Scottsdale approves Marshall Living 12-unit mixed-use project 4-3 despite alley-width concerns
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — February 18, 2025

Scottsdale approves Marshall Living 12-unit mixed-use project 4-3 despite alley-width concerns

City Council approved mixed-use Marshall Living development in Oldtown 4-3 amid debate over parking accessibility and alley safety, while also grappling with DEI program elimination and advocating for 68th Street sidewalk completion.

Council Approves Marshall Living Mixed-Use Infill 4–3 Despite Alley Width and Parking Safety Concerns

Scottsdale City Council voted 4–3 to approve the Marshall Living mixed-use development appeal on February 18, 2025, clearing a contested 12-unit residential project with ground-floor retail for a 0.21-acre parcel just south of Fifth Avenue on the east side of Marshall Way in Oldtown. The decision—with Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield, Councilman Barry Graham, and Vice Mayor Jancy Deasus opposing—concluded an intense two-hour hearing dominated by disputes over alley maneuverability, pedestrian safety, and whether existing city design standards adequately protected surrounding businesses and historic character.

The project represents the city's largest planning flashpoint in recent months over the tension between infill revitalization and protections for historic commercial corridors. Lisa Borowsky closing remarks signaled Council intent to revisit Oldtown design criteria altogether, suggesting the debate reflects not individual project flaws but structural gaps in the city's regulatory framework.

Key Speeches

"This project complies with all of the ordinance requirements. We're in agreements with staff that this project complies with all of the ordinance requirements. I think that we've demonstrated we've pulled directly from the code those things that are required from the design standard policy manual, and so it's overparked. It's not only, you know, barely eeking by. The project provides more than enough required parking per the zoning ordinance." — Lauren Potter, applicant counsel

"I just don't think it's possible we have access requirements for fire circulation to your points about safety we have internal evacuation routes that we had to keep that have to have egress points to your sidewalks on Marshall Way, there's internal circulation stairwells, there's just too much to fit, so it's infill is tough it makes for a tight site, there's not six feet to give here but we've provided more than adequate distance for those parking spaces." — Lauren Potter, responding to Council member Kathy Littlefield question on whether the applicant could match a six-foot setback achieved on the Craftsman Court project

"The applicant has checked every single box within the city's framework for approval on this project and it looks like a nice project and I think you've done a good job answering all the questions. Now if there's a question or there's an issue—I hear the property owners as well—about the way that the framework that the city has for applicants and new builds of this kind—if that's the problem, you can't put that on the backs of property owners that are complying with absolutely every criteria that we have before them." — Mayor Lisa Borowsky, before calling the vote

"Most importantly this and residents need to understand that denying a project that complies with all standard zoning rules and guidelines is considered a taking, a diminishment in land value of private property. I refer you to A.R.S. 12-1134, which is pretty black and white. These cases have been litigated so much that governments know not to do it. Moreover the Goldwater Institute and other conservative organizations participate in these lawsuits because diminishment of land value violates one of the most sacred tenants of conservatives: private property owners have rights." — Dan Isaac, public commenter, on the legal exposure of denial

"I'm not going to go point by point highlighting the false statements or concerns that the Kathy Littlefield have with regard to this project because City staff has distinctly responded to all of them in their response. Even a casual observer would conclude that the concerns were fabrications and/or gross misunderstandings of the project and zoning law." — Dan Isaac, same commenter, on prior Council critiques

"We do have a community-driven project that is going to enhance the overall aesthetic for the entire area there's no reason that a project like this which is going to enhance the overall aesthetic for the entire area there's no reason to not allow a project like this to go forward that's 12 additional families that could live there that's 12 additional people I mean, uh families who would have visitors to come into town." — Michael Mule, Hola restaurant owner, in support of the project

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 4 primary opponents (Jose Ramirez, Mike Burch, Dewey Shotty, and implicitly Kathy Littlefield remarks), plus contextual concerns from Mike March (architect).

Main concerns:

  1. Alley width and parking maneuverability: Current 16-foot alley width with 2-foot proposed city dedication yields 10 feet to center line; opponents insisted code requires 24 feet and that 90-degree parking spaces cannot be safely accessed from such a narrow alley. Mike Burch (architect, 30 years Arizona practice) argued the design standard does not permit 90-degree parking in alleys narrower than a certain threshold and cited Phoenix's 26-foot standard versus Scottsdale's 24-foot on-site drive-aisle standard.

