[{"_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",6751099,"mediaKeyId","5369786-e386cda840208ff928754ad185504fce","parentId",5369786,"title","DRB reapproves Goldwater mixed‑use in Old Town, citing pedestrian connections and design consistency","audioSeconds",996,"startMs",503000,"endMs",1499000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5369786-e386cda840208ff928754ad185504fce&start=503&end=1499","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5369786-e386cda840208ff928754ad185504fce/thumbnail_503000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6751099/Scottsdale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/DRB-reapproves-Goldwater-mixeduse-in-Old-Town-citing-pedestrian-connections-and-design-consistency","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6751099-7da23fb671508841b909e3f62f5bd74f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134585&Signature=YX8c7jQRAbstRraVKeTwsTo5PM845nKR0668uRqK2iryIRnpFlfQWM6LuYUB65QYLY5XJhumEHkV1N95H9nmBZtvCgZ0shCic8nvq07hb6aSv0XQbWokPKad~2fkC62fqOteQMmUrqyWReuokUC9eTioMjV6lZvPoDpn3BhZHqFDLPY-yRK0lo38hhFwcX0wmpdEhK-zDazD9iL~X53LIrz41rAkCZn1lKchLol72hCVrdGhLYsr0W2WRCUR~gYJLTntIhGZr9-78Mm~n9KnIHK4PfZfEdyTcvdVBnwH3y0cQd3Jq4nif1E~u3qEKgV4nzJ0weyjr49AWWgDuWdNFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Scottsdale, AZ","date","2025-07-10T22:19:35Z","article","The Scottsdale Development Review Board on June 10 reapproved case 25DR2021Number2, the Goldwater project, a mixed‑use development at the southeast corner of North 70th Street and North Goldwater Boulevard. The board found the plan met Old Town design guidelines and voted unanimously to reapprove the previously allowed development.

Planner Miss Tessier told the board the application is a reapproval because “they did not pull permits within the development review board time period” and that “nothing has changed since that development review board approval.” Tessier summarized the proposal as a mixed‑use development comprising about 40 dwelling units and roughly 7,000 square feet of commercial area with vehicular access from East Fourth Street leading to a parking garage and enhanced pedestrian circulation around the site.

Architect Karen Santiago, presenting for the applicant team, said the project is intended to improve walkability and pedestrian area connections between the south side of Goldwater and the Arts District to the north. She described planned amenities and sustainability measures, saying the design includes shading, widened sidewalks, balconies for residential units and on‑site power generation components. \"One of the best parts of this project will be the enhancements to the pedestrian and walkability for this entire zone,\" Santiago said.

Staff and the applicant noted several site commitments: a public access easement to allow pedestrians to cross from East Fourth Street to Goldwater Boulevard, and participation in an enhanced pedestrian walkway crossing (the applicant must contribute 50 percent of costs) to link into the Museum Square area. The applicant also presented elevations intended to be consistent with Old Town design guidelines and the commercial design standards.

Board members asked a handful of clarifying questions about materials, shade‑structure colors, tree box sizes and mechanical screening. The applicant said the overhangs would be lightweight steel, the shade surfaces lighter in color to reflect heat, and that most street trees along the frontage were planned as 24‑ or 36‑inch boxes (the applicant said it would confirm final sizes during plan submittal).

After discussion the board approved the reapproval of case 25DR2021Number2. The vote was recorded as unanimous among the five present board members. The approval returns the project to the project permit review sequence; engineering and building permits will still be required before any construction begins.

