[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6394992,"mediaKeyId","2101759-fd9752874bde805147b4c089ef178b1c","parentId",2101759,"title","At a glance: Development Review Board votes — minutes, consent items, two design approvals and vice‑chair election","audioSeconds",4316,"startMs",353000,"endMs",4669000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2101759-fd9752874bde805147b4c089ef178b1c&start=353&end=4669","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2101759-fd9752874bde805147b4c089ef178b1c/thumbnail_353000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6394992/Scottsdale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/At-a-glance-Development-Review-Board-votes-minutes-consent-items-two-design-approvals-and-vicechair-election","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394992-9bda1b79faedd1cde7fbe60455b2b906/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175364&Signature=RB9cp1rzTx6VVh9vM-b3RqSPzvLLRVnc9iWy9p-4EX~6FfQ7-ZUxAXTcZ88hB0~jnSXhASiE4~K3-HDKSNZHALYTPfLwseQ2htklWjm7vG4ocbxsGLvJyJaZmaH~fD2yH~FvHAkReQ3Pgd3VtkHoBRTCzL2tMJZcmDjxL0n3BQRDGR94oc4uq4k86R4kDK7L26ZjcfpI-xp9RPkWc5QJdKJx4lGW0onzjSWQIO9RpxcnvbA1MxM1487wHGa-pBIvHRTD4IVn~-81zGcHEv1ipOu2cd8hfh9UWWgiJHJsmtVUzCdOUFAvSrXGTsA4oozsEL-pPASQZ8GwvnVEN5sQZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Scottsdale, AZ","date","2025-01-11T01:09:53.943Z","article","The Scottsdale Development Review Board took several formal votes at its meeting, adopting minutes and consent items and approving two design‑review cases. It also elected the board’s vice chair for 2025.

Votes and outcomes

- Approval of December 12, 2024 meeting minutes: Motion carried, roll call vote unanimous, 7–0.

- Consent agenda item (2024 Development Review Board annual report, Case 2‑PP‑2024): Approved per staff recommended stipulations, roll call vote 7–0.

- Case 16DR2024 — Papago Village (site and landscape review; building elevations): Approved per staff recommended stipulations after finding the application meets DRB criteria. Roll call tally recorded 5 yes, 1 no, 0 abstain; Commissioner Young cast the lone no vote.

- Case 26DR2024 — HonorHealth Shea parking garage (site plan, landscape, elevations): Approved per staff recommended stipulations with an added stipulation that the applicant coordinate with staff on ADA accessible‑stall routing to meet applicable state and national codes. Motion passed by roll call, 6–0.

- 2025 vice chair election: Board member Brand was nominated and elected vice chair by roll call vote 4–0 (members participating in that vote recorded as yes; some board members were not participating in the election vote).

Context and notes

The board’s approvals for Papago Village and the HonorHealth Shea parking garage were design‑review decisions; members and staff reiterated that DRB action addresses site, landscape and building elevations and does not change the underlying zoning designations or entitlements. Several approvals included staff‑recommended stipulations; the Shea garage approval included a specific coordination requirement on ADA stall routing. The Papago Village vote was the only split vote recorded at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Development Review Board - January 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Scottsdale Development Review Board approved minutes, two design review cases (Papago Village and HonorHealth Shea parking garage), a consent item, and elected Vice Chair Brand. This summary lists outcomes, motions, and vote tallies recorded in the meeting.","taxTitle","Scottsdale, Maricopa County, Arizona","taxId",2563,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6394997,"Development Review Board approves HonorHealth Shea four‑story parking garage with future expansion option",1183,3403000,4586000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2101759-fd9752874bde805147b4c089ef178b1c&start=3403&end=4586","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2101759-fd9752874bde805147b4c089ef178b1c/thumbnail_3403000.jpg","/articles/6394997/Scottsdale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Development-Review-Board-approves-HonorHealth-Shea-fourstory-parking-garage-with-future-expansion-option","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394997-2fe74dd69c8e66ba7a52e0b141fbc5a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175364&Signature=ECTZ~tf4wtlAlIXK3XHfKRBLLqLH2mJTwSKMG9QBK04WALZRLg4sGDRV2YlNZWa3fk1E1Z8TgQLoal7hufmjyaj0T8iOuMJRJ67GkJaCbgPCTceQb1GiLi53YHDd9elE9Msg~ZOqqSAmM~MkFeHWze0JSy6TSeb3AiLqKobXaDygADI6sUZ89rWuVpIOfnVyHDxC7uO3io2Tkjf~VspzDdzokALmgDlLBTyfx1zDDeXUt0XqOCJo8gSbo-VPkYEsIVBpHtm7eE0-VfMQtwngA-a4MhHS3SAaRXZpC8WdHdOrK0053EGko26WH1oasLq0rGCMTJ0CcYvLlyLupE1QSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Scottsdale Development Review Board approved site, landscape and elevation plans for a four‑story parking structure at the HonorHealth Shea campus (Case 26DR2024), adding approximately 472 spaces in place of an existing 190‑space surface lot.

