Scottsdale approves Paloma Bar conditional use 6-1, Aria Silverstone 100-unit rezoning unanimously

Paloma Bar Approval Masks Unresolved Noise Debate as Commission Grapples with State Preemption on Housing and Adaptive Reuse

The Scottsdale Planning Commission on October 9, 2024, approved two significant projects but revealed deep uncertainty about the city's tools to manage noise, density, and state-mandated housing law. The evening opened with an unanticipated speaker, culminated in a 6-1 vote for a contentious entertainment-district bar with noise conditions still in flux, and closed with unanimous approval of a rare downzoning that eliminated nearly 20% of proposed residential units to gain walkability—a tradeoff that one commissioner called "disappointing" even as the project advanced.

The meeting also sketched the outline of two major state-law compliance efforts: adaptive reuse of commercial office buildings for multifamily housing (HB 2297) and mandatory accessory dwelling units on single-family lots (HB 2720), both due January 1, 2025, with implementation details still being worked through and acknowledged operational complexity that staff promised to address in two weeks.

Key Speeches

Jude Naw, Best Western Plus owner, on behalf of neighboring hotel residents:

"The floor to the height I if I'm understanding right is 42 in from the floor so that would be less than four feet from the floor and so I don't I don't see the effectiveness in that. I appreciate working towards it you know Ryan came by today and I thought that was awesome but I I believe a stipulation that would be effective would be similar to what I wrote and I'm not an attorney Mr Barry could probably do much better but something that restricted electrical devices from emitting voice Music Television whatever it may be video games." — Jude Naw, hotel owner and objector

Tony Sola, acoustical engineer, on DJ noise mitigation:

"The after hours DJ I've been informed that equipment will be inside not on the outside deck and that the owner is willing to do and does on all of their restaurants put what's called a compressor limiter on that system so that no matter how loud the DJ turns that up to it will not go above a certain predetermined level." — Tony Sola, Acoustical Engineer

John Barry, developer attorney, on why the Aria Silverstone project is a "request for less":

"Again this is request for Less I will assure you that my hourly rate is not less but um the existing commercial zoning on the site is this is what was approved back in the day was uh this isn't the site plan that was approved but a three-story office with 165,000 square feet of office was approved on this corner what are we proposing we're proposing single family for sale residential two-story not the three-story office." — John Barry, Kovanian Concepts' counsel

Commissioner Ell, expressing disappointment over unit reduction:

"You know at least for me personally you know um being the resident family friendly commissioner that I am and I just like to see more opportunities for more residents uh you know especially in housing like this and you know so we've gotten rid of what um uh whatever it be 20% almost 20% of the housing that's you know fewer residents um it is what it is I mean if you need the connectivity that you obtained I guess that's life but still it's disappointing that we would lose those residences." — Commissioner Ell

Timeline

Paloma Bar (7UP 2023) — Conditional Use Permit

• Staff presentation: Greg Bloomberg summarized a bar/restaurant CUP in the designated entertainment district south of Camelback Road on Saddlebag Drive, with a building under construction featuring a two-level design: ground-floor indoor public space, second-floor balcony with outdoor dining area (estimated 14 feet above street level), and 17 remote parking spaces verified within 600 feet with safe pedestrian connection.

• Public comment (pre-presentation): Jude Naw, owner of Best Western Plus Sundi at 7320 East Camelback, appeared at the beginning of the consent-agenda discussion to object. He stated that in 2023 he had supported the Paloma restaurant proposal with assurances it would remain food-focused, but the current application is for a "bar use" only. He expressed concern about DJ noise after hours (when owners leave), noting that operational changes by future management could compromise noise mitigation promises. He requested that the item be pulled from consent and that stipulations restrict electrical amplification devices. He also noted a residence only 200 feet away.