The DRB action preserves the previously approved design and the pedestrian commitments noted in the record; final details such as exact tree sizes, tenant‑level HVAC equipment and permit‑level stormwater design will be reviewed during the subsequent plan and permit reviews.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Development Review Board - July 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Scottsdale Development Review Board on June 10 reapproved the Goldwater mixed‑use project (case 25DR2021Number2), restoring a prior DRB approval that had lapsed because permits were not pulled.","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},6751090,"DRB approves Nogon Villa/Torch Club in North Scottsdale; requires larger perimeter trees and refined materials",7573,7582000,8105,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5369786-e386cda840208ff928754ad185504fce&start=7582&end=8","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5369786-e386cda840208ff928754ad185504fce/thumbnail_7582000.jpg","/articles/6751090/Scottsdale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/DRB-approves-Nogon-VillaTorch-Club-in-North-Scottsdale-requires-larger-perimeter-trees-and-refined-materials","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6751090-720eda03ded23e7f03be8d53b2557210/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134586&Signature=YsKk5JhZp~qWU045D~EjtOY8tQmgGPv96PctvVMlt29Cxu5Gx-XWEoIzHfSRsUfSnniKqs729WRSybyeOVsdXPWlTWGbqgbgQ2fJHKIyy6CJ77AJcJIsyuF21fG-53CTRpuvyplqNLob74cP-WQIqKt5dsC0asFVqf4FyZTy5E2NEdR~Ndr551LTyN9ZYRcdHlIHi~bN12VU1SZ08zVB2Ju194TQtYcAh2uriNLi1dfASiGMEuoFb1qvEnYTeqyB4JPPWda2PkmPHbcL1HGENFCI5-~tu8yGn5MDLqmF1FrCjA5ofthiAKxaTRrYdEAMSWUwsOfRnmUIecDD-SssoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Scottsdale Development Review Board approved case 61DR2015Number7 (Nogon Villa, also called the Torch Club) with staff recommended stipulations and an additional requirement that perimeter street trees be upgraded from 24‑inch box size to 36‑inch box size.

Staff summarized revisions made since the prior hearing: enhanced brick joinery, adjusted roof pitches, replacement of some faux brick details with GFRC and natural stone at the central entry, and a modified perimeter wall design. Attorney Tom Galvin and the project architect described those changes to the board and said the design team updated materials rapidly in response to DRB comments.

Tom Galvin said the applicant “modified the design after incorporating feedback from DRB members” and described additions such as variation in perimeter‑wall columns, updated roof pitches, and authentic material choices. The architect confirmed the perimeter wall columns will use Coronado stone, the infill will be CMU with a smooth stucco finish and a GFRC cap, roofing will be metal and glazing will be solar‑band 50.

Board members asked a few clarifying questions about the stone product, the CMU/stucco infill and tree sizes. The applicant indicated the plant list showed 24‑inch box trees but offered to increase to 36‑inch where appropriate. Following discussion the board approved the case per staff recommendations with the additional stipulation to upgrade the specified 24‑inch box trees to 36‑inch boxed street trees along the perimeter.

The approval returns the project to the standard permit and construction‑document review process. Staff will verify material selections and the upgraded tree sizes during subsequent plan review and permitting.","The Scottsdale DRB approved case 61DR2015Number7 (Nogon Villa/Torch Club) after the applicant revised materials and elevations; the board added a stipulation requiring 36‑inch box perimeter trees.",{"_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},6751094,"DRB continues Desert Summit Lot 34 building‑envelope modification, requests drainage and height context studies",6109,1532000,7641000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5369786-e386cda840208ff928754ad185504fce&start=1532&end=7641","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5369786-e386cda840208ff928754ad185504fce/thumbnail_1532000.jpg","/articles/6751094/Scottsdale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/DRB-continues-Desert-Summit-Lot-34-buildingenvelope-modification-requests-drainage-and-height-context-studies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6751094-58d830e9c95c95e68477d1d08cffaea3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134586&Signature=IhYZEvf1rFeEcsSC0KtcQc9cvKBbB6Ik48Ik2tYq4dOKOX9PTXmv9nr7eAfIsOPbaQS4WT5m2a0POyazRcZYHtDKyoRC9uZnCbIV5EhCmoVn83GwZeg4LKtrgGXUp1ecFiN1iLu-xGt4d44I32mBoQB81AY7GmcYc2lGgYxvwAWEBh1LGgGO3-AuPBT7wv8g731yoVRqPQuAVP8iE~MBZDRhcpmgnX7xEkgQCQznkqjxnSZ8s6KXM0XXn3x9gcNYryUHjXchZMb35nhCzUKkEPUJbMyw8PV3H-aZmwFioyijk3FjLaL1S7HeM~j3VXnIC0sbP3vbFToKooQprpNh0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Scottsdale Development Review Board continued the request to modify the conceptual building envelope for Lot 34 in the Desert Summit subdivision (case 12PP1995Number2), directing the applicant to work with staff and return with additional technical exhibits addressing drainage, cut‑and‑fill implications and comparative building‑height/volumetric studies.

