Scottsdale approves 94-unit Papago Village residential project despite design concerns, 5-1 vote

Scottsdale Board Approves Papago Village Despite 5-1 Design Split; Praises "Missing Middle" Housing Model

The Scottsdale Development Review Board on January 9, 2025, approved a 94-unit single-story residential community on a 9.6-acre former office site in a contentious 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Young casting the sole dissent over insufficient material detail and missing parking-structure renderings. The decision reflects the board's embrace of "missing middle housing" as a state-legislated antidote to failed commercial sites, even as three neighborhood residents challenged the project's density, traffic impact, and character compatibility.

Key Speeches

"The zoning is in place. The city agrees that service residential could support up to 12 units to the acre. We are below that. We understand the context and we understand the comments, but those are matters of opinion. The fact of the matter is the zoning is in place." — Andy Baron, Modus Development

"I actually really like to see developments like this because the way that this project has been approached creates a much more walkable community... the orientation of the clubhouse, the organization of the site, I think has been done really well, and again the rehabilitation and preservation of a mid-century piece I think is really appreciated." — Vice Chair Brand

"What we hear a lot up here on the dais is that folks are angry about lots of tall dense boring apartment buildings... missing middle, and this is the actual definition of missing middle housing. This is a failed commercial site, and I know that the state legislature right now is really leaning heavily on failed commercial that has an opportunity to provide mixed use or residential instead." — Vice Chair Brand

"I do wish that the project had a little bit more materiality compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods... by just having that facade along Oak Street it's a nice gesture but I think it's very different on the inside. Without having some of these 3D perspectives of the rest of the community it's a little hard for me to kind of grasp exactly what this is going to end up being at the end of the day." — Commissioner Young

Timeline

Papago Village (Case 16-D-2024)

• Staff presentation: Casey Stiny, Scottsdale Planning Department, outlined the 94-unit residential proposal on 9.6 acres zoned Service Residential (allowing up to 12 units/acre). Current site use is vacant offices. Project includes 168 parking spaces (exceeding code), 42 acres of open space, 15-foot landscape easement perimeter, 6-foot block walls, and preservation of the existing 4,700-square-foot Ninton building (former blood bank, mid-century structure). Units are single-story (15–16 feet) with 1–2 bedrooms in duplex and detached configurations. Density: 9.3 units/acre.

• Applicant presentation: Andy Baron (Modus Development) and architect David Dick presented design philosophy. Baron emphasized: (1) prior KOB Nan proposal included two-story units and building demolition, creating neighborhood opposition; (2) Modus retained the Ninton building and reduced to single-story to address concerns; (3) four separate neighborhood open houses held with 167 property notifications; (4) letters of support from majority of respondents; (5) traffic analysis shows residential use generates lower vehicle counts than existing office use; (6) project targets business professionals (not lower-income residents as one commenter alleged); (7) resort-style amenity approach with deck overlooking Camelback Mountain. Architect Dick noted: block wall integration matching neighboring CMU-block neighborhoods (Heritage East, Sherwood Heights, High View); site walls will be slump block; desert-modern architecture with stucco in earth tones; perforated mailbox details adding elevation articulation; geometric design with broken planes, not flat facades.

• Public comment: 3 speakers, approximately 9 minutes total (each given 3 minutes, one continued slightly over). John Deal (Sherwood Heights resident, 60th Street): density claim of "7 times" Sherwood Heights (9 acres each, but Sherwood has ~13 units vs. proposed 94); traffic concern on Oak Street (minor artery, 25-mph zone, 40% speeding observed); 56 of 94 units lack direct street access, requiring passage through walkways ("stacked two and three deep"); no prior notification received; alleged violation of 10-day notice requirement (sign posted December 31, hearing January 9, 9th day). Ed Hadley (local employer and resident): expressed support, noting need for affordable housing near employment; stated inability to hire workers living in-area due to lack of housing; praised Modus for converting office to residential. Thomas O'Brien (46-year neighborhood resident): called project "completely out of character"; cited Oak Street as low-traffic minor artery with two dead ends (canal crossings) limiting capacity; expressed concern for future residents' transit access, noting nearest public transportation (McDowell, Thomas) is "a hike"; advocated for transit planning. Paul Valas (Papago Buttes resident, 10-year tenure): agreed project "completely out of character"; urged board to visit Papago Buttes, Sherwood Heights, Heritage East to understand neighborhood fabric; criticized developer for "jamming as much as they can in to make as much profit" rather than "pairing down to a reasonable number."