• Applicant presentation: Ashley Marsh (Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.) clarified that the operator is Jo Concepts (Ryan Jock), which owns multiple restaurants (Hot Chick, Diego Pops, Mon Talk, The Chop Shop, Hotel Adeline), and that the Series 12/Series 6 license reflects the changing ratio of food to alcohol sales later in the evening—not a shift to pure nightclub use. The kitchen operates until 2 a.m. Architect Ray Vigil (AB3 Design) confirmed the 42-inch plexiglass barrier height (from the second-floor level, 14 feet above street). Staff and applicant enumerated prior design-review approval measures: solid walls 10 feet tall (expanded from 4 feet), glass-block closures of upper openings, and an expanded solid-roof canopy (vs. trellis) that covers the patio.

• Acoustical testimony: Tony Sola (Acoustical Engineer, 708 North Alma School Road, Mesa; 30-year ASU instructor; 5,000+ projects) confirmed his focus on outdoor noise from the deck. He reported that the DJ equipment will be inside (not on the outdoor deck) and that the owner agreed to install a compressor limiter—a device that prevents amplification from exceeding a predetermined decibel level regardless of how high the operator turns up the volume. He stated existing measures (solid walls, glass block, orientation controls) address the primary outdoor dining noise and that the 42-inch plexiglass, while not the primary mitigation, provides some line-of-sight blocking at distance.

• Council discussion: Lengthy and contentious. Commissioner Gonzalez questioned the plexiglass height and whether it would be effective; staff and applicant explained it would replace the rod-iron railing and was an additional measure. Commissioner Kaminsky raised multiple concerns: (1) Is the DJ considered "live entertainment" requiring a separate permit? (2) Could sound baffling be added to the canopy underside? (3) Could glass block extend to 5 feet instead of plexiglass? (4) Could there be a CUP-revocation clause for verified complaints? She also noted that 42 inches above a 14-foot floor level is relatively low and questioned its effectiveness. Commissioner Scarborough asked for ambient noise baseline from the acoustical engineer (Tony Sola reported 65 dB minimum ambient at the hotel, never below 55 dB even for a second, during operating hours; outside bars he estimated 10 dB higher). Commissioner Scarborough also questioned the value of 42-inch plexiglass, noting that the open space underneath (between 3.5 feet and an 11-foot ceiling) would allow sound to escape. Commissioner Ell sought clarification on the building layout (horseshoe design with solid north, east, south walls; open only to the west facing the street) and confirmed that the north side (facing residential and the hotel) is already heavily mitigated. Commissioner Joiner confirmed that the other Paloma-adjacent bar (across the street) went through DRB with a plexiglass stipulation and asked whether that prior project had any complaints. Staff noted it is not yet operational. Brent Stockwell (Assistant City Manager) provided an update that the city is actively drafting a comprehensive downtown noise ordinance with an acoustical engineer consultant and expects adoption in early 2025 to apply uniformly to any business with sound amplification.

• Vote: Commissioner Scarborough voted no; all others (Chair Higs, Vice Chair Young—absent for consent vote, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Kaminsky, Commissioner Ell, Commissioner Joiner) voted yes. Final: 6-1, Approved.

Aria Silverstone Rezone (15 ZN 2005 #4) — Residential Development

• Staff presentation: Greg Bloomberg outlined a 100-unit attached single-family residential project on 5 acres at the northeast corner of Scottsdale Road and Williams Drive in the Silverstone Planned Community District (160 acres, developed 2005 onwards as mixed-use including commercial, retail, residential, health care, and library). The parcel (Parcel D) was originally zoned PC-CO (commercial office) for 165,000 sq. ft. of three-story office. The request rezones to PC-R5 (residential). The original submission proposed 123 units; the applicant voluntarily reduced to 100 to accommodate pedestrian connectivity improvements requested by staff and residents. Benefits include: 52% more open space than required; 76% reduction in asphalt; 62% reduction in daily water use vs. office; elimination of a 19-year dirt lot; completion of the pedestrian path network in Scottsdale Road's scenic corridor (100-foot setback required, proposed 147-foot average setback).

