley Special Area Plan.

The introductory presentation included an explanation of the project purpose, what the San Tan

Valley Special Area Plan IS, and IS NOT, introduction of project stakeholders, and identification of

the TAC’s role and responsibilities.

Mr. Kugler also took a moment to clarify that this plan is not associated with the ongoing discussion

regarding incorporation of San Tan Valley, although the plan contents will be useful to inform the

issue in the future. Finally, Mr. Kugler concluded the introductory presentation with a review of

the project work plan and the projects timeline.

Following his opening remarks, Mr. Kugler provided all in attendance with a detailed introduction

to the study area boundary, shared some regional context information about the study area such

as Land Ownership and Land Uses, as well as Demographic Trends and Benchmarking facts.

Questions and comments reviewed as part of this presentation material are as follows:


MEETING SUMMARY

2

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS & BENCHMARKING SLIDE – QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

“What other jobs make up Health Services?” - There are a lot of dentists within San Tan

Valley “A dentist for every tooth.” In addition there is Banner health, and a lot of

chiropractors.

A TAC member asked about income within the study area, another member responded

with saying that the average income is going to be low, but the numbers can be skewed

from the handful of farmers that could be in the millions.

”Is the demographic data before or after the college was built?” – The demographic

information is based off of 2010 Census, and the 2010-2014 American Community Survey.

”What is the difference between the 2010 Census, vs. 2010-2014 ACS, vs Esri Data Source?”

– Mr. Kugler explained the difference between the different data sources, and that Esri is

the gate keeper for anything relating to Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

GROUP EXERCISE:

At the conclusion of the presentation, Matt Klyszeiko of Michael Baker International led the TAC

in a discussion based on a series of nine pre-determined questions. The TAC members were

encouraged to comment on any question regardless of their personal or agency focus. The

purpose of the discussion/exercise is to get a clear understanding of the needs, issues, strengths,

and possible solutions of San Tan Valley.

The TAC members were asked questions, and they had the opportunity to “vote” for their

preferred response by using electronic hand held polling devices. These hand held pollers allowed

voting to be anonymous (if they so choose) and allowed for a 100% participation rate. From the

real-time responses, the TAC was then able to discuss the choices and provide further input. The

questions, poll results and group discussions are summarized below.


MEETING SUMMARY

3

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES:

1) Do you feel San Tan Valley has a defined Identity?

A TAC member mentioned that San Tan Valley is not the way it was in the last 36

months, it is 3 times the size, and is similar to what had happened to Queen Creek. That

San Tan Valley is predominantly a bedroom community. Residents only care about what

happens in their house, and are not community engaged. The residents will establish

their home in the community but when it comes to work and play they will go

somewhere else.

Many San Tan Valley residents view themselves as Queen Creek Residents. Confusion

comes from (in part), the fact that some STV residents have a Queen Creek address and

mail service comes from Queen Creek.

From the mass of people who started living in San Tan Valley it had turned into a

community, the area is similar to San Bernardino California with low housing cost, and

similar weather. Many residents in 2004-2005 lived in San Tan Valley (low housing

costs) for two years, and then once their house rose in value they moved.

Two concerns from the TAC members were that there are a lot of Canadians that own

houses in San Tan valley, and if/when the residents from the Canadian housing market

sell their houses in San Tan Valley; who will be the prospective owners? There are few

employment opportunities to attract new residents from outside of San Tan Valley. Also

with the swaths of farm land that is owned by State Land it needs to be allowed to be

available for development.

Because of the close proximity to Maricopa County, residents of San Tan Valley may be

keener to use Maricopa County Infrastructure as opposed to Pinal County.


MEETING SUMMARY

4

2) What do you feel is the greatest asset of San Tan Valley that should be promoted in this area plan?