• Council member clarification: Councilwoman Caputi reminded audience that DRB review is limited to design matters and does not include zoning entitlements or allowed uses.

• Applicant rebuttal: Baron reiterated zoning compliance, city traffic-engineer agreement on site access adequacy, and extensive neighborhood outreach (4 open houses, 167 notifications). Clarified units are not lower-income but targeted for business professionals. Architect Dick addressed Commissioner Young's material-compatibility concerns: confirmed slump-block integration in site walls and perimeter walls to match neighborhood CMU block; noted west elevation of clubhouse includes blocked articulation; acknowledged east elevation appears "flat" in 2D rendering but contains mailbox coverage, mail-gathering area, and second-level cantilever providing front-to-back articulation visible in 3D renderings (not displayed in meeting).

• Board discussion: Vice Chair Brand praised the project as exemplary "missing middle housing," emphasizing walkable community design, preservation of mid-century Ninton building, state legislative pressure on failed commercial sites, and superior orientation vs. conventional parking-lot-centered developments. Board Member Paser noted approval of low-rise single-story vs. multi-story density, solar panels on parking canopies, and design merit. Vice Chair Brand acknowledged design is "a little boring" in 2D renderings but commended applicant to include garages, parking canopies, and shade structures in future renderings. Commissioner Young voted no, citing: (1) insufficient material-compatibility detail in renderings; (2) lack of 3D perspective showing parking structures and garages; (3) stucco-only facades incompatible with adjacent CMU-block neighborhoods; (4) timing concerns ("after today you guys are going to permit drawings and then probably to construction shortly after"); acknowledged board's state-legislative pressure but expressed concern that design details would be finalized without full visual context.

• Vote: 5-1 approval. Yes: Councilwoman Caputi, Vice Chair Brand, Board Member Paser, Board Member Faki, Board Member Mason, Board Member Robinson. No: Commissioner Young.

Honor Health Shea Parking Garage (Case 26-D-2024)

• Staff presentation: Brian Koff, City Current Planning, outlined four-story, 472-space parking structure on Honor Health Shea campus (Shea & 90th Street). Existing site: 190-space surface lot; new structure increases capacity by 282 spaces. Design: cast-in-place post-tensioned slab, perforated metal panel facade (bronze finish), second-level bridge connecting directly to labor and delivery department. Height: approximately 52 feet (within allowable maximum). Landscape: densely planted shrubs along 90th Street, hardscape/planting at building base. Elevations feature perforated-metal detailing with desert-palette paint colors.

• Applicant presentation: Fatima Garcia (LGC, design-build team) emphasized: (1) existing 190-space surface lot "often completely full"; (2) avalidation services currently required due to parking shortage, particularly for labor and delivery (critical department); (3) new structure directly connects to labor and delivery via second-floor bridge, eliminating valet need; (4) design complies with campus development plan guidelines; (5) aluminum perforated-metal panels positioned in highly visible locations (90th Street frontage, southwest corner, northwest corner with corner mural and stairwell treatment); (6) structure designed to structurally support fifth-floor future phase for parking or adaptive reuse occupancy; (7) plaza area between garage and hospital functions as fire-lane access and patient stress-relief zone; (8) no EV charging infrastructure required per variance (hospital concerns valet lot monopolization during emergency demand).

