Scottsdale approves ASM's 780,000-square-foot campus with conditional stipulations addressing light-pollution concerns
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — October 3, 2024

Scottsdale approves ASM's 780,000-square-foot campus with conditional stipulations addressing light-pollution concerns

Development Review Board approved ASM Scottsdale's major tech campus with parking garage design approved via staff coordination on lighting, while significant neighbor dispute with adjacent Optima residential development over light pollution and views remains under private negotiation.

Board Approves ASM Scottsdale Tech Campus with Parking Garage Lighting Stipulations; Neighbor Dispute Remains Under Private Negotiation

The Scottsdale Development Review Board unanimously approved ASM Scottsdale's 780,000-square-foot advanced manufacturing, office, and laboratory campus on October 3, 2024, but signaled its awareness of a significant unresolved dispute between the applicant and adjacent residential developer Optima McDonald Mountain Village. Rather than denying or continuing the project, the board crafted six conditional stipulations that delegate ongoing coordination between the applicant and city staff while preserving staff's authority to approve future modifications without requiring the project to return to the board. This approach may serve as a template for resolving conflicts between industrial and residential uses in proximity.

Project Overview

The project occupies a 35-acre site northwest of the Loop 101 and 76th Street. It comprises three buildings: a 370,000-square-foot parking garage (five stories above grade), a 230,000-square-foot office building (three levels), and a 180,000-square-foot laboratory (two levels). All structures are limited to 52 feet in height. The site is zoned Industrial Park Planned Community District (I-1 PCD). Gensler served as the architecture firm; ASM is a Dutch semiconductor process-equipment manufacturer known for extreme-ultraviolet lithography technology.

The applicant proposed seven acres of open space (exceeding the three-acre requirement), native desert landscaping, a shared-use path along Mayo Boulevard, and LEED Gold certification targeting. Metal panel facades with vertical shade fins articulate the buildings to evoke desert and molecular patterns inspired by ASM's research focus on microscale precision. The parking garage features a 42-inch knee wall and opaque metal screening to mitigate headlight and taillight visibility from adjacent properties.

The Neighbor Dispute: Light Pollution and Mountain Views

The critical tension emerged not from city staff concerns but from David Hoby Jr., president and architect of Optima McDonald Mountain Village, the residential condominium development directly west of the parking garage. Hoby presented detailed renderings and a stark warning: the five-story structure's light pollution—from vehicle headlights, roof-mounted solar panels tilted at 10 degrees, mechanical equipment, and interior fixture spillage—threatens the saleability and financing of Optima's Building 4, a luxury condominium tower committed during a prior zoning process.

Hoby's presentation outlined multiple unresolved issues:

  1. Headlight and taillight visibility. The parking garage's opaque metal screening covers only a portion of the perimeter. From upper floors of the condo (levels 2 through 8), residents will view car lights and movement through gaps in the screening, particularly along the north and west elevations.

  2. Solar-panel glare. The 10-degree tilt of rooftop photovoltaic panels creates light spillage that reaches Optima's upper units. Hoby presented side-by-side comparisons of views from Optima's condo units looking southeast into the garage roof, showing visible light and solar reflectance.

  3. Mechanical equipment screening. The roof-mounted HVAC and electrical equipment, painted in what staff initially described as a light color (later clarified as "muddy zinc" by board member), contrasts visually with the dark mountains beyond, drawing attention and appearing to leak light into adjacent residences at dusk.

  4. Mountain view obstruction. The structure's mass obscures the Black Mountain and boulder vistas that Optima's marketing and financing rely upon.

  5. Cost burden. Optima's official proposal: ASM accept a $3 million to $5 million cost differential to relocate the garage 50 percent below grade (three levels underground, two above), which would substantially eliminate sightline issues.

"We have been working closely with ASM since September 17th; we have been developing a fantastic relationship with them. Congratulations to Jay and his team on the fantastic design. We think the design is good. Our issue that still remains are the issues with the garage." — David Hoby Jr., president of Optima McDonald Mountain Village

Hoby was measured but firm: he did not ask the board to deny ASM's project or impose a burial mandate. He requested the board condition approval on continued coordination and, implicitly, gave the board leeway to stipulate that any major garage modifications (such as burial) be processed administratively by staff rather than return to the board.

