Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land‑use‑rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer withdraws rezoning request for 10‑acre Scottsdale site after council questions compatibility
Summary
An applicant seeking to rezone about 9.99 acres at 101 Oakwood Trail from development reserve to general business (Omniverse) withdrew the request after council members raised compatibility, planning and subdivision concerns. Staff said withdrawal restarts the review process through Planning & Zoning.
An applicant seeking to rezone roughly 9.99 acres along Scottsdale Drive (listed in staff materials as 101 Oakwood Trail, the “Omniverse” request) withdrew the rezoning petition during the council’s second‑reading hearing after extended council discussion about compatibility with the Scottsdale employment corridor.
City staff provided a refresher: the property’s current future land use is regional office/retail commercial and is zoned development reserve. The applicant sought General Business (GB) zoning with a conditional overlay that included a 50‑foot building and parking setback from the eastern property line adjacent to Lakewood Country Estates, a 75‑foot building height limit, a 200‑foot loading‑dock setback from the east line and dark‑sky‑compliant lighting. Planning & Zoning had recommended approval 6–0 at an earlier hearing.
During council discussion several members said the conceptual plan presented at this meeting — showing multiple small commercial/retail buildings including a 10,000‑square‑foot restaurant and a proposed subdivision to separate an existing home from the floodplain — did not fit the surrounding Scottsdale corridor, which council characterized as an employment and light‑industrial area more suitable for larger footprints. Council members also said Planning & Zoning did not have the fuller conceptual materials prior to its recommendation and that additional consultation with economic development staff would be prudent.
The applicant told council the property sits partially in a floodplain, that the proposal would place most development along Scottsdale with the pond and mitigation area to the east, and that the property owner planned to subdivide to keep the existing house out of the floodplain. After discussion the applicant asked to withdraw the request to “talk with your neighbors and city staff” and submit a revised plan; staff said withdrawal restarts the process and that a new or amended request would return to Planning & Zoning before coming back to council.
No rezoning ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Staff advised that if the owner seeks a different zoning such as light industrial later, a future land‑use amendment would first be required. Council members asked the applicant to consult economic development and planning staff as they prepare any revised petition.