• Board discussion: Board Member Mason (who raised fifth-floor and material-panel questions in pre-review): confirmed fifth-floor design assumption structural load-bearing for vehicles and occupancy; questioned facade-compatibility implications if fifth floor added (metal panel system extendable, maximum height remains within code limit, glass facades studied for potential occupancy conversion); noted structure designed for EV weight. Board Member Robinson questioned exposed vs. finished ceiling (applicant confirmed exposed concrete with conduits embedded in slab, spandrel paint demarcation). Robinson raised critical ADA accessibility concern: site-plan ground-level floor shows significant accessible parking stalls with pathways traveling behind parked vehicles, which violates federal accessibility code (employees cannot traverse behind vehicles to reach accessible routes). Requested motion include coordination-with-staff stipulation. Robinson also noted tree heights in renderings appear under-represented; applicant deferred to campus development-plan palette specifications (12–15 year-old guidelines). Robinson praised parking-garage design quality and stressed critical need for Relief at Honor Health Shea ("terrible to park here," labor & delivery "an absolute nightmare").

• Vote: 6-0 approval with stipulation requiring coordination with staff on ADA parking-stall alignment and routing to ensure federal accessibility compliance.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 3 (John Deal, Thomas O'Brien, Paul Valas)

Main concerns:

1. Excessive density: Project contains 94 units on 9.6 acres; opponents compared to Sherwood Heights (9 acres, ~13 units) and claimed 7x density, equating to "putting 21 people in a home with 3."

2. Traffic impacts on Oak Street: Characterized as low-traffic minor artery with 25-mph speed limit; 40% of observed traffic exceeds limit; two dead ends (canal crossings) constrain egress; Deal cited Google Earth review finding no more than 40 vehicles on property in prior 6 years, disputing applicant's lower-traffic-than-office-use claim.

3. Lack of direct unit access: 56 of 94 units lack direct street access; residents must traverse walkways, units "stacked two and three deep."

4. Character incompatibility: All three speakers emphasized project is "completely out of character" with adjacent neighborhoods (Papago Buttes, Sherwood Heights, Heritage East); neighborhoods characterized by single-family, low-rise, low-density residential with established fabric.

5. Public-notification deficiency: John Deal alleged violation of 10-day notice requirement; sign posted December 31, 2024; hearing held January 9, 2025 (9 days). Deal claimed he and neighbors "did not receive any notification" despite city requirement.

6. Future-resident transit access: Thomas O'Brien raised concern that future residents (anticipated to be lower-income per his assumption, later disputed by applicant) would lack proximity to public transportation; nearest transit lines (McDowell, Thomas) are distant ("a hike").

7. Developer profit prioritization: Paul Valas criticized applicant for "jamming as much as they can in to make as much profit as they can" rather than "pairing down to a reasonable number."

Most compelling argument: John Deal's density comparison (7x Sherwood Heights) and traffic observation (no more than 40 vehicles observed on property over 6 years) directly challenged applicant's claim that residential use generates lower traffic than existing office use; this argument was unrefuted in board discussion, though applicant cited traffic study findings without detailed response.

Organized groups: None identified; three individuals spoke independently.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 1 (Ed Hadley)

Main points:

1. Housing scarcity: Noted abundance of vacant office throughout Scottsdale; residential conversion essential to address housing shortage.

2. Employment-linked housing: As employer, observed employees commuting from Peoria and West Valley due to lack of in-area housing; project enables workforce housing near employment centers.

3. Affordability: Emphasized project targets "affordable living spaces" for young families and professionals.

4. Developer quality: Praised Modus Development's reputation and commitment to project execution.

Board support: Vice Chair Brand and Board Member Paser explicitly endorsed project as addressing state legislative pressure for "missing middle housing"; Vice Chair Brand noted "something's going to get built here" and credited applicant for thoughtful use of commercial-to-residential conversion; Board Member Paser commended "excellent project" and "excellent addition to Scottsdale's housing issues"; Board Member Robinson praised "visually pleasing" garage design despite parking constraints (separate agenda item, but illustrates board's receptiveness to development serving housing/infrastructure needs).