ASM's Response

ASM's design and development representatives countered that they had already made substantial concessions:

"We have worked over the last four to five years with City staff to develop a concept where we can minimize that flood plane… every ounce of water that's currently within that flood plane, those velocities, those volumes need to be the same at either end of our site." — Alex Stedman, RVI (planner), speaking on behalf of ASM regarding flood mitigation on the Estates on Hayden project, though similar detailed design collaboration was evident in ASM's garage design process

ASM's position: they had negotiated in good faith, made material concessions, and disagreed with the burial proposal on grounds of cost, construction sequencing, and ventilation complexity. Burial would require extensive mechanical ventilation, they argued, negating some sustainability benefits. They also noted that the site is zoned industrial; the parking garage complies with all code, and the decision to accommodate a residential neighbor's aesthetics beyond minimum code compliance already represented exceptional effort.

"We've spent a lot of time and resources to meet their needs… we want Optima to be successful. We really do. But we also want to be successful ourselves and these are the offers and the accommodations that we have communicated time and time again… today we come before you with the plans that we have submitted." — ASM representative, responding to Optima's continued concerns

Board Discussion and Design-Driven Stipulations

The board's response was nuanced. Rather than impose a burial mandate (which would likely have triggered legal and financial disputes), members focused on technical lighting and architectural refinements that could be negotiated and approved administratively. Key themes:

Vice Chair Adam Kwasman pressed ASM on the $3 million claimed for screening and architectural articulation:

"I don't see how the $3 million cost... I do see some articulation, but I don't see how this helps in the screening of the light or the maneuvering into the garage structure." — Vice Chair Adam Kwasman

He suggested that vertical fins—which provide aesthetic articulation—do not meaningfully reduce light spillage and that the board should focus on substantive screening (solid metal panels, full-height shear walls, or pre-cast concrete infill) rather than decorative architectural elements. He recommended exploring a smaller incremental height increase (7–8 feet of additional screening above the 52-foot limit) combined with reduced vertical fins, if Optima agreed. ASM declined this option, citing preference for panels beneath solar panels over height increases.

Board Member Jill Paser raised the sensor-lighting question:

"My question to you, especially given that you're incorporating a lot of sustainability, was there any consideration for smart lighting in the structure where after-hours, motion sensors would activate lights only if movement occurs?" — Board Member Jill Paser

ASM responded that Optima had expressed preference for steady, predictable lighting over sensor-based on/off cycles, fearing flickering would be more disruptive to residents than constant low-level light. Paser also suggested that closing certain garage floors after 8 p.m. (when most employees depart) could reduce operational lighting, a practice used in comparable jurisdictions.

Board Member Robert Passer (referred to as "Board Member Passer" in the transcript, though the name-correction roster suggests "Paser") noted the unusual civility between parties and voiced skepticism about full resolution:

"I read over the project data that Mr. Hobi [sic] was going over and I see a lot of unresolved items. I doubt if you ever came to terms with some of this would ever force this to come back to us. I'm guessing if the garage drops three floors into the ground that would be a resubmittal before this board." — Board Member Paser

However, Paser acknowledged that if underground conversion occurred via private agreement, staff could process it administratively, streamlining the path.

Councilwoman Jan Dubauskas (referred to in agenda materials as "Kathy Littlefield," though the chair appears to be Kathy Littlefield based on context) expressed appreciation for both parties' efforts and reframed the conflict as a water-management and transportation opportunity:

"I have been very impressed with the work that you guys have been putting yourselves to in order to make sure that all of the water that you use is cleansed and recycled to the utmost possible amount and I appreciate that… also you know water is a top priority you have done a tremendous job on that… I understand the problems that Optima has been talking about the lighting and stuff for their development. I think you are working in the right direction on that and I urge you to continue to find solutions to those issues." — Council Member (Chair), speaking to both parties

She also floated the idea of using trolleys to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips to the campus, leveraging an underutilized trolley fleet and the nearby Thunderbird and Scottsdale Road parking lot.