Brian Clef of the city’s current planning division presented staff’s overview, identifying the site in the southwest corner of the hospital campus and describing the design, which includes a second‑level pedestrian bridge linking the garage to the hospital’s labor and delivery area. Clef said the proposed building is approximately 52 feet at its highest point and that facade treatments include cast concrete, perforated metal panels with a bronze finish and a desert‑palette paint scheme.

Fatima Garcia, representing the project design‑build team, told the board the garage replaces an often‑full surface lot and will provide direct access to labor and delivery via the second‑floor bridge. Garcia described material choices and said the project team worked with staff to concentrate perforated‑metal panels and other visual treatments on elevations most visible from 90th Street. She also said the structure was designed to be capable of accommodating a future fifth level if the hospital chooses to expand; the permit request was for four floors based on current budget and program needs.

Board members asked technical questions about future adaptability, construction type and accessible‑parking routing. Board member Mason asked whether the structure was post‑tensioned cast‑in‑place or precast; Garcia confirmed the design uses a post‑tension slab system (not precast double‑T). Commissioner Young and others pressed the team on accessible parking layouts and curb/travel routing; the board included a stipulation requiring applicant coordination with staff to ensure ADA compliance for accessible stall access and routing.

On vehicle electrification and charging infrastructure, the applicant said the hospital requested a variance related to long‑duration charging in patient‑drop areas; the applicant and staff noted that the structure is designed to accommodate vehicle loads and to be adaptable if future electrification needs require retrofits.

Board member Mason and others praised the material and landscape treatments and said the structure was a clear functional improvement for a campus that routinely fills its surface lots. The board approved the case with the added stipulation that the applicant coordinate with staff on ADA accessible‑stall routing to meet applicable codes.

The motion passed on a roll‑call vote, 6–0. The applicant may proceed to permit submittal and construction under city procedures, subject to the stipulated ADA coordination and compliance with the campus development plan guidelines.","The board approved site plan, landscape and elevations for a four‑story, 472‑space parking structure on the HonorHealth Shea campus. Staff and the applicant said the design meets campus development guidelines; the applicant noted the structure is sized to allow a future fifth level if needed.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6395002,"Scottsdale board approves 94-unit Papago Village housing project after debate on density and design",2919,447000,3366000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2101759-fd9752874bde805147b4c089ef178b1c&start=447&end=3366","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2101759-fd9752874bde805147b4c089ef178b1c/thumbnail_447000.jpg","/articles/6395002/Scottsdale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Scottsdale-board-approves-94-unit-Papago-Village-housing-project-after-debate-on-density-and-design","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6395002-0d7a46d72db4b41e897eace0d83ddf3c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175364&Signature=DTXsRtYtPgySbzYxdRu5J~Z~5aoguEnohkUXaNOOrQMM80ahqOOfejp2IG45D6eOm7R6z9fQ7xwYIcoswA4ymeN-UirsaBb1Q4UdmeKEU2RdFJuqbQBEWiN9NKXQlvonX6OsDDOPxVVVz2dc208dMl6vHlYFrLkGCcxfbGU-jKcxBlQQtcCvrGw-TbHi1dAf5-0Fvk2KnNMyvVsXi~9fftimZXqnVETY4vog5KoR4MIoJom1uLqg7fI49cjH81QTQ6Q5ZTwSKOOKxu-EEEDClqT1axOiD0E~L9-9tm4~n0kqG8HH-HwZBTCFpbAKOcGXe3DTiCpxLdUOKn1zIg2zlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Scottsdale Development Review Board on Thursday approved site and landscape plans and building elevations for Papago Village (Case 16DR2024), a 94-unit residential community on a roughly 9.6-acre site west of 64th Street on the north side of Oak Street.