Project Details

Papago Village (Case 16-D-2024)

• Case number: 16-D-2024

• Applicant / developer: Modus Development (Andy Baron, principal)

• Architect: David Dick

• Location / address: West of 64th Street, north side of Oak Street, near Scottsdale/Phoenix border

• APN: Not stated in transcript

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Service Residential (SR) → Service Residential (no zoning change sought; SR allows residential development)

• Density / units / square footage: 94 units (9.3 units/acre; zoning allows up to 12 units/acre; prior KOB Nan proposal was higher); ~100,000 sq. ft. residential building area (inclusive of 6,000 sq. ft. clubhouse and 5,000 sq. ft. repurposed office); 1-bedroom duplexes (~800 sq. ft. each) and 2-bedroom detached units (~1,200 sq. ft. each)

• Height: 15–16 feet for dwelling units; clubhouse slightly taller but harmonious; code limit 18 feet (project well below)

• Parking: 168 total spaces (exceeds code requirement); mix of covered and some uncovered; garage structures on interior edges

• Open space: 42 acres (exceeds code); 50-foot undeveloped frontage along Oak Street; common open space near repurposed office and amenity area; private outdoor living space per unit; on-site water-retention basin

• Amenities: Dog park, pool, clubhouse (6,000 sq. ft., two-story with fitness space, living rooms, kitchen, office, deck with Camelback Mountain view)

• Preserved structures: Ninton building (4,700 sq. ft., mid-century office, former blood bank); to be renovated, repurposed as co-working facility with exterior seating, shade, and landscape enhancements; interior drop ceilings and drywall removal to restore character

• Architecture: Mid-century modern interpretation; flat roofs, deep overhangs, recessed windows/doors, stucco in earth tones; low-level lighting; quality pathways and materials; articulated facades with minimal geometry; mailbox integration providing elevation detail

• Perimeter treatment: 6-foot block walls on west, east, north sides; 15-foot landscape easement with mature tree plantings on all sides (acts as setback and visual buffer)

• Changes from previous version: Prior KOB Nan proposal included two-story units and demolition of Ninton building; current Modus proposal reduces to single-story, retains Ninton, and emphasizes walkability and mid-century preservation

• Applicant claims re: neighborhood: 4 neighborhood open houses; 167 property notifications; majority letter-of-support in case packet; traffic analysis (residential lower vehicle counts than existing office use); target market: business professionals (not lower-income); resort-style amenity approach

Vote Breakdown

Papago Village (Case 16-D-2024)

• Final: 5–1

• Yes: Councilwoman Caputi, Vice Chair Brand, Board Member Paser, Board Member Faki, Board Member Mason, Board Member Robinson

• No: Commissioner Young

• Abstentions / absences: None (all seven board members present and voting)

Honor Health Shea Parking Garage (Case 26-D-2024)

• Final: 6–0

• Yes: All six voting board members (Councilwoman Caputi did not vote per rotation rule; Vice Chair Brand, Board Member Paser, Board Member Faki, Board Member Mason, Board Member Robinson all voted yes)

• No: None

• Abstentions / absences: Councilwoman Caputi (rotated out per protocol)

Outcome & Next Steps

Papago Village: Approved 5-1 with conditions (staff-recommended stipulations unspecified in transcript). Commissioner Young's dissent signals design-detail concerns that may inform future similar projects. Applicant requested to include parking-canopy shades, garage structures, and 3D renderings in future submissions. Project moves to permitting and construction pending final conditions compliance.

Honor Health Shea Parking Garage: Approved 6-0 with stipulation requiring applicant to coordinate with city staff on ADA accessible-parking stall alignment and routing to ensure federal accessibility code compliance (specifically addressing ground-level floor plan concern that accessible pathways currently traverse behind parked vehicles, violating accessibility code). Project structurally designed to support future fifth-floor addition for parking or adaptive reuse occupancy; fifth-floor approval deferred to future application if needed.

Controversies & Context

State legislative pressure on commercial-to-residential conversion: Vice Chair Brand explicitly cited state legislature's current emphasis on converting failed commercial sites to mixed-use or residential. This reflects Arizona's state-level housing shortage and legislative mandate for local governments to facilitate housing production. Papago Village exemplifies this pressure: a 9.6-acre office site (vacant, obsolete) converted to 94 units of residential on a site that could legally support up to 121 units. The board's approval despite neighborhood opposition suggests acknowledgment that state policy favors such conversion over preservation of low-density character.

