Scottsdale Development Review Board recommends 255-unit Marcato Village rezoning despite traffic concerns

Development Review Board Clears Marcato Village for City Council—But One Board Member Votes No Over Shopping Center Compatibility

The Scottsdale Development Review Board voted 3-1 on Thursday, June 20, 2024, to recommend approval of a controversial 255-unit mixed-use residential development on 6.64 acres south of Shea Boulevard. Though the board found the project compliant with all design standards, Kathy Littlefield sole dissent highlighted unresolved tensions between new development and aging adjacent retail—a friction that may resurface when the matter reaches the Planning Commission and City Council for final zoning approval.

The Marcato Village PUD rezoning and development plan now moves to the next approval stage, but seven public commenters and at least one board member signaled that design compatibility concerns extend beyond the scope of what the Development Review Board reviews. That procedural distinction—between design review and land-use policy—became a recurring tension throughout a meeting that stretched more than two hours.

Key Speeches

"We've met all the design parameters that the ordinance for the PUD provides for. I am a resident of Scottsdale Ranch. I shop at Sprouts. I go through this entire area every day. There are some concerns, but the concerns that I've heard are not pertinent to what we're doing with our project." — Kurt Jones, applicant attorney, Caliber Group

"I don't think it does meet the design requirements. It meets the legal requirements, but the design requirements should also be compatible to the citizens that live nearby. This project has come before us time and time again. Each time a little bit different iteration, and every time the citizens come and ask to change the design to make it more compatible to what they want. I don't see that happening." — Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield, Development Review Board member

"I think it's a good project. I think it's going to add a lot of value and I think it meets the design criteria." — Board member (name not stated in transcript)

"I originally was opposed to having it connect to the Future Kaplan project because for all the same reasons you did. I was afraid of all the traffic and allowing the Kaplan project to proceed. But now that I see the connection there and I realized how fantastic this thing could be when it connects to 9400 Shay and people living there can walk to the restaurants at 9400 Shay and vice versa and walk to the Sprouts—this is going to be something that Scottsdale can be proud of." — Joel Broer, original 2013 rezoner, now supporter

Timeline

• Staff presentation (Jeff Barnes, Scottsdale Planning): The site encompasses an existing vacant office building and a vacant commercial parcel along the east side of 92nd Street, currently zoned PUD (2013) and CO. Proposal combines both parcels into one PUD with a development plan showing a three-story residential building, 255 units, eight live-work units, and 5,000 square feet of co-working space. Staff noted the applicant is not requesting any amended development standards—an unusual circumstance for a PUD application. Site plan includes a new signalized intersection at 92nd and Cochise (or Coaches, per transcript), pedestrian and vehicular cross-access to adjacent properties, and 29% open space (exceeding the 10% minimum). Staff recommendation: Project meets all applicable design criteria.

• Applicant presentation (Kurt Jones, Caliber Group; Mike Edwards, architect): Jones and team emphasized that the proposal is the third iteration, refined in response to community feedback. Building stepped from two stories at 92nd Street frontage to three stories, wrapping a central parking structure. Stepped setback designed per McCormack Ranch Property Owners Association request to enhance 92nd Street frontage. Project includes a rooftop amenity space, routing for trucks from adjacent Sprouts/Chompies center through the site to a new signalized intersection (avoiding current u-turns on 92nd), and enhanced pedestrian connections to the shopping center, hospital campus across 92nd, and future adjacent development. Applicant emphasized no amended development standards requested, claiming unusual design achievement for an infill site.

• Public comment: Seven speakers, approximately 22 minutes total. All speakers opposed the project. Key themes: (1) traffic impact—estimates of 1,000+ additional daily vehicle trips on 92nd Street, which one speaker noted already operates near capacity during peak hours; (2) emergency services strain—nurses and hospital workers expressing concern about ambulance access to Honor Health campus west of 92nd; (3) population density—comments calculating 4% to 8% population increase to Scottsdale Ranch neighborhood (approximately 5,879 current residents, plus 255 units); (4) water and resource consumption—concerns about alignment with city sustainability goals; (5) incompatibility of apartments vs. single-family or smaller-unit development; (6) precedent for further zoning changes and density; (7) aesthetic concerns about "Mesa quality" design.