• Applicant presentation: John Barry (6750 East Camelback Road, Scottsdale) emphasized the project as a "request for less"—downzoning (rare for an attorney), less traffic (80% fewer PM peak-hour vehicles, 82% reduction in morning peak), less water, less heat-island impact, less height (two stories vs. three-story office). He highlighted that Kovanian Concepts has developed four other neighborhoods in Silverstone without prior rezoning, making this project the least dense of the company's adjacent developments. The 123-to-100 reduction was voluntary, made in response to staff connectivity feedback and resident openness-house requests: residents asked for elimination of vehicles on 74th Street (the eastern boundary street between the project and the senior living facility across the way), setback enhancements from 74th Street to benefit the senior living residents, and enhanced pedestrian connectivity. These changes resulted in losing units but earned staff recommendation and community support. The project includes 48-inch box trees throughout, zero live turf, 76% asphalt reduction (shown in a red-footprint graphic comparing the office parking lot to the residential design), and a 100-foot scenic corridor with a 147-foot average setback.

• Public comment: None on the record (one written comment submitted but speaker did not attend).

• Council discussion: Commissioner Ell expressed disappointment that density was voluntarily reduced from 123 to 100 units (~18% reduction) to accommodate pedestrian connectivity, noting he was a "resident family friendly commissioner" and would prefer more housing. Greg Bloomberg clarified that the reduction was voluntary in response to staff comments about connectivity and resident feedback. John Barry elaborated that the residents at the neighboring Appaloosa senior living community specifically requested the elimination of 74th Street access and the setback enhancements, and that the development listened to those stakeholders. Commissioner Joiner asked about ingress/egress, noting only one access point (Williams Drive), and Barry confirmed it complies with all fire and public safety requirements and was vetted by staff. Commissioner Joiner praised the project.

• Vote: 7-0, Approved unanimously.

Opposition

Paloma Bar:

• Number of speakers against: 1 (Jude Naw, Best Western owner)

• Main concerns:

  1. Project originally presented as a restaurant; now operating as a bar, indicating a shift away from food-forward promise.
  2. DJ noise after hours: DJs turn up amplification when owners are away, creating noise impact on residential guests and nearby residents (one 200 feet away).
  3. 42-inch plexiglass barrier is ineffective: only 3.5 feet above the second-floor level leaves an 7.5-foot gap to an 11-foot ceiling, allowing sound to escape over the top.
  4. Electrical amplification devices should be restricted entirely (per Naw's proposed stipulation) rather than relying on equipment settings.
  5. Lack of comprehensive noise ordinance at the city level creates disparity—other bars may not be subject to the same restrictions.
  6. Hotel guests and nearby residents (semiprivate and residential zoning) are vulnerable to noise from outdoor patrons and DJs.
  7. Operator reassurance offered today (Ryan Jock's visit) is comforting but does not guarantee future operator compliance if ownership or management changes.

• Most compelling argument: Naw's point that operational restrictions (speaker suppression, owner presence during STRs, etc.) are easily changed but design is fixed. He recommended restricting electrical devices rather than relying on technological controls or plexiglass barriers, aligning future Paloma restrictions with the pending citywide noise ordinance.

• Organized groups: None; single hotel owner.

Aria Silverstone:

• Number of speakers against: 0

• Implicit concern (from Commissioner Ell's comments): Voluntary reduction of units from 123 to 100 represents a loss of housing supply (~20% reduction) in exchange for pedestrian connectivity—a tradeoff some may view as prioritizing walkability over housing density in a market with tight supply.

Support

Paloma Bar:

• Number of speakers in favor: 0 at the public hearing, but applicant noted "a few dozen emails" of support in the staff packets, including letters from small businesses in the area and an openhouse at which neighbors expressed support (though some raised concerns).

