Scottsdale approves Palm Lane Residences rezoning for 22 units; defers storage text amendment to July

Planning Commission Approves Palm Lane Residences Unanimously but Clashes Over Scope of Office-to-Storage Zoning Amendment

On May 28, 2025, the Scottsdale Planning Commission opened its regular hearing with an uncontroversial victory for infill housing—the unanimous approval of the Palm Lane Residences rezoning—and closed with philosophical gridlock over whether a citywide text amendment was the correct vehicle to facilitate office-to-storage conversions at a single struggling site. The 6-0 vote on the rezoning stood in sharp contrast to the 6-0 continuance of the text amendment, which commissioners asked be reconsidered along a narrower or broader framework before returning July 9.

Key Speeches

On Palm Lane Residences and neighborhood-driven design:

"This is what we'd like to transform this site to today." — Lauren Proper Potter, attorney for Palm Lane Residences applicant, concluding her presentation showing renderings of the 22-unit detached community.

"I think this is a perfect infill site and this is the perfect product for it. It's appropriate. It's responsive to neighborhood feedback." — Lauren Proper Potter.

"I think this is a nice project for the area and I think it has a nice buffering effect, if you will. So, I'm supportive of this project and thank you." — Commissioner Scarro (remote), supporting the transitional density and height between R17 neighborhoods and higher-density nearby uses.

On the CO storage amendment and text amendment methodology:

"Storage facilities do not contribute job density, foot traffic, and economic synergy in an otherwise office oriented environment." — Meredith Tessier, Planning Director, summarizing staff recommendation for denial of the text amendment.

"I don't like it… We really have tried to find the best path forward." — Carolyn Overberholtzer, land-use attorney for Catalyst property owner, acknowledging staff's recommendation and the difficulty of the case.

"I am still struggling with the use of it text amendment for a specific use… trying to focus a text amendment for a specific site or two from that presentation you showed us is where I'm really struggling with this. I don't think this is a proper use of a text amendment." — Vice Chair Young, articulating the core tension the commission wrestled with for the latter half of the meeting.

---

Timeline

Palm Lane Residences (Case 6ZN2024)

• Staff presentation: Meredith Tessier outlined the 2.77-acre site rezoning from R17 to R3, located at the northwest corner of North 74th Street and East Palm Lane. Staff confirmed consistency with Scottsdale's General Plan 2035, Southern Scottsdale Character Area Plan, and noted no amended development standards required. Key stipulations include undergrounding overhead power lines on the northern property line and adherence to 35-foot landscape buffers on both street frontages.

• Applicant presentation: Lauren Proper Potter presented a comprehensive narrative of neighborhood-driven design evolution. The initial submission had proposed 41 units in R5 zoning (roughly double the density now proposed) with three-story attached townhouses. Following neighborhood feedback emphasizing transitional buffering between higher-density adjacent uses (4-story PUD multifamily to the west, 2-story retirement community) and single-family R17 neighborhoods, the applicant redesigned to 22 detached units in R3, with heights capped at 25 feet (below R3's 30-foot maximum), density reduced to 7.9 units per acre (below the general plan's 8-unit-per-acre suburban neighborhood designation), and enhanced landscape buffers and sidewalk improvements (6-foot sidewalk with public benches, minimal curb cuts, underground power lines). All 22 units are three-bedroom with side-by-side two-car garages; 13 guest parking spaces provided (exceeding the code-required one space per six units). Potter emphasized traffic neutrality: the defunct church and school had generated 568 daily trips (school, 250 students) and 223 Sunday trips (church); the proposed detached residential would generate similar or slightly fewer AM/PM peak-hour trips and significantly fewer total trips than the previous institutional uses. The project includes solar-ready, Energy Star-rated homes with EV charging and drought-tolerant landscaping.