"Missing middle housing" framing: Vice Chair Brand explicitly stated, "What we hear a lot up here on the dais is... missing middle, and this is the actual definition of missing middle housing." This framing reframes the project from a density/character threat into a state-policy solution. Missing middle housing (single-family-detached and duplex-style units in walkable configurations, typically 6–15 units/acre) is increasingly promoted by state and federal housing policy as a tool to address affordability and supply. The board's endorsement of this framing over neighborhood opposition represents an institutional shift toward state-mandated objectives.

Neighborhood character preservation vs. state mandate tension: The dissent and opposition reveal a core tension in land-use law: local design and character preservation ideals (voiced by Commissioner Young, three public commenters, and implicitly by neighborhood associations) vs. state-level housing-production mandates (referenced by Vice Chair Brand). Commissioner Young's design-detail concerns (material compatibility, 3D renderings, garage visibility) were legitimate within DRB's purview but were overridden by a board majority embracing missing-middle housing as policy priority. This reflects a broader national trend of state preemption of local single-family zoning and density restrictions.

Public-notification dispute: John Deal alleged violation of 10-day notice requirement (posted December 31, 2024; hearing January 9, 2025 = 9 calendar days). This was not directly addressed by the board or city staff in the transcript. If Deal is correct, it raises procedural-fairness questions and potential grounds for appeal. However, applicant claimed extensive outreach (4 open houses, 167 notifications), which may satisfy intent even if formal 10-day posted-notice requirement was missed by one day.

Density claims unrefuted: Deal's comparison—Sherwood Heights (9 acres, ~13 units) vs. Papago Village (9.6 acres, 94 units)—suggests roughly 7:1 density ratio. Applicant did not dispute this specific comparison in rebuttal, citing instead zoning allowance (12 units/acre vs. 9.3 actual) and state policy context. Board did not require applicant to address the Sherwood Heights comparison in numeric detail.

Traffic study reliability: Deal claimed Google Earth historical review showed no more than 40 vehicles on property in 6 years, implying negligible office use and therefore baseline traffic extremely low. Applicant cited traffic study showing residential use lower than office use, but this claim conflicts with Deal's observation if office use was indeed minimal. Board accepted applicant's traffic-study assertion without requiring detailed response to Deal's empirical observation.

Material-compatibility resolution uncertainty: Commissioner Young's dissent hinged on insufficient detail regarding stucco-vs.-CMU block material compatibility. Applicant/architect David Dick stated that site walls and perimeter walls would be slump block (matching neighbors) and that 3D renderings showed articulation, but these renderings were not displayed in the meeting. Board voted approval based on applicant's verbal assurances and verbal plan descriptions rather than visual confirmation. Commissioner Young's concern that "after today you guys are going to permit drawings" suggests uncertainty about whether material details will be finalized consistent with board expectations.

Duration

• Papago Village item: Approximately 45–60 minutes (staff presentation ~10 min, applicant presentation ~15 min, public comment ~9 min, board discussion ~15–20 min, vote ~2 min)

• Honor Health Shea Parking Garage item: Approximately 25–30 minutes (staff presentation ~8 min, applicant presentation ~10 min, board discussion ~7–10 min, vote ~2 min)

• Total meeting: Approximately 90 minutes (roll call, consent items, administrative matters, two regular agenda items, vice-chair election)

Other Notable Items

Administrative matters: Unanimous approval (7-0) of December 12, 2024 meeting minutes; unanimous approval (7-0) of 2024 DRB annual report and Case 2-P-2024; unanimous re-election (4-0, with Commissioner Young and Councilwoman Caputi rotating out per protocol) of Vice Chair Brand for 2025.

Staff notification: Brad Carr (City Planning staff) announced cancellation of next week's regularly scheduled meeting due to lack of pending items; next regular meeting February 6, 2025. Thanked Commissioner Young and Councilwoman Caputi for their rotating service on the board.