  Notable comment from Rose Petrovic: "I'd like to get their addresses so that way we can build an apartment building right next to their house."

  Support emerged from two quarters: Joel Broer, the 2013 rezoner, reversed his initial opposition after reviewing the refined design and traffic study, citing the project's step-back massing, parking sufficiency, and potential synergy with adjacent properties. Matt Mets, speaking for Scottsdale Ranch Community Association, withheld opposition contingent upon cross-access easement to the adjacent eastern property (9400 Shea/Kaplan property), stating that without it, future traffic would route through residential neighborhoods.

• Council discussion: Board member Paser posed pointed questions on traffic study methodology and signal responsibility; Jones confirmed the applicant is funding and installing the traffic signal. Board member spoke in favor, citing design compatibility and open space. Kathy Littlefield raised the core objection: the adjacent Sprouts/Chompies shopping center is aging and lacks the cosmetic upgrades befitting a new $2+ million residential tower next to it. She cited "an old kind of dilapidated shopping center" and unresolved questions about black structures crossing pedestrian pathways into rear acreage, asking, "Are we going to get rid of that? Are you going to upgrade it?" She stated, "I think it could be, but it needs to be done before I can vote yes on it."

• Vote: 3-1 recommendation for approval.

  • Yes: Board member Paser, Board member Mason, Commissioner Higs
  • No: Kathy Littlefield

Opposition

• Number of speakers: 7 against; 2 supportive (Broer, Mets)

• Main concerns:

  1. Traffic generation: Applicant's traffic study not disclosed in detail; estimates of 1,000+ additional daily trips cited by residents; 92nd Street already operating near capacity (applicant stated ~40% capacity); one signal insufficient to prevent backups on Shea Boulevard and Via Linda.
  2. Emergency services access: Multiple speakers—including nurses—reported difficulty accessing the hospital with current traffic; concern that ambulance delays could affect patient outcomes.
  3. Population density surge: 255 units interpreted as 4% to 8% population increase to Scottsdale Ranch neighborhood; accompanying increase in cars (1–2 per unit = 255–510 vehicles).
  4. Water and utility consumption: Conflict with city's 2050 sustainability plan goals (reduce water, waste, sewer usage by 90%); incompatibility with recent grass-removal rebate program intended to reduce heat island effect.
  5. Precedent for further zoning: Community expressed concern that rezoning the site from CO to PUD would open the area to further development and density creep, contrary to Scottsdale's original planning for Scottsdale Ranch neighborhood.
  6. Housing type preference: Residents requested smaller-unit types (condos, townhouses) rather than apartments; one commenter noted developer's preference for apartments (continuous revenue) over townhouses (one-time sale).
  7. Aesthetic and design quality: Concerns that project's design does not match Scottsdale's standards; comparison to "Mesa quality" apartments.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Traffic bottleneck risk on Shea Boulevard and Via Linda, which cannot be expanded, with two-block stretch between north/south signal points.
  • Emergency services strain, articulated by healthcare workers with direct experience accessing the hospital.
  • Resource consumption (water, electricity) contradicting city's sustainability commitments.

• Organized groups:

  • Scottsdale Ranch Community Association (Matt Mets, spokesman) withheld formal opposition contingent on cross-access easement to eastern property, signaling conditional support rather than outright opposition.

Support

• Number of speakers: 2 in favor

• Main points:

  1. Joel Broer (original 2013 rezoner): Reversed initial skepticism after detailed review of refined site plan, traffic study (300–350 pages), architecture, and connectivity. Praised stepped-back massing avoiding "monolith" appearance, landscape setbacks, pedestrian pathways, parking sufficiency, and future potential for synergy with 9400 Shay restaurant/retail development. Stated project "meets all of the development requirements necessary for approval" and "is better than anything I've ever imagined for this project."
  2. Matt Mets (Scottsdale Ranch Community Association): Acknowledged developer's responsive iterations (reduced units, reduced height, shifted mass away from 92nd Street). Withheld opposition in exchange for firm cross-access commitment to eastern parcel (9400 Shea/Kaplan property), reasoning that eastbound traffic closure would push future development's traffic through residential neighborhoods instead of onto 92nd Street, a "street arguably capable of handling that traffic."