• Commissioner questions: Commissioner Gonzalez probed market demographics (Potter predicted families and younger professionals in the 35–44 age range, attracted to proximity to parks, schools, and Tempe; one commissioner remarked SRP customer data aligned with this persona). Commissioner Joiner asked about dark-sky-compliant exterior lighting (all shields, downward-directed, regulated lumens). Commissioner Tell asked about amenity-area maintenance and short-term rental restrictions (Potter explained FOB-controlled common areas managed by HOA, with CCNRs recorded on the condo plat restricting rentals to 30-day minimums to prevent short-term rental/party house concerns). Commissioner Gonzalez circled back to short-term rental safeguards, expressing concern about Airbnb-type turnover in the neighborhood; Potter confirmed the 30-day minimum. Commissioner Higgs, on speakerphone, praised the Energy Star and EV charging commitments and offered marketing insight: younger couples (35–44) with career focus and eco-minded values would fit the product well, especially given proximity to trails and Scottsdale amenities. Commissioner Scarro asked about the specific location of overhead power lines (Potter pointed to the northern property line along 74th Street) and expressed support for the buffering effect and density restraint.

• Public comment: One neighbor, Michelle, submitted a speaker card indicating support but chose not to speak. No opposition speakers appeared.

• Council discussion: All commissioners affirmed the project's responsiveness to neighborhood input, the density reduction (45% decrease from initial R5 proposal), and the height restraint (nearly half the initial 41-foot proposal, below even the adjacent 2-story retirement community). Commissioner Joiner called the project "a real enhancement to that part of town" and noted its compliance with state housing mandates. Vice Chair Young praised the win-win outcome and the listening process. Commissioner Tell expressed concern about the price point (projected $350+ per square foot) but acknowledged the market would dictate and noted that similar single-family product in the area commanded comparable rates; he also voiced support for the 30-day rental minimum to safeguard neighborhood stability. Commissioner Scarro reaffirmed support for the transitional buffering and adherence to stipulated height and density limits.

• Vote: 6-0 in favor of recommendation to City Council. Chair Scarro (remote), Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Tell, Commissioner Joiner, and Commissioner Higgs (remote) all voted yes.

---

Case 6TA2024 – CO District Text Amendment (Internalized Storage Facilities, Vehicle Storage, Warehouse)

• Staff presentation: Meredith Tessier opened by describing the applicant's request: a citywide zoning ordinance amendment to allow internalized community storage facilities, warehouse, and vehicle storage as permitted uses within the Commercial Office (CO) zoning district. The amendment would affect approximately 683 CO-zoned parcels citywide but is specifically tailored to the Catalyst site at 101 North 92nd Street. Tessier outlined the purpose of the CO district—to foster an environment conducive to office and related uses that generate employment and economic synergy—and contrasted this with the proposed storage use, which "generates less traffic but reduces the daily activity that promotes an office environment." She explained that the applicant proposes narrow criteria: qualifying parcels must have 8+ acres, an existing above-ground parking garage, and building heights ≤36 feet, which the applicant estimates narrows eligible properties to approximately 600 parcels, potentially only 1–2 meeting all criteria. Tessier presented a Phoenix example (office converted to self-storage with warehouse garages on the perimeter and six-foot wrought-iron fencing) and noted it appeared more suited to industrial (I1) or commercial (C4) districts. She stated that internalized storage facilities already exist as permitted uses in 4,149 parcels across C1, C2, C3, C4, I1, PNC, and PCC zoning districts; vehicle storage in 2,577 parcels (C3, C4, I1); and warehouse in 2,654 parcels (C3, C4, I1, IG). Staff's key concerns: (1) the amendment introduces irregularity into zoning code by permitting uses inconsistent with CO's employment focus; (2) it appears "crafted to benefit only one specific parcel" rather than addressing broad public interest; (3) storage uses do not contribute job density, foot traffic, or economic synergy; (4) existing zoning districts better suited for low-intensity uses already permit these uses and are compatible with surrounding context. Staff recommended denial, finding the text amendment inconsistent with the CO district's purpose, potentially harmful to land-use compatibility, and contrary to General Plan goals and policies.