A TAC member had voted ‘No’ on Question 1, regarding branding. They feel that people

outside of San Tan Valley still refer to the area as Johnson Ranch. San Tan Valley needs

branding help, and some elected officials still ask “Where is San Tan Valley?”

o People need to understand that there are about 90,000 people out here, and it’s

not just in Johnson Ranch. There are other communities, people need to

understand where they are from, that there are about 55 subdivisions in San

Tan Valley, and they need to have some branding.

San Tan Valley is lacking an identity, and without that it will be hard to grow and have

a potential branding. However, a TAC member commented saying that the people are

young, and it is primarily a working community.

A TAC member commented on the fact that most communities don’t have access to

open preserves (San Tan Mountain Regional Park) like San Tan Valley does.

o A question from one of the TAC members was asked if anyone knew how many

residents come from San Tan Valley through the park. The general consensus

said it is about 50/50 from Maricopa and San Tan Valley. About 8 years ago, it

would have been an 80/20 split. 80% from Maricopa County and 20% from San

Tan Valley, with a mix of families with children, retired, and working

professionals visiting the park.


MEETING SUMMARY

5

3) What existing challenge is the most important issue to address in this Area Plan?

A TAC member commented (without wanting to be offensive), that in order to gain a

“higher class” of residents, STV needs to focus on higher pay (jobs) or specific industries.

Get rid of the ‘Bedroom’ community branding, but still being able to provide good

quality, safe, diverse, and affordable housing. Currently the population is a “lower/mid

class” population.

A member from the TAC said that San Tan Valley has similar concerns/dynamics as

Florence. Nowadays jobs follow people. People are looking for a quality of life and jobs

will be created around that. Employers might move to where people are, and might not

get a higher quality of life without high quality work. San Tan Valley needs to focus on

both (high quality of life and high quality employment). The old days of heavy retail is

down, and people who are starting their own business are ever- increasing.

There needs to be more diverse housing options. Many younger people don’t want the

responsibilities of a house, some want homes closer to the city, and aren’t even getting

drivers licenses. Which in turn, makes the need for more public transportation options.

People who are priced out of the housing market in Queen Creek and Gilbert come to

San Tan Valley. There is no diversity in the housing stock, no short term options. Few

townhomes/Multi-Family. No estate housing for company executives (if high quality

employment came to San Tan Valley), and the quality of life is hindered by no

government infrastructure (Bike Lanes, Public Transportation, Museums, etc.).


MEETING SUMMARY

6

4) What do you envision for the future of San Tan Valley? Predominantly a…

Some TAC members envision San Tan Valley to be a ‘New Urban’ or ‘Sustainable

Community’. However, another TAC member commented on the fact that the word

Sustainability begins as a term with one meaning, and then in 100 years will mean

something else. San Tan Valley needs enough services to be able to support itself and

not rely on its residents traveling to Maricopa County.

Residents of the North part of San Tan Valley are very unlikely to travel to South part of

San Tan Valley (vice versa). The Combs school district area is pretty self-sufficient,

Southern San Tan Valley is referred to as Johnson Ranch, and many people take the

Ocotillo corridor to Maricopa.

There is no true downtown, or a place for residents to gather. Pinal County has two

county fairs, and many of the San Tan Valley residents don’t know about it. The large

tracts of agriculture land could be a great infrastructure for a downtown or a ‘hub’ for

residents. However, it will be hard to get ahold of that land because it’s primarily state

land. The selling of the State Trust land is there, however, there is no immediate demand

and the value is not ‘ripe’ at this time (in terms of buying the State Land Department,

and showing how ASLD can justify selling). San Tan Valley has the opportunity to set

stipulations and practices to move planning and zoning forward, but can’t overlook

infrastructure. We can invent (San Tan Valley), where other communities are

reinventing. We need to give confidence to the State Land Department, to let it go and

give them the ability to sell. Most residents see it as cotton farms, and don’t know who

owns that land.


MEETING SUMMARY

7

5) How would you rate the overall appearance of the streetscape design in San Tan Valley?

TAC members did not offer additional comments.

6) How would you rate the overall appearance of the commercial architecture in San Tan Valley?