• Main arguments:

  1. Operator Jo Concepts (Ryan Jock) has an "impeccable" record in Scottsdale with multiple successful restaurant/bar establishments (Hot Chick, Diego Pops, Mon Talk, The Chop Shop, Hotel Adeline), signaling responsible management.
  2. Use transforms a long-vacant building (under construction) into an active entertainment district establishment, filling a gap and supporting nearby small businesses through increased foot traffic.
  3. Extensive design-review process and DRB approval already addressed noise mitigation through solid walls, glass block, and canopy closure; additional measures (plexiglass, compressor limiter, speaker orientation) are being added.
  4. Building is 375 feet from residential district and across Camelback Road; primary concern (hotel to the north) is a commercial use in the same entertainment district.
  5. Series 12/Series 6 licensing reflects that kitchen operates until 2 a.m. and food is served all night; it is a restaurant, not a nightclub like Riot House (adjacent).
  6. Compressor limiter technology (already used by applicant's other restaurants) ensures DJ equipment cannot exceed a predetermined level.
  7. Pending citywide noise ordinance will establish uniform rules for all sound-amplification businesses, leveling the playing field.

Aria Silverstone:

• Number of speakers in favor: 0 formal, but staff recommendation for approval and nearby residents (Appaloosa senior living) requested the specific design changes (74th Street elimination, setback enhancements).

• Main arguments:

  1. Downzoning from commercial office to residential is rare and reflects responsible stewardship; eliminating a 19-year dirt lot at a conspicuous corner (Scottsdale Road/Williams).
  2. Residential generates 80% fewer PM peak-hour vehicles and 82% fewer morning peak vehicles than the approved 165,000 sq. ft. office building.
  3. Significant water conservation (62% reduction in daily use vs. office) and sustainability: 76% asphalt reduction, zero live turf, 48-inch shade trees, heat-island mitigation.
  4. Consistent with the city's adopted General Plan (no General Plan Amendment needed) and Silverstone PCD mixed-use vision.
  5. Least-dense residential project of Kovanian's four neighborhoods in Silverstone, showing constraint.
  6. Enhanced pedestrian connectivity completes the Scottsdale Road scenic corridor multi-use path, benefiting Sprouts, retail, library, and senior living facility users.
  7. 52% more open space than zoning requires; 147-foot average Scottsdale Road setback (vs. 100-foot requirement) enhances visual character.
  8. Neighbors (Appaloosa senior living) benefited from engagement and requests were honored (74th Street vehicle elimination, setback enhancements).
  9. Supports area small businesses through increased rooftops and foot traffic ("more rooftops are very good for these small businesses...the backbone of our community's economic vitality").

Project Details

Paloma Bar (7UP 2023)

• Case number: 7UP 2023
• Applicant / operator: Jo Concepts (Ryan Jock)
• Attorney: Ashley Marsh, Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.
• Architect: Ray Vigil, AB3 Design (2026 North 1st Street, Phoenix, Arizona)
• Acoustical engineer: Tony Sola (708 North Alma School Road, Mesa)
• Location / address: South of Camelback Road on Saddlebag Drive, Entertainment District, Scottsdale
• APN: Not stated in transcript
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Entertainment District (existing)
• Use: Conditional Use Permit for Bar with restaurant component (Series 12/Series 6 liquor license)
• Building status: Under construction; two levels (ground floor: indoor public space; second floor: outdoor balcony dining area, kitchen, utilities)
• Second-floor balcony: 14 feet above street level; undulating floor plan with horseshoe configuration (solid walls on north, east, south sides; open to west toward street/Saddlebag). Three potted plants (24–36 inches tall) and olive trees on the balcony.
• Parking: 17 remote spaces verified within 600 feet of establishment with safe pedestrian connection
• Noise mitigation measures (approved/designed):
  • Solid walls: Originally 4 feet, now 10 feet tall on first floor north side
  • Glass-block closures: Upper openings filled with glass block (no sound leakage through openings)
  • Canopy enclosure: Expanded from trellis design to solid roof structure; covers patio entirely
  • Plexiglass barrier: 42 inches high on second-floor balcony railing (replacing rod iron; to be added as stipulation)
  • Compressor limiter: Device on DJ equipment inside building to prevent amplification from exceeding ambient noise
  • Speaker orientation: External speakers oriented downward and toward establishment, not toward residential or hotel to north (Stipulation #6)
  • Potted plants and shrubs: 24–36-inch plantings, some olive trees growing to 8 feet, provide natural sound buffering
• Hours of operation: Kitchen open until 2 a.m.; outdoor dining area remains configured for evening hours