• Board members in favor (Paser, Mason, Higs): Cited compliance with design standards, open space provision (29% vs. 10% required), enhanced setbacks per community request, Green Building principles, and connectivity between adjacent properties.

Project Details

• Case number: ZEN 2024 (Marcato Village Development Plan)
• Applicant / developer: Caliber Group
• Attorney: Kurt Jones (Ray Law Firm) and Tiffany Osco
• Architect: Mike Edwards, Davis (firm name incomplete in transcript)
• Location / address: 6.64 acres south of Shea Boulevard, east side of 92nd Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Site includes a vacant office building (previously zoned PUD per 2013 action) and a vacant commercial parcel (currently zoned CO). Surrounding uses: Sprouts/Chompies shopping center to the north; Honor Health Shea campus west of 92nd; medical office condos to the south; commercial development and CVS Health campus to the east.
• APN: Not stated in transcript
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: PUD (partial, 2013 rezoning) and CO (commercial office) → PUD (unified, with PCD overlay retained from McCormack Ranch PCD)
• General Plan Amendment: Minor GP case accompanying zoning request; 2013 action had designated half the site Mixed-Use Neighborhoods and half Commercial; proposed amendment brings full site into Mixed-Use Neighborhoods designation.
• Density / units / square footage: 255 residential units (mix not detailed in transcript), 8 integrated live-work units, 5,000 square feet co-working space, central parking structure, rooftop amenity space (5,000 sq. ft., <3% of building footprint), 29% open space (10% minimum required).
• Building height: 3 stories, with rooftop amenity above parking garage; maximum allowed height under existing and proposed zoning is 48 feet. Building stepped to 2 stories along 92nd Street frontage, stepping back to 3 stories elsewhere.
• Changes from previous version: Previous proposal (third iteration) included 262 units over 4 stories and incorporated southern portion of Sprouts/Chompies shopping center as mixed-use component; current proposal reduces to 255 units, 3 stories, and removes shopping center parcel from development footprint. Step-back massing introduced per McCormack Ranch Property Owners Association feedback.
• New infrastructure: Signalized intersection at 92nd and Cochise (applicant responsible for design and funding); shared fire lane on adjacent eastern parcel (replacing previous dual-fire-lane concept to maximize open space); cross-access and pedestrian connectivity to adjacent properties (north to shopping center via breezeway, northeast to future Kaplan property at 9400 Shea, east to signalized intersection).

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 3-1 (recommendation for approval)
• Yes: Board member Paser, Board member Mason, Commissioner Higs
• No: Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield
• Abstentions / absences: Board member Brand (noted absent; expressed support via email to staff per administrative comment)

Outcome & Next Steps

The Development Review Board voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the Marcato Village PUD rezoning and development plan to the Scottsdale Planning Commission and City Council. No continuance was granted. The application will next be heard by the Planning Commission for a recommendation, then by the City Council for final zoning approval. Upon approval of the zoning, the project will return to the Development Review Board for the normal (refined) design review of building materials, finishes, site layout, and other detailed design elements. Kathy Littlefield dissent signals that design compatibility—particularly the absence of complementary upgrades to the adjacent shopping center—may be revisited during the city council hearing.

Controversies & Context

Historical Development Cycle

The Marcato Village site has been the subject of multiple development proposals over more than a decade: a 2013 rezoning (which created the initial PUD parcel and prompted Joel Broer's comments today); iterations involving office conversion, hotel conversion, and lofts; and multiple apartment proposals. Each cycle has drawn community opposition on grounds of density, traffic, and neighborhood character. The applicant's refinements (reduced units, reduced height, stepped massing) reflect responsive design work but have not eliminated community concerns.