• Commissioner questions of staff: Commissioner Joiner asked whether a path existed to approve a site-specific application without a citywide text amendment. Tessier responded that the application is specifically for a text amendment; a reszone would require resubmission and 6–8 months of review and public outreach. Commissioner Tell asked to differentiate between community storage (internalized, vehicle access via internal site circulation, accessing climate-controlled units) and warehousing (Amazon-style distribution, drive-up garage-door units). Tessier clarified: the amendment's warehouse component is ancillary to internalized community storage, not a primary standalone use. Commissioner Tell inquired whether the amendment would allow Amazon-type warehouses; Tessier clarified that Amazon's distribution model is more industrial-scale and not the intent. Commissioner Tell pressed on the "negatively impact land use compatibility" language, asking what the negative is if the current building sits empty. City Attorney Tim Curtis answered: the concern is not site-specific impact but rather the citywide intent of CO zoning. Introducing "dead space" (storage with only occasional user traffic) reduces employment synergy and daily activity that office uses provide. Commissioner Gonzalez expressed discomfort with the breadth of the text amendment, preferring sight-specific applications to avoid unintended future consequences. Commissioner Scarro asked whether staff had considered a reszone path; Tessier replied that a reszone application would require applicant resubmission and 6–8 months of internal review plus public outreach. Commissioner Higgs (remote) asked how much internal review time staff would need for a reszone; Tessier estimated 6–8 months, possibly longer depending on community feedback and compatibility analysis.

• Applicant presentation: Carolyn Overberholtzer, land-use attorney for the Catalyst property owner, presented a 12-minute overview acknowledging the staff recommendation of denial and the commissioners' evident concerns. She contextualized the Catalyst site: a 115,000-square-foot office building with a 2-level above-ground parking garage on Mountain View Avenue; minimal frontage on North 92nd Street; vacant since 2022 (tenant left during COVID-19 and did not return); sold for $24 million in 2014, $19.2 million in 2020 (post-pandemic), and $8 million in 2023. The only inquiry in recent years had been from a church (non-revenue generating). Overberholtzer noted she has lived at the corner of 96th and Mountain View for 20 years and observed the site thousands of times, puzzled by the large parking garage without a major adjacent office. She presented market data: citywide CO vacancy rates of 15–16%, but 30–38% for large-footplate buildings like Catalyst. She cited a letter of support from an adjacent property owner (Smile Imaging) received late Friday: "Given the persistently high office vacancy rates in our area, this amendment provides a logical and efficient solution… a low impact alternative that directly addresses the evolving needs of the community."

Overberholtzer walked the commission through the CO use table, showing only 17 permitted uses compared to 100 non-residential uses in the full zoning ordinance. She noted that internalized community storage is already permitted in seven other districts (C1, C2, C3, C4, I1, PNC, PCC). She argued that office is nearly ubiquitous (allowed almost everywhere, as frequently as municipal uses, schools, churches) and that the city has created excessive competition by not funneling office to specific districts. She contrasted their approach evolution: initially filed as a conditional use permit (presented at neighborhood meetings in December), then pivoted to permitted use with conditions in response to staff feedback. The proposed conditions limit eligibility to parcels with 8+ acres, existing above-ground parking garage, and building heights ≤36 feet. She estimated this narrows the 683 CO parcels to roughly 600, possibly only 1–2 that meet all criteria (though disclosed uncertainty on the height of a Double Tree property that might qualify). The warehouse and vehicle storage components are accessory only—not standalone uses—tied to the primary internalized storage facility. Vehicle storage is limited to passenger vehicles in excess of required parking; warehouse area capped at 30% of building footprint. All require design review approval and screening.

Overberholtzer emphasized traffic reduction: the vacant building, if ever fully occupied in office use, would generate 4,700+ additional daily trips. The proposed storage use would generate far fewer, reducing neighborhood burden. She countered that storage facilities "do not belong in industrial areas" and that customers prefer accessing storage in professional office buildings rather than industrial zones. She acknowledged the conditional use permit path was considered but explained staff's concern: CUP criteria (noise, dust, odors, traffic compatibility) are easily met by storage uses, creating a false sense that denial is possible when, in practice, most would likely be approved. Thus the applicant pivoted to permitted with conditions to provide clarity and predictability to property owners while narrowing the universe of eligible sites.