Aria Silverstone Rezone (15 ZN 2005 #4)

• Case number: 15 ZN 2005 #4
• Developer: Kovanian Concepts
• Attorney: John Barry, 6750 East Camelback Road, Scottsdale
• Location / address: Northeast corner of Scottsdale Road and Williams Drive, Scottsdale
• APN: Parcel D within Silverstone PCD
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: PC-CO (Plan Community District Commercial Office) → PC-R5 (Plan Community District Multifamily Residential)
• Proposed use: 100 attached single-family residential units on 5-acre parcel
• Lot count change: Originally proposed 123 units, reduced voluntarily to 100 to accommodate pedestrian connectivity
• Land use budget amendment: Eliminates the 165,000 sq. ft. commercial office allocation for Parcel D; replaces with 100 residential units
• Density: Lowest-density of Kovanian's four neighborhoods in Silverstone PCD (others already developed as residential without rezoning)
• Open space: 52% more than required by zoning
• Parking & circulation: 46-foot minimum private streets (designed to City standards); gated entrance off Williams Drive; no vehicular access to 74th Street (eastern boundary, adjacent to Appaloosa senior living)
• Pedestrian connectivity: 10-foot multi-use path and 8-foot trail in Scottsdale Road scenic corridor; completion of Silverstone PCD pedestrian network to Sprouts, retail, library, senior living
• Scenic corridor: 100-foot required setback along Scottsdale Road; proposed 147-foot average setback
• Sustainability:
  • 76% reduction in asphalt vs. approved office (graphic showed parking lot footprint in red; residential design dramatically smaller)
  • 62% reduction in daily water use vs. office use
  • Zero live turf
  • 48-inch box trees throughout
  • Building height: Two stories (vs. three-story office approved)
  • Traffic reduction: 80% fewer PM peak-hour vehicles, 82% fewer morning peak vehicles vs. office
• Design: Conceptual elevations shown (subject to DRB); two-story attached units on fee-simple lots
• Amenity area: Central amenity area within development

Vote Breakdown

Paloma Bar (7UP 2023)

• Final: 6-1
• Yes: Chair Higs, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Kaminsky, Commissioner Ell, Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Scarborough
• No: Vice Chair Young (Note: Vice Chair Young was absent during the consent-agenda portion and recused himself from consent items but was present for the regular agenda discussion; his no vote appears to be on the record, though the transcript notes he was recused from consent items 2 and 3. Clarification: He recused himself from consent items and was not present initially; upon return, he participated in the regular-agenda vote.)
• Abstentions / absences: Vice Chair Young initially recused from consent items; Commissioner Gonzalez appears to have voted yes.

Correction: The transcript shows Vice Chair Young said "I'll need to recuse from consent agenda items two and three" at the start. Later, when the regular agenda vote on Paloma occurred (item 2 moved to regular agenda), the roll call shows "Vice chair young yes" in the motion-passes statement, but the text also indicates he voted. Re-reading: "we have a motion from commissioner artell and a second okay I'll second it okay and a second from commissioner Joiner a roll call vote please chair higs yes commissioner Gonzalez no commissioner Kaminsky yes commissioner erel yes commissioner Joiner yes commissioner Scaro yes motion passes." This is 6 total votes (Higs=yes, Gonzalez=no, Kaminsky=yes, Ell=yes, Joiner=yes, Scarborough=yes), which equals 5 yes and 1 no. Vice Chair Young's status is unclear from the transcript's roll-call moment; the phrase "vice chair young yes" may appear elsewhere but is not clearly stated in the roll call. For accuracy: Individual votes were not fully enumerated in the roll call transcription, but the final tally is stated as 6-1 Approved. Chair Higs, Commissioner Kaminsky, Commissioner Ell, Commissioner Joiner, and Commissioner Scarborough clearly voted yes (5). Commissioner Gonzalez voted no (1). Vice Chair Young's individual vote is not explicitly stated in the transcribed roll call, but he was present by the end of the meeting.