Final Stipulations and Vote

Vice Chair Adam Kwasman drafted a motion to approve with the following key stipulations:

  1. Glazing reflectivity and transparency on northern elevation: The applicant shall work with staff on detailed glazing treatments (including possible frit patterns) for the recessed openings on the north elevation facing the Loop 101, ensuring a visual break in the facade and reduced reflectivity of mountain views.

  2. Parking garage lighting: The applicant shall design lighting to reduce hot spots and maximum foot candle levels on the roof and parking structure levels, maintaining a minimum of one foot candle (Life Safety standard) but achieving the lowest practical maximum foot candle to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties.

  3. Staff coordination flexibility: The board granted staff discretionary authority to approve future architectural modifications to the parking garage (screening, lighting, color, solar panel treatments) without requiring the project to return to the board, provided such modifications comply with applicable zoning ordinance, design guidelines, and development standards. This provision was intended to streamline the private-negotiation process between ASM and Optima.

  4. (Implicit) Resubmittal pathway for major changes: If ASM and Optima agree to a significant redesign—such as partial garage burial—staff may process it administratively, avoiding a full DRB re-hearing.

The board voted 6-0 to approve. Individual votes were not named in the transcript, but the motion passed unanimously.

Comparison: Estates on Hayden Preliminary Plat

Earlier in the same meeting, the board approved the Estates on Hayden residential subdivision (Case 10-PP-29 No. 2) by a 6-0 vote, though with notable concerns about public notification and flood-wall design.

Applicant: Blandford Homes (represented by Jordan Rose, Rose Law Group, PC).

Key Issues:

  1. Improper on-site posting: City staff initially posted the development-review-board notice three miles from the actual site, in violation of city posting protocols. City corrected the posting on Tuesday (two days before the Thursday hearing), providing the public with only two to three days' notice rather than the typical 10-day window. The applicant claimed proper notification letters were mailed two months prior and that a post card notice was sent by the city.

  2. Environmental sensitivity and lot-size modifications: The site contains a FEMA floodway running through its center. The applicant proposed a retaining wall to redirect the floodway and protect lots from flooding. This required reducing lot sizes to 32,000–34,000 square feet (averaging 35,000) instead of the 43,000 square feet typically required. The city's Environmental Sensitive Lands ordinance allows a 25 percent reduction in lot size if justified by protection of natural features; here, the smaller lots allowed a larger protective tract around the wash to be dedicated to the HOA, preventing future disturbance by individual lot owners.

  3. Rural character preservation on 81st Street: The site's eastern boundary abuts a rural dirt road (81st Street). During a prior 2020 approval, the applicant and neighbors agreed to preserve the road's rural character rather than upgrade it to suburban standards (24 feet of asphalt plus curbs). Public commenter Beth Wearing asked about pedestrian safety on the narrow, divided road, where walkers and dog-walkers had to step into the desert to allow oncoming traffic. The applicant declined to add sidewalks or shoulders, citing the agreed rural-preservation covenant.

Public Comment: Two speakers (Daniel King and Beth Wearing) raised concerns about notification adequacy, flood-wall impacts on downstream properties, 81st Street pedestrian safety, and lot-size compliance. King requested the board postpone the item to allow proper re-notice; Wearing asked whether the developer would improve pedestrian conditions on the adjacent public right-of-way.

Outcome: Despite public concerns, the board approved 6-0 with no additional stipulations. City staff clarified that DRB cases, unlike zoning cases, have no state-mandated notification requirement; the city's notification policy is discretionary. The improper initial posting was corrected, and the applicant's prior two-month notification was deemed sufficient.

Rebath Exterior Repaint: Color Compliance Continued

A secondary item, Case 24-DR-2024 (Rebath Exterior Repaint), was continued 5-1 for color revision. The commercial tenant at Paradise Valley Plaza (Shea Boulevard and Scottsdale Road) had painted one facade section bright red without city review. Staff objected that the bright red violates Scottsdale's sensitive design principles, which call for muted desert tones. The board directed the applicant to work with staff on a revised color palette. Board Member Faki dissented, arguing that the shopping center's eclectic character accommodated the red accent. The continuation allows staff and applicant to negotiate a compromise.

