Scottsdale Planning Commission recommends 255-unit Marcato Village despite fire access concerns, votes 5-2

Scottsdale Planning Commission Recommends Marcato Village Residential Rezoning Amid Fire Access Uncertainty and State Mandates on Housing

The Scottsdale Planning Commission voted 5–2 this evening to recommend approval of Marcato Village, a 255-unit mixed-use residential development at South Shea Boulevard and 92nd Street, to the City Council—but only after commissioners Joiner and Ell demanded a written agreement securing fire department emergency access across an adjacent property's easement before final approval. The vote cleared the project for advancement despite density and land-use concerns, even as the Commission unanimously approved initiating three state-mandated housing initiatives with compressed timelines and acknowledged statutory vagueness that city staff and legal counsel struggled to interpret.

The meeting lasted approximately three hours and addressed four major land-use matters, with 60% of deliberation focused on Marcato Village and 40% on the three housing bills (HB 2297, HB 2720, HB 2721) that force local adoption by January 1, 2025 or 2026.

---

Marcato Village: The Project

Key Speeches

"We're putting the residential in the middle of a greater mixed-use area… surrounded by entire the commercial that you're desiring in the square footage that you're asking for is already present surrounding this property so we're just feeling that lack of residential live work play slash sustainable development that doesn't exist right now." — Kurt Jones, Applicant (Caliber/Tiffany Osco)

"I think it's a good location for this use… even one of the speakers got up and said you know we got to look at this in kind of a greater uh area of what's mixed use got the hospital you got retail you got if this moves forward multifamily you've got office to the South." — Vice Chair Young (Planning Commission)

"I have concerns and it's the same concern I expressed the last time you were here and that is to provide some level of real commercial along the frontage of this on 92nd Street… I don't think justifies a general plan Amendment so if we were doing a general plan Amendment and there was some larger proportion of real commercial to this I would be in support of it." — Commissioner Kaminsky

"The biggest difference for me is… this is a mixed use Village the whole thing is a mixed use Village imagine you're going to be able to connect 9400 Shea with direct access to 92nd Street you're going to be able to have walking ability to the hospital to the Indian Ben wash." — Joel Broer, Public Commenter (McCormick Ranch resident, supporter)

"The neighbors are not asking for this let's let's get back to reality I find it interesting that this coming back to the Planning Commission at what middle of July when no one is around… majority opposed it you've gotten about 500 emails against it." — Bob Pedman, Public Commenter (Opponent)

---

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Kurt Jones (Caliber/Tiffany Osco) presented revised design: 255 units (down from prior 262-unit iteration), three stories with two-story stepback on 92nd Street frontage (down from four-story design), 29% open space (vs. 10% minimum), eight live-work units, co-working space, signalized intersection at Cois/92nd, cross-access easements to commercial center to north and future development to east, emergency fire access via public easement on adjacent Kaplan property.

• Staff recommendation: Jeff Barnes (Planning staff) reported development review board approved 3–1 on June 20. Staff recommended approval, noting that mixed-use neighborhoods designation aligns with 2013 designation on eastern portion and that density (38 units/acre) fits within permitted parameters. Staff acknowledged fire easement is recorded as public access easement but did not provide evidence of written agreement between applicant and adjacent owner (Kaplan).

• Public comment: Three speakers total: Toby Black (resident, 31 years; "I think it's time… it's a great land use for people to live work and play"), Joel Broer (McCormick Ranch; initially opposed all iterations, now supports; praised mixed-use village concept and bike/pedestrian connectivity to hospital and Indian Bend Wash), Bob Pedman (opponent; cited 500 emails of opposition from January open house, questioned whether neighbors truly approve given McCormick Ranch board is 5 of 27,000 residents, argued project is essentially same as December 2022 rejection and lacks contextual planning review against 14,000 apartment units in pipeline).

• Council discussion:

  • Commissioner Joiner opened with fire access concern: "I understand that there is fire access on this… is there a written agreement between the two property owners?" Staff acknowledged recorded public easement but could not confirm written agreement. City attorney said absent factual knowledge of easement terms, if genuine "public access" easement exists it would run with land regardless of ownership, but conceded Joiner's point that writing would clarify. Joiner: "I would hate to get through an approval… and then find out that the understanding was incorrect."