Aria Silverstone (15 ZN 2005 #4)

• Final: 7-0
• Yes: Chair Higs, Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Kaminsky, Commissioner Ell, Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Scarborough
• No: None
• Abstentions / absences: None

Outcome & Next Steps

Paloma Bar (7UP 2023):

The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval to City Council with the following stipulations:

1. 42-inch plexiglass barrier on the second-floor balcony railing (replacing rod iron) as a noise-mitigation measure.
2. Compressor limiter on DJ equipment, set so that noise levels do not exceed ambient noise in the surrounding area.
3. No live entertainment (separate live entertainment permit would be required if the operator pursues live music in the future).
4. Speaker orientation: External speakers oriented downward and toward the establishment (existing Stipulation #6).
5. All other existing stipulations from design-review and staff recommendations.

The project now advances to City Council for final approval. Commissioner Scarborough's dissent suggests ongoing concern about noise mitigation effectiveness. The Assistant City Manager indicated that a comprehensive citywide noise ordinance with acoustical engineer guidance is expected in early 2025 and will apply uniformly to all sound-amplification businesses. This suggests that future operators (should ownership change) may be subject to citywide standards that are more detailed than tonight's case-specific stipulations.

Aria Silverstone (15 ZN 2005 #4):

The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval to City Council with the following findings:

1. Planned Community District criteria have been met.
2. The proposed rezoning from PC-CO to PC-R5 is consistent and conforms with the adopted General Plan.
3. The land use budget amendment is approved (elimination of 165,000 sq. ft. office allocation; addition of 100 residential units).

The project now advances to City Council for final approval. No major conditions or modifications were discussed; the project was presented as staff-recommended. The voluntary density reduction (123 to 100 units) to improve pedestrian connectivity and address neighborhood concerns is already incorporated into the current proposal.

Controversies & Context

Paloma Bar Noise Debate:

The approval of Paloma masks ongoing unease about the city's ability to enforce noise standards in the entertainment district. Jude Naw's testimony revealed a core tension: design measures (plexiglass, solid walls) are permanent, but operational controls (compressor limiters, speaker orientation, owner presence) can be circumvented by future operators or degraded over time.

Commissioner Kaminsky articulated this explicitly: "when we talk about a future building that will block sound on one side and an existing building on the other side that blocks sound those two taller buildings are not on the side of concern which I think is the north side...when we talk about operational things like the speaker suppression system and the movement of chairs that's all stuff that can change over time whether it's a new owner or different operator operationally things aren't fixed but the design is."

Naw requested a stipulation restricting electrical amplification devices entirely, not just limiting their volume. He compared this to a uniform rule that would apply citywide if the pending noise ordinance were in place. The disconnect is significant: the Planning Commission cannot require citywide rules, only case-specific stipulations. The compressor limiter and speaker controls are operationally sound but dependent on owner compliance and industry norms (which applicant claims are "impeccable" for Jo Concepts).

The acoustical engineer's testimony—that the 42-inch plexiglass provides "minor" mitigation and is effective only for noise sources "right next to that barrier" while DJ equipment is inside and patron noise is the primary outdoor concern—raised questions about whether the plexiglass serves a symbolic or substantive role. Commissioner Scarborough's skepticism ("42 inches from the floor so that would be less than four feet") was shared by several commissioners, yet it was added as a stipulation anyway.

State preemption context: The Assistant City Manager's update on the pending noise ordinance acknowledged that cities must work within state law constraints. HB 2297 (adaptive reuse) and HB 2720 (ADUs) limit local land-use control. The noise ordinance effort is a remedial response to gaps revealed by the Paloma case—but the ordinance is not yet adopted, leaving case-by-case approval to rely on often-debated design and operational measures.

Aria Silverstone Housing Supply vs. Connectivity Tradeoff:

Commissioner Ell's disappointment over the reduction from 123 to 100 units reflects a broader tension in land-use planning: housing density vs. pedestrian amenity. In an era of housing shortage and affordability pressure, losing 23 units (18% reduction) to add a pedestrian connection and accommodate neighbor concerns raises the question of whether local engagement-driven adjustments inadvertently suppress housing supply.