Overberholtzer addressed adaptation and adaptive reuse, noting HB2110 (state legislation enabling adaptive reuse of obsolescent office to multifamily) applied to office buildings but cautioned that converting to storage occupancy might complicate future multifamily conversion eligibility. She did not provide a legal opinion but flagged the issue. She reiterated that the CO district lacks viable alternatives for owners facing sustained vacancy and emphasized that internalized storage is easily reversible if office demand returns.

• Applicant response to questions:

  • On how many properties would be affected without conditions: Overberholtzer deferred to staff; she noted that an earlier 10-acre threshold captured roughly 650 properties, but dropping to 8 acres had a "drastic effect." The 683 total CO parcels is staff's baseline.

  • On adaptive reuse and HB2110: Overberholtzer reviewed HB2110 in detail and noted the certificate of occupancy requirement for the office use; she expressed uncertainty whether converting to storage occupancy removes adaptive reuse eligibility, but surmised it complicates the pathway. She did not assert a legal opinion but flagged the risk.

  • On how long the property has been vacant/underused: Officially vacant since 2022 (three years). No office takers. Only church inquiry.

  • On the conditional use permit alternative: Overberholtzer confirmed that a CUP application was the initial route, presented at neighborhood meetings in December; she had not withdrawn it and indicated willingness to amend the text amendment to include a CUP requirement (P → CU) if the commission preferred. She also stated the applicant would welcome a continuance to discuss modifications.

• Public comment: No public speakers appeared during item 4. Commissioner Gonzalez asked about public outreach; Overberholtzer detailed two neighborhood meetings (December, at two locations including one near Princess and the 101 for citywide visibility), McCormack Ranch HOA approval of the use conversion, DRB application filing with additional notifications, and multiple letters of support from nearby residents and businesses. She noted minimal opposition attendance at meetings, with some opposition letters from people who admitted not knowing the property's location.

• Council discussion: The commission split along clear philosophical lines.

  • Commissioner Joiner: Expressed support for the project specifically and concern about the text amendment approach. She asked whether the commission could approve the project while denying the text amendment, or vice versa. City Attorney Curtis clarified that the application is for the text amendment; individual votes on components were not available. Joiner returned to this, proposing a conditional use permit as a "middle ground" that would allow individual scrutiny without a broad text amendment. She acknowledged the concern about unintended consequences—citing the MAC project as a cautionary tale of unlooked-for zoning impacts—and noted that only one other parcel (in McCormack Ranch) was projected to meet the conditions. Joiner pushed for a continuance to explore the conditional use permit path. Curtis cautioned that conditional use permits are judged against strict criteria (noise, dust, odors, traffic) that storage facilities typically meet, making denial unlikely and giving a false sense of discretion. Despite this, Joiner saw the CUP as preferable to a broad text amendment.

  • Commissioner Tell: Strongly endorsed the project on its merits and noted the absurdity of leaving a major property vacant. He expressed frustration at staff's "broad" concern and suggested the applicant's narrowing conditions were rational and connected to adaptive reuse logic. He took an almost libertarian tone: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" and argued that if the use is appropriate for some CO parcels, it should be available as law so that property owners know the rules. He objected to exception-by-exception processes (variances, one-off rezonings). Tell mentioned recent vehicle storage facility fires in the airpark but seemed to view these as separate from the current application. He offered no objection to the text amendment on philosophical grounds but echoed Joiner's interest in a conditional use permit for individual project review.

  • Vice Chair Young: Articulated the crux of his concern: a text amendment is meant for broad, citywide land-use policy changes, not site-specific entitlements. He stated plainly: "I don't think this is a proper use of a text amendment." He questioned the applicant: if the text amendment is truly broad in intent, why so many conditions narrowing it to near site-specificity? He asked the applicant to quantify how many CO parcels would be affected if the conditions were stripped away (i.e., 683 with no restrictions; 650+ at 10 acres; estimate 600+ at 8 acres). Young concluded that either the text amendment should be genuinely broad (removing or relaxing the acreage, parking garage, and height conditions) or the applicant should pursue a site-specific path (reszone or conditional use permit). The contradiction troubled him: broad application, narrow conditions = improper use of text amendment.