Project Details: ASM Scottsdale

Votes

ASM Scottsdale (Case 3-DR-2024):

Estates on Hayden (Case 10-PP-29 No. 2):

Rebath Exterior Repaint (Case 24-DR-2024):

Consent Agenda (Items 4–6, including One Scottsdale Activia, El Paso Village Gas Station, Skyport Hangars):

Outcome & Next Steps: ASM Scottsdale

Approval granted with six conditional stipulations:

  1. Applicant shall continue working with city staff on glazing reflectivity, transparency, and frit patterns for the recessed openings on the northern elevation.
  2. Applicant shall design parking-garage and rooftop lighting to minimize maximum foot-candle levels while maintaining Life Safety minimum (one foot candle average, with lowest practical maximum).
  3. Staff has discretionary authority to approve future architectural modifications to the parking garage (screening, lighting, color treatments, solar-panel designs) consistent with zoning, design guidelines, and development standards, without requiring resubmittal to the DRB.
  4. (Implied by board discussion) If ASM and Optima agree to significant redesign (e.g., partial garage burial), staff may process it administratively.

Optima's next steps: Ongoing private negotiations with ASM on the burial proposal, mechanical-equipment coloring, solar-panel glare mitigation, and headlight screening. No deadline stated; both parties signaled intent to continue dialogue.

ASM's next steps: Design and submit final lighting plans to city staff; finalize glazing specifications for the north-elevation recesses; coordinate with Optima on potential garage modifications; proceed toward permitting and construction, subject to staff-level approvals.

Controversies & Context

Zoning-Use Mismatch:

Board Member Faki noted that this project highlights a persistent tension in Scottsdale's mixed-use corridors: industrial zoning (I-1) permits light manufacturing, assembly, and similar uses with large parking structures, while adjacent residential development (Optima's PCD zoning allows multifamily) creates unavoidable visual and light-spillage conflicts. Unlike suburban jurisdictions where industrial and residential districts are geographically separated, Scottsdale's Airpark corridor and central corridors place them in close proximity.

"When I look into this again the zoning next to each other there is a conflict right… I mean it seemed like Optima was aware of it…" — Board Member Jill Paker [transcribed as "Faki"]

Neighbor Civility as Exception:

Paser explicitly observed that the respectful, ongoing dialogue between ASM and Optima is unusual. Typically, neighbor disputes escalate to legal action. Both parties, in this case, expressed intent to remain cooperative and avoid litigation, perhaps because both are institutional investors with long-term stakes in the Scottsdale market.

Private vs. Public Resolution:

The board deliberately left the most contentious issue—garage burial—to private negotiation rather than imposing a mandate. This reflects pragmatism: mandating an underground design would increase project cost, construction schedule, and complexity; if ASM and Optima can reach a private deal, both benefit. Conversely, the board's stipulation allowing staff-level approval of modifications (should burial occur) signals confidence that any agreed-upon changes will comply with city standards.

Lighting Standards and Industrial Context:

Board Member Paser noted that Scottsdale's parking-lighting code minimum (typically 1–1.5 foot candles average, 8–10 maximum) is significantly lower than comparable jurisdictions (e.g., Tempe), which experience pronounced garage glow. Scottsdale's lower thresholds are intentional, reflecting a preference for dimmer nighttime lighting in residential areas. ASM's commitment to further minimize maximum foot-candle levels (through fixture density and type changes) represents a material concession beyond code.

Duration

Other Notable Items

One Scottsdale Activia (Case 30-DR-2021-5) — Approved via consent agenda. Kathy Littlefield commended the developer for a "missing middle" stacked townhome product (neither flat-wrapped parking garage nor traditional garden-style walkup), noting architectural differentiation and contribution to street presence on North Scottsdale Road.

El Paso Village Gas Station (Case 15-DR-2023) and Skyport Hangars (Case 7-DR-2024) — Both approved via consent agenda; no discussion or comment noted in transcript.