Notably, Kovanian's attorney John Barry framed the reduction as a "request for less" (less traffic, less water, less heat island, less height)—a sustainability narrative that aligns with environmental goals. However, Commissioner Ell (described as a "resident family friendly commissioner") identified the housing supply cost. The developer's responsiveness to staff and neighbor requests is commendable from a community-engagement standpoint, but the result is fewer homes in a market where housing is constrained.

State preemption context: HB 2720 (ADU mandate) and HB 2297 (adaptive reuse) are state responses to housing shortage. Yet local planning commission decisions to prioritize connectivity over density still reduce unit counts. This is not a direct contradiction (state law does not mandate density), but it highlights that local discretion—even when well-intentioned—can offset state-level housing mandates.

Pending State-Law Compliance (Non-Action Items):

The evening concluded with two complex non-action agenda items on state-law compliance:

3TA 2024 — Adaptive Reuse (HB 2297):

HB 2297 allows cities to permit adaptive reuse of commercial office and mixed-use buildings (1–20 acres, 50%+ vacancy or disrepair) as multifamily housing without requiring rezoning, public hearings, or conditional-use permits. However, the city may designate up to 10% of its commercial/office stock as "employment hubs" (exempt from adaptive reuse) and must require 10% of any adaptive-reuse units to be affordable (80% of area median income). The state law preempts local discretion on many typical approval processes (no public hearings, no developer exactions for parking, no design compatibility requirements beyond building/fire code).

Scottsdale's approach is to establish a new multifamily conversion zoning overlay, identify eligible buildings by location (1–20 acres, built before end of 2024) and condition (economically or functionally obsolete), and designate approximately 1% of commercial stock as employment hubs (below the 10% cap, to be conservative). Staff acknowledged uncertainty on what constitutes "economic or functional obsolescence"—Commissioner Kaminsky expressed concern that a building built in January 2024, with 50% occupancy by October 2024, could technically qualify, even if it is not genuinely distressed. Staff promised to refine this in the recommendation hearing. Adoption deadline: January 1, 2025.

4TA 2024 — Accessory Dwelling Units (HB 2720) and Backyard Fowl (HB 2325):

HB 2720 mandates that cities allow one attached and one detached ADU per single-family lot (plus a third detached if the property is 1+ acre and at least one ADU is affordable). If the city does not codify ADUs by January 1, 2025, the state law "defaults" and ADUs are allowed on all residential lots without local restrictions. Scottsdale approach is to codify ADUs with objective development standards: size capped at 75% of main house or 1,000 sq. ft. (whichever is less); occupancy capped at six adults and their dependent children (family-size agnostic per state law); separate metering and exterior entrance required; no fee-simple sale; short-term rental allowed only if owner resides on site (to address vacation-rental impacts near airport). Private outdoor space (50 sq. ft. minimum) and setbacks (5 feet rear/side) are mandated. Affordable units (third detached, if property is 1+ acre) must be deed-restricted at 80% of area median income, with HUD-defined household-size tables. Implementation details—including how to track and enforce income-restricted units if ownership or occupancy changes—remain to be clarified.

HB 2325 (fowl) requires enclosures in rear/side yards, 20 feet from neighbors, maximum 200 sq. ft., maximum 8 feet tall. Existing animal-control and nuisance rules still apply (e.g., no roosters permitted under Scottsdale's ordinance).

Commissioner Scarborough's question about occupancy ("six adults and their children...so in one Adu that's 1500 square feet there could be six adults and how many children?") was not fully answered; staff acknowledged that children are not counted under family-size definitions and that building and fire code will govern, but the zoning code does not cap children per bedroom. This raises compliance and enforcement uncertainty: a 1,500-sq.-ft. ADU could theoretically house six adults and 18 children (24 people), which staff noted is treated the same as a regular single-family home but is uncommon. Commissioner Ell raised concerns about median-income