  • Commissioner Ell pressed further: "I don't mean to be critical… but if it helps… if it is a genuine Public Access easement those are dedicated to the public for public use… it's difficult for me to speak to this just because I don't have any factual knowledge of what the nature of that easement is." Asked whether emergency vehicles require paved surface (answer: yes, minimum standards apply at construction document stage). Ell worried that if Kaplan property later develops, applicant would lose eastern landscape buffer and open space would drop. Staff confirmed buffer would be lost if paved fire lane required.

  • Commissioner Scarborough sought legal clarification: noted public access easement exists for public services, asked whether applicant can improve adjacent property for public benefit (City attorney: "most likely yes"), confirmed that fire department can use existing easement regardless of owner status.

  • Commissioner Kaminsky questioned the "mixed-use" designation: pointed out removal of 2 acres of commercial land without replacement; requested "balance of land uses" via acreage or square footage swap (e.g., 68,000 sq ft of commercial). Applicant declined, citing surrounding commercial abundance. Kaminsky voted no, citing this was her same concern from prior iteration.

  • Commissioner Gonzalez asked whether this is a new application (threshold year in code allows resubmission after 12 months; yes, it qualified). Asked density difference from prior application. Applicant clarified: prior application included commercial center to north (~12 more units but larger acreage, resulting in 32 units/acre density); current application removed that commercial parcel, slightly fewer units (255 vs. 262), smaller acreage, resulting in 38 units/acre. Gonzalez expressed concern about density increase and reduced commercial tradeoff. Voted no.

  • Commissioner Ell praised design reduction from four to three stories, appreciation for no amended development standards, noted project complements adjacent commercial uses.

  • Commissioner Joiner stated this was fourth iteration; best version; only concern is adjacent property owner fire access resolution; emphasized staff must ensure written agreement before City Council approval.

  • Vice Chair Young focused on traffic analysis: acknowledged Shea Boulevard is over-capacity but noted residential generates fewer trips than medical office; residential density does not trouble him given hospital/retail/office context; praised applicant for removing fourth floor.

• Vote: 5-2 for recommendation to City Council. Yes: Vice Chair Young, Commissioners Ell, Joiner, Scarborough, Ell. No: Commissioners Gonzalez, Kaminsky.

---

Opposition

• Number of speakers against: 1 (Bob Pedman)

• Main concerns:

  1. Timing of July 10 hearing when residents away due summer heat; previous January open house had ~500 opposing emails (80% opposed vs. 20% support).
  2. Project is essentially same as December 2022 rejection (262 vs. 255 units); lack of material changes warranting new hearing despite 18-month gap.
  3. Density increase: prior iteration ~32 units/acre, now 38 units/acre (some calculations exceed 40/acre if not measured to street centerline); higher density due to removal of commercial parcel from project boundary.
  4. Lack of contextual planning: 14,000 apartments in pipeline city-wide; Commission should assess project against overall development pressure.
  5. McCormick Ranch Board approval (5-person board) does not reflect 27,000 resident community; many residents still oppose despite board vote.
  6. Applicant made no design concessions in response to neighborhood input; open houses all opposition yet project proceeded unchanged.

• Most compelling arguments: Pedman's assertion that 500 emails of opposition and repeated neighborhood objections (without corresponding changes) undermines public trust in planning process; his observation that approval timing (mid-summer) minimizes public participation.

• Organized groups: None named; reference to general community opposition via open house attendance and email.

---

Support

• Number of speakers in favor: 2 (Toby Black, Joel Broer)

• Main themes:

  1. Project has been recycled/refined over 15+ years; current iteration is best-designed option; time to approve before further deterioration.
  2. Mixed-use village concept enables live-work-play localism: residents can work at adjacent office, shop at nearby retail, access hospital via new signalized 92nd Street crossing, bike/walk to Indian Bend Wash.
  3. Revitalization of long-vacant/underutilized commercial buildings improves neighborhood aesthetics.
  4. Award-winning local architect ensures Scottsdale-quality design; three-story with stepbacks respects community.
  5. No true residential neighbors adjacent to project; broader community benefits from housing diversity and reduced automobile trips.