  • Commissioner Scarro (remote): Echoed Young's discomfort: "I am still struggling with the use of it text amendment for a specific use." He pressed the applicant on the conditional use permit alternative. He also asked staff about the reszone pathway and learned it would take 6–8 months and require renotification. Scarro sympathized with the applicant's constraints—CO zoning is ubiquitous and reszone analysis would be complex—but remained skeptical of the text amendment as framed. He expressed willingness to support a modified approach, whether broader text amendment conditions or conditional use permit.

  • Commissioner Gonzalez: Raised alarm about the breadth issue and the risk of unintended consequences. He cited two recent vehicle storage facility fires in industrial areas and flagged the potential for the amendment to inadvertently permit broader or incompatible uses in the future. He urged sight-specific rather than broad applications to maintain neighborhood input and City Council oversight on a case-by-case basis.

  • Commissioner Higgs (remote): Offered no substantive comment.

  • Motion and Continuance: Rather than vote, Vice Chair Young (or another commissioner) asked City Attorney Curtis whether a continuance was possible. Curtis clarified that the commission may grant a continuance only if the applicant requests it. Overberholtzer then formally requested a continuance, asking for a target date to allow the team to prepare modifications. After a brief sidebar discussion, the applicant and commission agreed to a continuance to July 9, 2025, allowing the applicant to reconsider the text amendment's breadth, possibly add a conditional use permit requirement, or explore other modifications addressing the commissioners' concerns.

• Vote on continuance: 6-0 in favor. Chair Scarro (remote), Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Tell, Commissioner Joiner, and Commissioner Higgs (remote) all voted yes to continue Case 6TA2024 to July 9.

---

Opposition

To Case 6TA2024 (CO Storage Text Amendment):

• Number of speakers against: 0 public speakers appeared in opposition.

• Main concerns (from commission deliberation and staff recommendation):

  1. Inconsistent with CO district purpose: The Commercial Office district is intended to promote employment-focused uses and economic synergy. Storage facilities contribute little to job density, foot traffic, or daytime activity.

  2. Appearance of site-specificity disguised as broad policy: Text amendments should address citywide land-use policy needs. Narrowing conditions (8+ acres, parking garage, ≤36 feet height) make this appear site-specific, violating the principle that zoning code amendments apply broadly or not at all.

  3. Risk of unintended consequences: Once a use is permitted with conditions, future applicants may subdivide parcels, challenge conditions, or petition for amendments to remove restrictions. Commissioners cited the MAC project as a cautionary example of unforeseen impacts from prior zoning decisions.

  4. Conditional use permit is preferable but flawed: Staff noted CUP criteria (noise, dust, odors, traffic) are easily met by storage uses, creating a false sense of discretion. Yet commissioners preferred the individualized hearing and community input that a CUP process provides over a blanket text amendment.

  5. Adequate zoning exists elsewhere: Internalized storage is already permitted in 4,149 parcels across seven other zoning districts (C1, C2, C3, C4, I1, PNC, PCC), many of which are more compatible with low-intensity uses and adjacent to industrial or commercial corridors. No citywide shortage of storage-capable zoning was demonstrated.

  6. Reduced foot traffic and vitality: Even if the Catalyst site sits empty, converting it to storage (low-traffic, minimal daily activity) permanently eliminates the possibility of employment-generating or community-supporting uses.

  7. Adaptive reuse complication: Uncertain whether converting to storage occupancy affects eligibility for future adaptive reuse to multifamily under HB2110, potentially locking out higher-value or housing-supporting uses.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Vice Chair Young's structural critique: text amendments are policy tools, not entitlement vehicles; a text amendment with conditions so narrow it affects ~1–2 properties is an oxymoron.
  • Commissioner Joiner's procedural concern: unintended consequences and lack of individual property scrutiny in a broad amendment; the MAC precedent of unforeseen zoning impacts.
  • Staff recommendation anchored to CO district's fundamental purpose and the existence of alternative zoning already permitting these uses.

• Organized groups: McCormack Ranch HOA approved the use conversion (in support of the applicant). No organized opposition appeared at the hearing or submitted comment cards.