Planning staff presenter Jeff Barnes summarized the application and the property’s zoning history, noting that the subdivision’s original zoning and a 1995 amendment established conceptual building envelopes and NAOS expectations. Barnes told the board staff’s analysis found the updated central building‑envelope location “is more consistent with the stipulations of the zoning and preliminary plat cases, the purpose of ESL, and open space location guidelines” and that it “leaves more of the significant portion of the upper part of the lot preservable as open space.” He also noted there was still community opposition and that stormwater staff reported ponding at the lower portion of the lot.

Owners Johnny and Stacia Angeloni and architect Andy Grambling presented two alternatives they had studied. The owners said the lower portion of Lot 34 includes unpermitted culverts, makeshift retention work and loamy soil that compresses, producing ponding at the street side. Johnny Angeloni said the lower area is “6 to 8 feet below the street level” and described culverts and makeshift walls placed by a prior owner. He explained that their initial preferred location was the summit (higher on the lot) but, after the board’s prior suggestions and stormwater observations, they proposed a mid‑lot envelope that they say reduces impacts and still preserves NAOS.

Neighbor David Clark (Lot 35) spoke during public comment and said he had concerns about the accuracy of the applicant exhibits, potential flood areas at the lot base, and possible view impacts if the envelope were moved. Clark said he had a stamped set of plans for Lot 35 and disputed a claim that Lot 35 had never been approved; he asked for guarantees about final building height and sight‑line impacts if the envelope were relocated.

During deliberations the board and staff discussed scope of DRB review and the evidence needed to make a context‑sensitive decision. Assistant City Attorney Angela Calabresi advised the board to stay within DRB purview — focused on plan conformance with the general plan, DRB criteria, ESL purpose and compatibility with surrounding structures — and not to treat the request as a hardship/variance hearing. Several board members said the applicant had made progress but that the current record lacked technical data needed to judge the proposal’s impact on adjacent properties: specifically, (1) a drainage/stormwater analysis that addresses the ponding/culverts and documents the extent and severity of the low area; (2) a cut‑and‑fill and grading analysis showing how much excavation or fill would be required for the proposed envelope; and (3) a comparative building‑height/volumetric study and sections that show how a permitted house at the proposed location would relate to the rooflines and natural grade of neighboring Lots 33 and 35.

A motion to not approve (deny) the envelope modification failed on roll call. A motion to continue the case passed; the board’s direction requires the applicant to coordinate with staff on the requested technical exhibits and return to the DRB when those exhibits are complete. The board noted staff’s initial conclusion that a mid‑lot envelope is more consistent with the subdivision’s purpose but said it needed the additional documentation before taking a final action.

The DRB continuance leaves the case open; the applicant must provide the requested engineering and graphical exhibits before the board will consider approval.","The Scottsdale DRB continued the Lot 34 Desert Summit building‑envelope modification (12PP1995Number2) and directed the applicant to work with staff to provide drainage, cut‑and‑fill and comparative building‑height/volumetric exhibits.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

DRB reapproves Goldwater mixed‑use in Old Town, citing pedestrian connections and design consistency

DRB approves Nogon Villa/Torch Club in North Scottsdale; requires larger perimeter trees and refined materials

DRB continues Desert Summit Lot 34 building‑envelope modification, requests drainage and height context studies