  2. Loading zone double-counting: Jose Ramirez noted the project initially counted a single loading zone space as both a parking space and a loading space, creating ambiguity about actual parking supply and practical functionality for delivery trucks to surrounding businesses.

  3. Pedestrian and vehicular safety in busy alley: Kathy Littlefield presented traffic counts (Friday and Monday) showing 53–75 vehicles, 4–15 trucks, and 39–97 pedestrians per day traversing the alley, raising concerns that the project's parking access and construction would add congestion and safety hazards.

  4. Fire and Life Safety roof access: Mike Burch (architect) flagged absence of roof access for ladder-truck apparatus required by 2021 International Fire Code for four-story Type 5B construction; noted the building's narrow Marshall Way façade provides only one point of access for aerial apparatus.

  5. Construction disruption and mitigation: Dewey Shotty (adjacent property owner for 40+ years) cited personal experience of significant building damage and business disruption from prior on-site construction at the Craftsman Court property and expressed grave concern about a project 2.5 times larger occurring directly behind his property. Kathy Littlefield requested construction timeline and mitigation measures.

  6. Building scale and stepback compliance: Opponents disputed whether the design adequately met stepback and massing ordinances to preserve historic streetscape character.

  7. Loss of street-level retail character: Dewey Shotty noted the original single-lot plan featured a full 30-foot storefront, whereas the revised double-lot design reduced the visible ground-floor retail to roughly 20 feet of glazing, diminishing the pedestrian-oriented retail feel of Marshall Way.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups: None formally identified; opposition was ad-hoc property owners and professionals.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 1 primary (Michael Mule, Hola restaurant owner); implicit support from Councilwoman McAllen and Vice Mayor Deasus (eventual voters for approval).

Main arguments:

  1. Residential density revitalizes Oldtown: Mule argued residential infill is essential to compete with newer districts (Scottsdale Quarter, Kierland) that drew business energy away from Oldtown. He cited 11 years operating Hola and observed that mixed-use projects with on-site residents thrive because residents patronize nearby restaurants, shops, and bars.

  2. Code compliance and private property rights: Multiple speakers (Dan Isaac especially) emphasized the project meets every applicable zoning code, design standard, and development-review criterion. Denial would expose the city to takings claims under A.R.S. 12-1134 and potential litigation by property-rights advocates (Goldwater Institute).

  3. Walkability and multimodal advantage: Mule highlighted Oldtown's superior walkability compared to newer areas; residential on-site supports that advantage and reduces vehicle trips.

  4. Four public parking spaces as public benefit: Applicant offered four additional on-street parking spaces (not required) as a community benefit, intended to offset any perceived reduction in on-street availability for surrounding businesses.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Outcome & Next Steps

The Council approved the applicant's revised site plan, clearing the project for Building Permit phase. Applicant indicated building permits are in final review and could be filed within 3–6 months, with typical city review taking ~12 months. Shovels-in-the-ground timeline: 18–24 months from approval. Conditions include:

No further appeal or continuance scheduled. Project advances to permitting.

Controversies & Context

Alley width and code interpretation: The central technical dispute centered on whether a 16-foot alley (with a proposed 2-foot city dedication yielding 10 feet to centerline on the project side) satisfies code requirements for parking accessed from an alley. Staff and applicant cited Scottsdale Zoning Ordinance Section 9.16(b), which specifies a 10-foot minimum from the back of a parking space to the centerline of an alley, and argued that full 24-foot drive-aisle width requirements apply only to on-site internal circulation, not alley access. Opponents (Burch, Shotty) contended that 90-degree parking from a 16-foot alley is operationally unsafe and that Phoenix's 26-foot standard (for alley-accessed spaces) should be adopted. Staff noted that other Oldtown projects (including the applicant's own Craftsman Court project across the alley) operate with similar 16-foot alley widths and 90-degree parking; moreover, no accidents or complaints have been formally documented in those alleys.