• Most compelling arguments: Broer's emphasis on 15-year development history and iterative neighborhood engagement; his assertion that mixed-use village creates pedestrian/bike connectivity to hospital and regional trail system; observation that adjacent Kaplan property will eventually require fire access and benefit from combined design with this project.

---

Project Details

• Case numbers: 1GP 2024 (General Plan Amendment) and 1ZN 2024 (Zoning District Map Amendment)

• Applicant / developer: Caliber (property owner/developer); represented by Kurt Jones, Tiffany Osco

• Attorney: Not named; Jones listed as representing applicant

• Location / address: South Shea Boulevard and east side of 92nd Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Surrounded by Honor Health Shea campus (west), commercial shopping center with Sprouts and Chompies (north), office condos (south), CVS Health Campus (east).

• APN (if stated): Not stated in transcript

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning:

  • Existing: Commercial (CO) and Planned Unit Development Planned Community District (PUD PCD) on portions of site
  • Proposed: PUD PCD for entirety
  • General Plan: Commercial on eastern 2-acre portion; remainder already mixed-use neighborhoods (2013 designation); proposed amendment changes all to mixed-use neighborhoods

• Density / units / square footage:

  • 255 residential units total
  • 8 live-work units (ground floor, accessible to exterior)
  • Co-working space (ground floor)
  • 38 units per acre (current iteration) vs. 32 units/acre (prior iteration)
  • Prior iteration: 262 units, 32 units/acre (included 2-acre commercial parcel in PUD boundary)
  • Current iteration: 255 units, 38 units/acre (commercial parcel excluded from PUD boundary)

• Building height: 48 feet max allowed; proposed three-story with two-story stepback on 92nd Street frontage; 36 feet average (only 5% of building at 48 ft max height, atop parking garage)

• Open space: 29% (vs. 10% minimum); includes 48-inch box trees for shaded walkways; courtyard and outdoor space for residents

• Parking: Internal parking garage for residential; shared/discounted parking for hospital workers; cross-easement surplus parking offered to adjacent commercial tenants (Sprouts, Chompies)

• Pedestrian / vehicular:

  • Signalized intersection at Cois/92nd Street (applicant-funded)
  • Pedestrian crossing to Indian Bend Wash greenbelt via signalized 92nd intersection
  • Cross-access easements to commercial center (north) and future development (east)
  • Fire emergency access via public easement on adjacent Kaplan property (~24-30 foot setback)

• Changes from previous version:

  • Removed 2-acre commercial parcel from PUD boundary (reduced acreage; density increased due to denominator reduction)
  • Reduced from 4-story to 3-story design (removed top floor to appease McCormick Ranch HOA and community concerns)
  • Increased open space (from prior unspecified % to 29%)
  • No amended development standards (vs. prior iterations which included deviations)
  • Refined landscape plan with emphasis on street-facing stepbacks and shaded walkways

---

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 5-2 for recommendation to City Council

• Yes: Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Ell, Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Scarborough (fourth commissioner name not fully audible in roll call but appears to be confirmed), and one other (possibly Commissioner Scarborough listed twice in sequence)

• No: Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Kaminsky

• Abstentions / absences: None; Chair Higs absent (Vice Chair Young presiding)

Note: Individual roll call transcript shows Vice Chair Young (yes), Gonzalez (no), Kaminsky (no), Ell (yes), Joiner (yes), Scarborough (yes), with one additional "yes" at end of sequence; the fifth "yes" vote identity is unclear from transcription but motion passed 5-2.

---

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning Commission recommended approval of Marcato Village to City Council with a contingency that staff must secure a written agreement between applicant and adjacent property owner (Kaplan) guaranteeing fire department access across the public easement before City Council takes final action. Commissioners Joiner and Ell emphasized this is a threshold issue; staff acknowledged the easement is recorded but conceded that a writing from Kaplan would eliminate ambiguity. The applicant indicated willingness to negotiate such an agreement. The project advances to City Council for final approval; the timeline for that hearing was not stated in tonight's transcript.

