Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate leads applicant to withdraw citywide storage text amendment
Summary
After extended debate over a proposed citywide text amendment to allow internalized storage, vehicle storage, and warehousing in Commercial Office zoning, the applicant withdrew the application following council concerns about impacts across 683 parcels.
The Scottsdale City Council discussed at length a proposed citywide zoning-text amendment on Aug. 26 that would have allowed internalized community storage, accessory vehicle storage, and mini-warehouse/warehousing uses in Commercial Office (CO) zoning across roughly 683 parcels.
Taylor Reynolds, principal planner, explained staff's concerns that warehousing is inconsistent with the general-plan employment-office land-use category and described options ranging from staff-recommended approval of internalized storage and vehicle storage (excluding warehousing) to approving the applicant's broader draft or requiring a major general-plan amendment. Reynolds told council that allowing warehousing citywide would affect areas normally reserved for lower-impact daytime office uses and residential adjacency.
Carolyn Overholtzer, the applicant's land-use attorney, argued that the applicant's "mini warehouse" concept differs from the general-plan definition of warehouse and called the building a candidate for adaptive reuse, noting it is an "115,000 square feet" office building that has been vacant for years. Overholtzer urged the council to consider the applicant's Option 2, saying the proposal would reduce daily trips and provide an economically viable reuse for a vacant building.
Public commenters, including Michael Joyner and Michael Schaeffer, urged the council to deny a citywide text amendment and warned it would remove neighborhood input, convert hundreds of office parcels without individualized review, and raise traffic and safety concerns.
Councilmembers expressed concern about the citywide scope, repeatedly noting that a text amendment would affect 683 CO parcels across Scottsdale and that protections for adjacent residences appeared insufficient. Council members suggested alternate paths such as a site-specific rezoning or additional stipulations. After debate, counsel for the applicant requested to withdraw the application; the mayor and parliamentarian acknowledged the withdrawal and no council vote on the text amendment occurred.
The transcript records the applicant's withdrawal and council acknowledgment; staff and council discussed continuing to work with the applicant on potential site-specific or rezoning alternatives.