Procedural Friction

The board chair and staff emphasized that the Development Review Board's review is limited to design elements—color schemes, materials, massing, setbacks, open space, connectivity—not land use, zoning entitlements, or traffic impacts. This limitation created a sharp wedge between public comment (overwhelmingly focused on traffic, emergency services, and density) and the board's statutory authority. Staff and the board chair repeatedly redirected speakers, noting: "This board does not have the authority or the ability to address things such as land use, zoning, or traffic. This board's review relates to design matters." That structural boundary, while legally correct, left residents feeling unheard on their primary concerns. The board chair advised: "If this moves forward to the Planning Commission and the Council, that is where you need to state your oppositions."

Littlefield's Dissent: Kathy Littlefield sole "no" vote rested not on traffic or density (outside the board's purview) but on design compatibility—a concept within the board's authority. She argued that the new three-story, brand-new apartment complex would sit next to an aging shopping center lacking cosmetic or structural upgrades, creating visual and functional discord. Her specific concerns included:

• Lack of complementary upgrades to the Sprouts/Chompies shopping center
• Unresolved questions about outdated infrastructure (the "old black thing that crosses the pathway going into the back acreage")
• Absence of a "cohesive look, feel, touch" between new development and adjacent older retail

She stopped short of rejecting the project outright, suggesting that if the applicant committed to shopping center upgrades and infrastructure remediation, she would reconsider. Her position aligns with design review principles but may presage council-level negotiations.

Emergency Services and Hospital Access

Multiple speakers—including registered nurses—expressed concern about ambulance access to Honor Health's Shea campus during peak traffic. One speaker reported witnessing an ambulance unable to reach the hospital during current conditions. This concern, while arguably outside the board's purview, highlights a real infrastructure tension that will likely resurface at the Planning Commission and City Council stages.

Sustainability and Resource Consumption

Several speakers noted conflict between the project and the city's 2050 sustainability plan, which calls for reductions in water, waste, and sewer usage by 90%. The board's design review does not address resource consumption, but the ordinance generally incorporates Green Building principles—a standard the applicant's team claimed to meet without identifying specific certifications (e.g., LEED) in the transcript.

Conditional Support from Scottsdale Ranch Community Association

Matt Mets' conditional support—withheld opposition contingent on cross-access to the eastern 9400 Shea/Kaplan property—represents a pragmatic negotiation. Mets reasoned that if the Kaplan property (separately owned) is cut off from 92nd Street access via the Marcato site, its future development traffic would route south through the residential Scottsdale Ranch neighborhood instead. By securing the cross-access promise, the association effectively redirects potential future growth to a corridor (92nd Street) better suited to handle it. This suggests that the application's approval may hinge partly on the applicant's ability to finalize the eastern access easement.

Duration

• Marcato Village agenda item: Approximately 90 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, public comment, board discussion, motion, vote)
• Total meeting: Approximately 130 minutes (including consent agenda, minutes approval, and non-action Oldtown guidelines presentation)

Other Notable Items

Hawaiian Brothers Drive-Thru Restaurant (Item 4, Consent Agenda): The board unanimously approved a new drive-thru restaurant at 8970 East Shea Boulevard with one condition. Kathy Littlefield flagged the extent of the corporate aqua/blue color scheme, particularly on the south elevation facing Shea Boulevard and on the lower portion of the southeast elevation. Applicant Adam Stein, a Scottsdale resident and son of Steve Stein (124 Jack in the Box, Denny's, and Hawaiian Bros locations), offered a compromise to work with staff to reduce the blue coloring on the southeast elevation's lower portion. Board approved 4-0 with this condition.

Oldtown Scottsdale Urban Design and Architectural Guidelines Update (Item 6, Non-Action): Staff presented draft updates to the 1986 Oldtown guidelines, completing a multi-year update cycle alongside the 2023 Oldtown Character Area Plan and zoning amendments. Key changes include: enhanced transition language (sensitive edge buffer); pedestrian realm improvements (covered walkways with vertical supports outside the clear pedestrian path, balconies on private property not over public rights-of-way); open space requirements tied to bonus development standards; removal of regulatory height specifications (deferring to zoning ordinance); glossary clarification; and alignment with city brand standards (fonts, colors). Board provided positive feedback on document quality and clarity. Next steps: two public open houses on July 10-11 at the Community Design Studio; possible adoption by the board in August.