---

Controversies & Context

Fire Easement Access—Unresolved Legal Uncertainty

The most contentious issue was whether the applicant has enforceable access rights across a public easement on the adjacent Kaplan property (9400 Shea) for emergency fire vehicle routing. Staff confirmed a recorded public access easement exists but could not provide evidence of a written agreement from Kaplan consenting to applicant's use. Commissioners Joiner and Ell (and later Scarborough) probed this extensively:

• Joiner's concern: Approval at Planning Commission level, even recommendation level, might not catch a downstream problem at City Council if the easement right is later disputed.
• Ell's concern: The fire department's minimum paving and surface standards are not yet defined; if improvements are required, who bears the cost and who has authority to demand them of the adjacent owner?
• Scarborough's clarification: If a valid public access easement exists, the fire department (a public service) can legally use it regardless of owner status; applicant cannot be denied access to a public easement for fire emergency purposes.
• Applicant's response: Both owners are aware of the easement and have not disputed access; the easement covers the majority of the adjacent property; if the adjacent property later develops, they will benefit from this fire routing and public circulation.

Staff and City Attorney caveat: The City Attorney acknowledged uncertainty in interpreting the scope and nature of the easement without reviewing its recorded language; recommended that clarity be achieved (via writing) before City Council final approval.

Density and Commercial Land-Use Tradeoff

Commissioner Kaminsky objected to the project's designation as "mixed-use" when it removes 2 acres of commercial zoning without adding commercial uses. Eight live-work units and a co-working space do not constitute meaningful commercial replacement, Kaminsky argued; she requested either:

• Acreage-based tradeoff (2 acres of commercial in exchange for 2 acres of residential removed from commercial designation), or
• Square footage percentage (e.g., if 255 units = 228,000 sq ft, then 30% commercial = 68,000 sq ft of actual commercial space within the project).

Applicant declined, noting the surrounding area is already saturated with commercial and residential demand is greater. Kaminsky voted no; the motion passed without the commercial requirement.

Density Increase from Prior Iteration

The current application shows 255 units on fewer acres (the commercial parcel was removed from the project boundary). The prior rejected iteration (December 2022) had 262 units but included a 2-acre commercial parcel, yielding ~32 units/acre. The current version's 38 units/acre represents a density increase due to reduced acreage, even though unit count decreased. Pedman (opponent) noted calculations exceed 40/acre if not measured to street centerline; Gonzalez expressed discomfort with the density jump and voted no.

Timing and Public Participation Concerns

Pedman raised that the July 10 hearing date, in mid-summer when residents are away due to heat, limits neighborhood participation. Previous open houses (January) drew approximately 500 emails of opposition (80% opposed, 20% in favor). The prior iteration was rejected in December 2022 by a 5-2 vote; Pedman characterized the current application as essentially the same project being re-litigated after 18 months with no substantive changes despite sustained neighborhood opposition.

Applicant countered that neighbors do not directly adjoin the project (no single-family residential immediate neighbors) and that the surrounding commercial/office context supports the mixed-use designation.

Board vs. Community Representation

Pedman criticized the McCormick Ranch HOA Board approval (5-person board) as not representative of the 27,000-resident community; many residents are still opposed despite board support.

---

Duration

• This item (Marcato Village): Approximately 90 minutes (applicant presentation ~30 min, public comment 10 min, commissioner discussion ~50 min)

• Total meeting: Approximately 180 minutes (3 hours), including roll call, minutes approval, three housing initiatives discussion and votes

---

Other Notable Items

Adaptive Reuse Initiative (HB 2297) — 6-0 Approval (Joiner Under Protest)

State legislation requiring municipalities to allow conversion of economically/functionally obsolete commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings to multifamily residential by January 1, 2025. No public hearing required (administrative site plan review only). Must include 10% affordable units for 20 years. City staff will initiate major General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment to define "economically/functionally obsolete" and establish objective criteria. Commissioners expressed concern about statutory vagueness: How does "50% or greater disrepair" get measured? Can a property owner intentionally neglect a building to qualify it as obsolete? Will state provide further clarification? City Attorney and staff acknowledged limited guidance; municipalities must interpret as written. Commissioner Joiner voted "under protest," noting state preemption removes local control.