---

Support

For Case 6TA2024 (CO Storage Text Amendment):

• Number of speakers in favor: 0 public speakers; one written letter of support from adjacent property owner (Smile Imaging) received late Friday.

• Main support arguments (from applicant and commissioners):

  1. Vacant office space is a blight and safety issue: The Catalyst site and similar large-footplate CO properties are suffering sustained high vacancy (30–38% for buildings >100,000 sq ft, vs. 15–16% citywide). Empty buildings attract break-ins and crime. A revenue-generating use (storage) reoccupies the site and deters blight.

  2. Office market is unlikely to recover for large-footplate buildings: Pandemic remote work, supply-chain shifts, and AI adoption have fundamentally weakened office demand, especially for legacy buildings without modern amenities. The Catalyst building sold from $24M (2014) to $8M (2023). No office taker in recent years. Storage is adaptive reuse, not abandonment.

  3. Traffic reduction: Vacant or underoccupied office generates fewer trips than institutional uses (church 223 Sunday trips, school 568 daily). Storage generates minimal traffic. Converting Catalyst to storage would reduce daily trips by 4,700+ compared to full occupancy office, benefiting the neighborhood.

  4. Internalized storage is reversible: Unlike multifamily residential conversion (permanent demolition and reconstruction), storage uses an existing facade and can be converted back to office if demand returns.

  5. CO zoning is ubiquitous, not scarce: 683 CO parcels citywide; office uses are permitted almost everywhere in Scottsdale. No shortage of office-zoned land. Restricting CO to office-only use does not preserve employment opportunities but ensures continued vacancy.

  6. Storage is already permitted in seven other zoning districts: The use is not novel or untested in Scottsdale. Internalized storage coexists with office uses in C1, C2, C3, C4, I1, PNC, and PCC districts. Applicant does not want storage in industrial areas; professional office-building setting is preferable for customers and consistent with land use patterns.

  7. Conditions are rational and narrowly tailored: 8-acre minimum, existing parking garage, ≤36-foot height. These connect to the Catalyst site's specific assets (underutilized parking garage, two-story footprint) and adaptive reuse rationale. Applicant estimated only 600 of 683 CO parcels meet criteria, possibly only 1–2 in practice.

  8. Broad legal framework is preferable to case-by-case exception: Commissioner Tell and applicant argued that putting this use into code (rather than pursuing variances or conditional use permits) provides predictability and rule of law. Property owners should know upfront what uses are permissible.

  9. Community support: McCormack Ranch HOA approved. Letters from residents (older inventory neighborhoods with two-car garages; snowbirds needing vehicle storage) expressed support. Adjacent business owner (Smile Imaging) lauded the use as addressing community need for nearby storage without industrial-area inconvenience.

• Most compelling argument:

  • Applicant's reframing of "text amendment" as "broad legal framework ensuring predictability" vs. "sight-specific entitlement process." If the use is appropriate for CO districts facing sustained vacancy, property owners deserve to know it's available by right rather than via exception.
  • Commissioner Tell's observation: office can go elsewhere; storage can only go to districts already permitting it (seven exist); CO's glut of inventory is not threatened by one conversion.

• Organized groups: McCormack Ranch Property Owners Association (in support, per applicant).