TAC members had very little comment but collectively suggested that the commercial

businesses are all pretty new and more modern looking. The County has done a good

job with the look and feel of the commercial development in STV.


MEETING SUMMARY

8

7) How would you rate the overall appearance of the residential architecture in San Tan Valley?

The TAC generally suggested that there is not a lot of variety in the housing types or

styles. Housing colors and tile roofs are generally pretty similar, but this condition is

also apparent in many areas of the Valley.

8) Do you think healthy lifestyle options (such as availability of healthier and affordable food choices,

provision of sidewalks and bike lanes, or access to parks and trails) are adequately provided within

San Tan Valley?

The TAC had all agreed that there are very limited healthy lifestyle options within San

Tan Valley. Lack of a ‘local government’ to provide these services (as previously noted)

complicates the issue. There are many areas for improvements, such as trail

connectivity, public park access, and a broader choice for food and grocery stores.


MEETING SUMMARY

9

9) Identify an accomplishment you would most like to see come out of this planning process or Area

Plan document?

A member of the TAC provided a comment form that an accomplishment they would

like to see is health in all policies and to develop San Tan Valley to identify and develop

a culture of health and wellness.

Another TAC member concluded that they are grateful that Pinal County has decided to

undertake this planning process that will identify a modern vision and growth goals and

objectives for STV.


MEETING SUMMARY

Appendix A:

TAC Meeting #1

Presentation

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

Ph

ase

I PROJECT INITIATIONP

has

e II PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Ph

ase

III PREFERRED PLAN

Ph

ase

IV 60-DAY PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

Ph

ase

V PUBLIC HEARINGS / ADOPTION

Oct - DecJan -Mar

Apr -June

July -Sept

Oct -Dec

Owner Acreage Percent

Private 26,232.72 66.96%

State Trust 12,281.93 31.35%

BLM 478.77 1.22%

Bureau of Reclamation 183.80 0.47%

Total 39,177.22 100.00%

Land Use Acreage Percent

Ranchette Residential (0-0.3 Du/Ac) 1,731.27 4.61%

Very Low Density Residential (0-1 Du/Ac) 5,301.82 14.11%

Moderate Low Density Residential (1-3.5 Du/Ac) 30,203.80 80.37%

Medium Density Residential (3.5-8 Du/Ac) 77.24 0.21%

High Density Residential (8-24 Du/Ac) 38.35 0.10%

Low Intensity Activity Center 171.05 0.46%

General Commercial 52.10 0.14%

Employment 1,260.52 3.35%

Military 478.04 1.27%

Total 37,582.93 100.00%

ACS 2010-2014

2010 Census

ACS 2010-2014

ESRI

Pinal County, ACS 2010-2014

2010 Census

2010 Census

‒

‒

│7777

1111

2222

2222

1111

3333

1111

4444

Total: 11Total: 11Total: 11Total: 11

│

5555

1111

5555

2222


│

2222

1111

1111

2222

1111

3333

5555

4444

2222

5555

0000

6666


│

7777

1111

2222

2222

0000

3333

0000

4444

1111

5555

0000

6666

0000

7777


│

1111

1111

0000

2222

4444

3333

6666

4444

0000

5555

0000

6666

0000

7777


│

0000

1111

2222

2222

2222

3333

4444

4444

2222

5555


│

0000

1111

0000

2222

6666

3333

1111

4444

2222

5555


│

0000

1111

0000

2222

2222

3333

6666

4444

2222

5555


│

0000

1111

10101010

2222


│

0000

1111

0000

2222

1111

3333

4444

4444

1111

5555

2222

6666

2222

7777


‒

‒

‒

‒


MEETING SUMMARY

Appendix B:

TAC Meeting #1

Sign-In Sheet

SAN TAN VALLEY SPECIAL AREA PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY ... · 14/12/2016 · open preserves (San Tan...

Documents

Transcript of SAN TAN VALLEY SPECIAL AREA PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY ... · 14/12/2016 · open preserves (San Tan...