City planner Casey Steinke presented the staff report, saying the site is primarily zoned Service Residential (SR) and that the proposal falls under SR development standards. The application calls for about 100,000 square feet of residential building area, a 6,000-square-foot clubhouse, about 47,100 square feet of an existing office building to be repurposed for community use, 168 total parking spaces and 4.5 acres of open space. Steinke noted SR caps building height at 18 feet and said the project stays below that limit.

The board’s decision came after more than an hour of presentation, applicant testimony, and public comment. The project drew opposition from neighboring residents who said the number of units and site circulation are out of character with adjacent single‑family neighborhoods and will add traffic to Oak Street. Supporters at the hearing said the site is a former commercial office campus well‑suited to redevelopment and praised the applicant’s outreach and preservation of the existing building’s exterior.

Casey Steinke, city planner, told the board the site is “primarily zoned as SR, service residential,” and summarized the developers’ design, open space and parking plans. Andy Baron, representing MODIS Development, said the project was developed after multiple neighborhood meetings and that the design retains the existing building’s exterior while adding a single‑story residential product and clubhouse. “This is an asset to the neighborhood, not a liability,” Baron said.

Opposition speakers raised traffic, density and noticing concerns. John Diehl, identifying himself as a Sherwood-area resident, said, “This is not the right project for this place. It’s much, much too dense,” and criticized the adequacy of mailed notifications and the posted sign for the meeting. Other nearby residents, including speakers who said they live in Papago Buttes and Heritage East, urged the board to reduce the project’s scale.

Board discussion touched on materials, massing and neighborhood compatibility. The project team described building materials as predominantly stucco in Sonoran desert tones, and architect David (last name on file) said slump‑block site walls will be used at the property edges to pick up the texture of adjacent residential blocks. Commissioner Young said the project’s renderings did not adequately show garage doors and shaded parking or the full three‑dimensional character; Young voted no, stating on the record that materiality and the missing perspectives left the commissioner unconvinced. Vice Chair Brand and other members cited the project as an example of “missing middle” housing and praised the low building heights and preservation of a mid‑century building on-site.

The board voted 5–1 to approve the case per staff‑recommended stipulations after finding the application meets development review board criteria.

The applicant and staff will now proceed with permit review and implementation steps under the city’s usual development and building permit process.

The board’s review focused on design matters (site plan, landscape and elevations) and did not change the underlying SR zoning or entitlements; city staff and the applicant repeatedly noted the proposed density is below the SR maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre (the project seeks about 9.3 du/acre).","The Development Review Board approved a design review for Papago Village, a 94-unit residential project on a roughly 9.6-acre site zoned Service Residential (SR). The approval followed public opposition about density and traffic and questions from a board member about facade materials and renderings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

At a glance: Development Review Board votes — minutes, consent items, two design approvals and vice‑chair election

Development Review Board approves HonorHealth Shea four‑story parking garage with future expansion option

Scottsdale board approves 94-unit Papago Village housing project after debate on density and design