---

Project Details

Case 6ZN2024 – Palm Lane Residences Rezoning

• Case number: 6ZN2024
• Applicant / developer: Lauren Proper Potter (attorney/applicant); development team not named in transcript.
• Attorney: Lauren Proper Potter, P.O. Box 1833, Tempe, Arizona 85280.
• Location / address: Northwest corner of North 74th Street and East Palm Lane, Scottsdale.
• APN: Not stated in transcript.
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: R17 (single-family residential) → R3 (medium-density residential).
• Density / units / square footage: 22 detached dwelling units on approximately 2.77 acres; 7.9 units per acre (below general plan's 8-unit-per-acre suburban neighborhood maximum).
• Unit specifications: All 22 units are 3-bedroom with side-by-side two-car garages; four floor plans with varying square footage (potter noted "a couple hundred square feet" variation to avoid cookie-cutter appearance); solar-ready, Energy Star-rated; EV charging stations; drought-tolerant landscaping.
• Parking: 13 guest parking spaces (exceeding code requirement of one per six units, per potter's statement); total parking exceeds code ("overparked," per applicant).
• Building height: Maximum 25 feet (below R3's 30-foot allowable maximum; below adjacent 2-story retirement community and LDS church heights).
• Changes from previous version: Initial submission proposed 41 units in R5 zoning (rough double the density now proposed), three-story attached townhouses. Following neighborhood input, applicant reduced to 22 units in R3, detached single-story units, 25-foot height cap (reduced from 41 feet initial proposal), enhanced 35-foot landscape buffers on street frontages, 6-foot sidewalk with public benches, undergrounding overhead power lines on northern property line, added 13 guest parking spaces beyond code requirement, and included amenity building with pool.
• Site characteristics: Vacant former church and school; large parking lot; surrounded by 4-story multifamily PUD to west, 2-story retirement community (R5), single-family R17 to east and south, church to north.
• Public amenities: Amenity building with pool, open to unit owners via HOA; enhanced sidewalks with public benches; undergrounded power lines; landscape buffers.
• Deed restrictions / HOA: All units are for-sale (not rental). Condo plat will include HOA. CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions) will be recorded restricting rentals to minimum 30-day terms to prevent short-term rental / party house activity.
• Sustainability features: Solar-ready construction, Energy Star rating, EV charging stations, drought-tolerant landscaping, reduced heat island effect, low-water-use plants.
• Traffic analysis: School (250 students) generated 568 daily trips; church generated 223 Sunday trips. Proposed detached residential (single-family equivalent by right in R17) would generate same or slightly fewer AM/PM peak-hour trips; similar or slightly more daily total trips; significantly fewer than combined church/school use.
• Development timeline: Applicant indicated permits could issue within ~1 year, construction start expected within ~1.5 years pending City Council approval, Design Review Board, and building department processing.

---

Case 6TA2024 – Commercial Office (CO) District Text Amendment

• Case number: 6TA2024
• Applicant / developer: Catalyst property owner (name of entity not stated; Carolyn Overberholtzer is attorney). Development team referred to as "applicant team" and "client group" with prior projects on North 92nd Street and Shay (referenced by Commissioner Tell).
• Attorney: Carolyn Overberholtzer, Bergen Frank Smiley and Overberholtzer (spelling derived from transcript phonetics), 4343 East Camelback, Scottsdale. Overberholtzer resides at corner of 96th and Mountain View (personal disclosure for transparency); worked on office-to-storage conversion in Phoenix (I1/C4 district, staff presented photos).
• Location / address (Catalyst site): 101 North 92nd Street, Scottsdale (also referenced as 92nd Street and Mountain View; near Smile Imaging and other medical offices).
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: CO (Commercial Office) → CO with amended use table to permit internalized community storage facilities, warehouse (accessory), and vehicle storage (accessory).
• Building specs: 115,000-square-foot office building, 2-level above-ground parking garage, minimal 92nd Street frontage, elevated behind landscaping, built in McCormack Ranch era (likely 1980s–1990s).
• **Relevant criteria (applicant-proposed): **
  • Internalized community storage facility as primary permitted use;
  • Vehicle storage and warehouse as accessory uses only;
  • Vehicle storage limited to passenger vehicles in excess of required parking; screening required;
  • Warehouse area capped at 30% of building footprint; loading/unloading screened; Design Review Board approval required;
  • Eligibility criteria: parcels 8+ acres, existing above-ground parking garage, buildings ≤36 feet height;
  • Applicant estimates 600+ parcels citywide could theoretically meet criteria; likely only 1–2 do in practice (Catalyst and possibly a Double Tree property of uncertain height).
• Proposed conditions: All proposed by applicant to narrow application and address staff/commission concerns; applicant stated willingness to modify or remove conditions if commission preferred (e.g., shift from "Permitted (P)" to "Conditional Use (CU)" in the use table).
• Citywide impact: 683 CO parcels citywide; existing internalized storage already permitted in 4,149 parcels across seven other districts (C1, C2, C3, C4, I1, PNC, PCC); vehicle storage in 2,577 parcels; warehouse in 2,654 parcels