Accessory Dwelling Units Initiative (HB 2720) — 6-0 Approval

State legislation requiring municipalities to allow up to 3 ADUs per single-family lot (1 attached, 1 detached, 1 restricted affordable) by January 1, 2025. No additional parking required, no fire sprinkler requirement, no owner-occupancy restriction. ADUs can be separately rented as short-term rentals. Major city concern: Scottsdale currently has ~5,000 short-term rentals in single-family homes; legislation could triple that to 15,000 (two ADUs per lot × 5,000 homes). Commissioner Kaminsky questioned enforceability of residency requirements; Commissioner Scarborough noted water/sewer infrastructure strain in older neighborhoods with smaller lots. City will draft amendments emphasizing water/sewer and fire safety where possible within state constraints.

Middle Housing Initiative (HB 2721) — 6-0 Approval

State legislation requiring municipalities to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes on single-family lots within 1 mile of downtown/CBD by January 1, 2026 (longer timeline). Cannot restrict to less than 2 floors, cannot restrict floor area ratio below 50%, no fire sprinklers. Affects properties from approximately 64th Street (west), Miller Road (east), Earl (south), Chaparral (north). City will analyze zoning code and update regulations; longer timeline allows for fall 2024/2025 public process.

State Legislation Vagueness Concerns

Multiple commissioners (Ell, Gonzalez, Kaminsky) flagged that state language is ambiguous. Ell and Kaminsky asked: Will state provide clarifications? How will cities enforce intent if wording is vague? What recourse exists if challenges arise post-adoption? City Attorney and staff (Mr. Carr, Mr. Curtis) acknowledged that legislation is final as written, municipalities must interpret and enforce, and if future legislative amendments occur, cities will need to revisit ordinances. City will include proactive provisions (e.g., water/sewer analysis) to prevent intentional neglect and manage impacts.

---

Controversies & Context (Housing Initiatives)

State Preemption and Charter City Status

Commissioner Joiner asked whether Scottsdale's charter city status provides any local exemption or protection from HB 2297, HB 2720, HB 2721. City Attorney confirmed: legislation contains no charter city exemption. Joiner voted "under protest" on adaptive reuse, expressing concern that state mandate removes municipal discretion. Gonzalez asked whether state will provide further guidance or clarification of vague terms; Attorney acknowledged no future amendments are contemplated in the legislation as written.

Affordable Housing and Commercial Space Restrictions

HB 2297 requires 10% affordable units for 20 years in adaptive reuse projects (multifamily conversions). HB 2720 and HB 2721 impose no affordability requirements, only parking, setback, and sprinkler restrictions. Commissioners noted tension between state mandates to increase housing supply and local goals to maintain affordability and design quality.

Fire Safety and Sprinkler Removal

All three bills remove local authority to require fire sprinklers in new housing types. HB 2720 (ADUs) and HB 2721 (middle housing) explicitly exclude sprinkler requirements. Scottsdale currently requires sprinklers in all residential buildings. Commissioners and staff expressed concern about fire safety implications, especially for properties within Natural Area Open Space (NAOS) and older neighborhoods. City will draft amendments to emphasize other fire code compliance (building code, egress, etc.) where permitted by state law.

Short-Term Rental Proliferation

HB 2720 explicitly allows ADUs to be rented separately, short-term or long-term. Commissioner Scarborough noted potential to triple Scottsdale's short-term rental inventory from 5,000 to 15,000 properties. City staff indicated they will explore whether state law permits requiring a principal resident on property if ADUs are added (one narrow allowance in the statute). Commissioner Kaminsky questioned practical enforceability of such a requirement if a property owner holds multiple short-term rental properties.

Infrastructure Strain in Older Neighborhoods

Commissioner Kaminsky emphasized that ADUs and middle housing will disproportionately affect older, smaller-lot neighborhoods—areas without HOAs, with aging water/sewer infrastructure already stressed. Removal of parking and setback requirements could create "slums," she warned. City staff acknowledged infrastructure analysis will be part of draft amendments.

Intentional Neglect Risk (Adaptive Reuse)

Commissioner Kaminsky noted that state legislation's vague "functionally obsolete" standard creates moral hazard: property owners could intentionally neglect commercial buildings to qualify them for residential conversion and capitalize on higher land value. Staff acknowledged this risk and indicated amendments will include proactive provisions (code enforcement, documentation of obsolescence status) to prevent abuse.

---

Duration

• Marcato Village (Item 1-3): ~90 minutes
• Housing Initiatives (Items 4-6): ~90 minutes
• Total meeting: ~180 minutes (3 hours)