Private property rights vs. design review authority: Opponents' core concern—massing, stepback, building scale—are explicitly non-DRB considerations under Scottsdale code (density, height, land use not reviewable). Applicant and supporters leaned heavily on this constraint to argue Council cannot impose additional design restrictions without changing ordinance. Lisa Borowsky closing remarks acknowledged this impasse and signaled intent to convene the Oldtown revitalization group to examine whether design standards themselves require tightening.

Takings liability: Dan Isaac's invocation of A.R.S. 12-1134 (Arizona's diminishment-of-property-value statute) and the Goldwater Institute's litigation posture injected a quasi-constitutional argument: denying a code-compliant project exposes the city to damages claims. City Attorney Sherry Scott was not asked to opine on this risk in the hearing, but the argument plainly weighed on Council members concerned about legal exposure.

Construction impact on existing businesses: Dewey Shotty's personal testimony about prior construction damage to his building (from the adjacent Craftsman Court project) and the alley's high daily traffic (97 pedestrians, 75 vehicles on one day) raised practical concerns about how a much-larger project would be managed. Applicant promised early-morning material drops and on-site-only staging, but no formal construction management plan was presented or required as a condition.

Oldtown revitalization strategy: The vote split reflects differing visions: McAllen, Deasus, Quasman, and Solange Whitehead saw the project as a linchpin in attracting residential density to compete with newer mixed-use districts and revitalize the historic district. Kathy Littlefield and Barry Graham viewed the narrow alley, tight massing, and operational risks as incompatible with preserving Oldtown's character and protecting existing business operations. Lisa Borowsky remarks suggested future revitalization efforts should include formal review of design standards, setback requirements, and alley-width/parking access rules, rather than relying on case-by-case DRB negotiation.

Fire code and life-safety: Mike Burch's concern about roof access for ladder trucks per the 2021 International Fire Code was not directly rebutted by staff or applicant, though applicant noted internal stairwells and evacuation routes. No explicit fire department testimony was offered, though Greg Bloomberg stated fire department reviewed the project during DRB. This gap left some uncertainty about whether the four-story Type 5B construction truly meets apparatus-access requirements.

Duration

Other Notable Items

1. 68th Street Sidewalk Association advocacy: Harold Back and Laura Schwarz presented a community-driven project for sidewalk construction from Indian School to Camelback Road on 68th Street, citing public safety, accessibility for disabled persons, and the tragic death of Judge Moras (struck by vehicle at 52nd/Camelback) as motivation. Project is in the capital-improvement pipeline; Council expressed continued support.

2. DEI office elimination and ordinance clarification: Public commenters (Dan Isaac, Linda Milhaven) raised concerns about the recent passage of an ordinance eliminating the city's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion office, noting lack of public input, vague language ("use of City funds for DEI shall discontinue"), and inconsistency with the Mayor's Ability Awards supporting students with disabilities. Millhaven specifically requested the Council agendize an item to clarify which DEI-funded programs are being eliminated versus retained. Councilman Quasman's comments at the hearing suggested he may be interpreting the ordinance to restrict library programming (e.g., Braille Story Time), which drew rebuke for overreach beyond the ordinance's plain text.

3. Persian New Year Festival funding: Public commenter Brian Scott raised concerns that the $48,125 funding request for a March 2025 Persian New Year Festival violates event-development guidelines (non-consecutive event days, exceeds 3-year funding limit, ticket sales despite public-event requirement) and questioned whether headliners are political activists. The event was approved in the consent agenda. Dan Isaac noted the irony of cutting general DEI funding while approving $48,000 for a single-ethnicity festival.

4. Scottsdale Railroad Park 50th Golden Jubilee: Presentation by William Scarboro, Board President of the Scottsdale Railroad and Mechanical Society. 2025 is the park's 50th anniversary (opened October 1975). Highlights include opening of a new roundhouse play structure (July 2025) with ADA-accessible, multi-level train-themed play features; splash pad (June 2025); and year-round special events. Park drew 430,000 train riders and 40,000+ holiday-lights visitors in 2024. The $3.2 million model railroad building (completed 2011) was built without city funds through Board fundraising.

5. Water and Sewer rate increases: Notice of intent approved for 4.5% water rate increase and 6% sewer rate increase on general customers (residents and commercial), affecting meter-size base rates. Interim Water Resources Executive Director Kevin Rose cited this as consistent with historical 3–5% annual increases and necessary to fund enterprise-fund operations.