As Kenny Rogers has been advising for going on 50 years, you got to know when to hold ’em – and when to fold.
Facing a new state law that some worry could cause “an explosion” of casitas, which can be turned into short-term rentals, Scottsdale puffed up – then backed away and fell in line.
But that doesn’t mean city officials are happy about it.
As Councilwoman Jan Dubauskas put it, “The legislature is removed from practical implementation of its concepts.
“I’m concerned that is one of those ideas that sounds great on paper, but the implementation could go terribly awry, eroding the charm and quality of life residents expect in Scottsdale.”
Last year, city staff presented Scottsdale’s elected officials with what seemed to be a clever work around on the “casitas bill.”
Though state representatives and Gov. Katie Hobbs granted hundreds of thousands of homeowners the ability to build casitas, city planners came up with a map that excluded most of the city – as being “in the vicinity of” either the Scottsdale Airport or Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
Great idea, Council collectively said, unanimously approving the exclusions at the end of 2024.
“Outlaws!” state reps proclaimed.
Arizona House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci fumed over Scottsdale’s chess move in a hot email stating the city’s actions “contravene the law.”
Early this year, he and other state leaders specifically targeted Scottsdale – according to Rep. Alexander Kolodin, a Republican who represents much of the city – with an amendment making the city’s work around null.
Scottsdale’s response:
We surrender.
As a city release put it, “At their Sept. 30 meeting, the Scottsdale City Council amended the city’s zoning ordinance related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to comply with a state law (HB2928) adopted earlier this year.
“The new law expands the ability for ADUs to be built on residential lots.”
What the city and state call “accessory dwelling units” or “ADUs” – most people call “casitas” or “mother-in-laws.”
The city did not have much of a choice.
Failure to amend Scottsdale’s zoning code in accordance with the state law, the release noted, “would have allowed ADUs on all residential lots or parcels without limits.”
The unanimous approval was shuffled off in the background, as part of a dozen “consent agenda” items voted on collectively, with no presentation, questions or debate.
According to city planner Brad Carr’s report, the new state amendment “updates 2024 legislation to require cities to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on lots or parcels that are located in the vicinity of a federal aviation administration commercially licensed airport or a general aviation airport ..”
State leaders were furious over Scottsdale’s “airport vicinity” interpretation – which kept bans on casitas/mother-in-laws in the southern part of the city through Old Town.
That, coincidentally or not, is the hotbed of Scottsdale’s short-term rental market.
According to another state law Scottsdale leaders unsuccessfully battled nearly a decade ago: “A city or town may not prohibit vacation rentals or short-term rentals.”
Though state lawmakers say the new casitas law protects homeowners’ rights, some see it as a ploy to flood the short-term rental market.
Airbnb rush?
Last year, after the state ADU law passed but before the city’s short-lived work-around, one Scottsdale Planning commissioner feared the state law was the gateway to “creating a slum” here.
Councilwoman Solange Whitehead called the legislation “an assault on our local control and our neighborhoods.
“I consider this a terrible, terrible law,” she added.
Then-Mayor David Ortega howled that the 2024 legislation would “subvert city law” and “double the number of short-term rentals in Scottsdale.”
Indeed, according to Carr’s presentation to City Council, Scottsdale and other cities must allow the short- or long-term rental of the secondary dwellings.
Which leads some to fear: “Invasion of the Airbnbs.”
That has not been the case – thus far, at least.
“To date,” according to the city’s Oct. 1 news release, “Scottsdale has received only one formal application for an ADU.”
Irresponsible?
As Councilwoman Maryann McAllen put it, “we are following the state law. I am more concerned we are being forced by state law to allow such unprecedented ADU’s to be built in our city.
“The way the state law is written,” the first-year representative added, “does not allow our staff to regulate what is actually being built to Scottsdale’s higher standards.”
The new state law allows one attached and one detached ADU per single-family property on residential lots.
Properties with 1 acre or more can build a third detached ADU.
The only key restriction the city can enforce is size: an ADU can be 75% of the gross floor area of the single-family home or 1,000 square feet – whichever is smaller.
As the Scottsdale press release noted, “Cities are restricted from requiring ADUs to have fire sprinkler systems, on-site parking and setbacks of more than 5 feet.”
Lee Cooley, director of the Scottsdale Area Association of REALTORS, sent an email to Carr in August, saying he was concerned by “the impact HB2720/2928 can have on Scottsdale’s reputation when it comes to fire safety.
“The bills’ suggestion that ‘a municipality may not require an accessory dwelling unit to comply with a commercial building code or contain a fire sprinkler’ is irresponsible.”
There is one big catch that city leaders believe will spare much of Scottsdale from a “casitas rush”: Property owners who belong to homeowner associations – which covers much of the city – must follow their HOA guidelines.
As Carr noted, “Homeowner association rules may be more restrictive than the city ordinance.”
Bottom line: The casitas fight is over – and Scottsdale lost.
“Scottsdale opposed this legislation due to its potential impact on neighborhoods and the elimination of local control,” the city press release stated, “but when the bill became law, the city then had to proceed with updating its zoning ordinance …”
Councilman Barry Graham grumbled over a new issue and an old one:
“It’s concerning when the state chips away at local control, whether it’s short-term rentals or how we plan the density of our neighborhoods.”