Scottsdale approves 46-unit luxury car garage at Westworld, withdraws contentious citywide storage amendment affecting 683 properties
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — August 26, 2025

Scottsdale approves 46-unit luxury car garage at Westworld, withdraws contentious citywide storage amendment affecting 683 properties

City council approved Westworld luxury car storage facility unanimously, withdrew contentious citywide storage text amendment after debate, and addressed First Amendment and sustainability concerns in public comment.

Scottsdale Council Approves Westworld Car Storage Unanimously; Withdraws Controversial Citywide Text Amendment After Debate Over 683 Parcels

On August 26, 2025, the Scottsdale City Council unanimously approved a 46-unit luxury car storage facility adjacent to Westworld, but then faced a pivotal choice on a citywide text amendment affecting 683 commercial-office properties. After nearly two hours of debate, the council accepted the applicant's withdrawal of the broader amendment, with several members expressing support for the underlying project but strong opposition to its citywide implications.

The evening showcased two sides of Scottsdale's land-use tensions: broad stakeholder consensus on a use that fits an economic engine (Westworld), and fractious disagreement over how much regulation and neighborhood input should apply to citywide zoning changes.

Collector's Garages at Westworld — Approved Unanimously

Meredith Tessier, senior planner, presented the first item to council: a request to rezone approximately 10 acres west of McDall Mountain Ranch Road and Thompson Peak Parkway from single-family residential (R-1-35 PCD ESL) to general commercial (C-4 PCD ESL), and to amend the general plan from "employment office" to "employment light industrial office." The project would create six new buildings—five storage facilities and one office/club—with natural area dedication along the Birdie Canal, trail improvements, and desert buffer setbacks.

Jordan Rose, attorney for the project and principal at Rose Law Group, PC, presented on behalf of owners Jason Platkkey, Kyle Mcinley, Payton Crutaneer, and Paul Basha (Summit Land, traffic engineer). Rose positioned the project as a natural extension of Scottsdale's collector car culture, emphasizing that the facility would be low-profile (15 feet shorter than a prior version), low-traffic, gated, and exclusively for privately owned luxury vehicles—not a public-facing operation.

"This is an extension really of Scottsdale at its best. This is car collectors. This is a point of pride. This is Westworld. It celebrates our collector car auction culture and allows for collectors to store their treasures right here near our great Barrett Jackson Auto auction." — Jordan Rose, Rose Law Group, PC

Rose also explicitly stated what the C-4 zoning would not permit, addressing public concern about secondary uses:

"Restaurants are not permitted in C-4. Bars are not permitted in C-4. Adult entertainment not in C-4. Game centers not C4. and car washes require a conditional use permit approval. Amusement parks, they also require a conditional use approval." — Jordan Rose

Public comment in favor was overwhelming. Four speakers testified for the project, representing diverse Westworld stakeholders:

"Over the years, we've rallied together to oppose more residential development near Westworld. An incredible asset that the city's own economic impact report released just months ago revealed hundreds of millions in annual tax revenue and benefits. Just as residential isn't conducive next to airports, it's not for economic drivers like Westworld." — Michael Chelli, Westworld stakeholders

The letter also noted that the neighboring Greythorne Homeowners Association supported the application.

Council discussion was brief and positive. Vice Mayor Jan Debbasquez stated she lives in the area and has three children at Notre Dame Prep; she voiced hope that the car storage facility and toy barn would keep collector car sales—and sales tax revenue—in Arizona. Councilman Adam Clausman noted he had toured a similar facility (Apex, in Maricopa) and expected excellent design. Lisa Borowsky made no objection.

The motion passed unanimously, 7-0, approving Resolutions 13464, 13465, 13466 and the accompanying ordinance.

Catalyst Site Citywide Text Amendment — Withdrawn After Heated Debate

The second item consumed the remainder of the regular agenda. The Catalyst Site (100001 North 92nd Street, a 115,000-square-foot vacant office building at the northeast corner of 92nd and Mountain View) had sat empty for four years. The applicant—represented by land-use attorney Carolyn Overholzer of Bergen Franks, Small, and Overholzer—sought to amend the zoning ordinance citywide to allow three uses in the CO (Commercial Office) district:

  1. Internalized community storage (self-storage with interior access, adaptive reuse of the existing office building)
  2. Vehicle storage (conversion of existing parking garage)
  3. Warehousing (new mini-warehouse units with roll-up doors on the perimeter)

The application, filed in December 2024, initially went before planning commission on May 28, 2025, and was continued to July to allow the applicant to revise the proposal. The July planning commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of Options 1 and 2 (internalized storage and vehicle storage) but excluded the warehousing component, citing misalignment with the general plan's "employment office" category. Staff recommended the same: allow internalized storage and vehicle storage citywide, but exclude warehousing.

However, the applicant (Option 2) asked council to approve all three uses, including warehousing, arguing that "mini warehouse" is not "warehouse" as defined in the general plan—it is merely individual drive-up storage units for personal goods.

Staff Presentation: General Plan Misalignment

Taylor Reynolds, principal planner, provided the citywide context. The CO district permits office and a few ancillary uses; it is intended as a "transitional buffer between residential and intense commercial areas." Warehousing, he noted, is currently permitted only in more intense districts (C-3, C-4, I-1, I-G), which are not typically adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The general plan's "employment office" category explicitly calls for "residential-scale and character" and "minimizes impacts on adjacent neighborhoods," whereas the "employment light industrial office" category explicitly permits "warehousing" and "light manufacturing" and accommodates truck traffic.

"When we look at that part of the deck. With that, I'll hand it off to Meredith Tessier specific to the catalyst site." — Taylor Reynolds, principal planner

Meredith Tessier then displayed the Catalyst Site plan and two other CO-zoned parcels (Royal Palms & Hayden Road, and another site) where the same mini-warehouse footprint would be problematic—placing drive-up storage units directly adjacent to residential homes.

Staff's recommendation: Approve Option 1 (internalized storage and vehicle storage, excluding warehousing) as consistent with the general plan. Deny or continue Option 2 and require a major general plan amendment if the applicant insists on warehousing.

Applicant Response: "Mini Warehouse ≠ Warehouse"

Carolyn Overholzer countered that the word "warehouse" in the general plan refers to traditional bulk storage of commercial goods, not individual storage units. She noted that the application had been pending since December with "no real opposition" and that staff had not mentioned a general plan amendment requirement until June 9—after planning commission's May 28 hearing.

"Our application has been on file with the city since December of last year. We've worked collaborative collaboratively with staff the whole time. Um we've gone through at least three submitts of the text and that is before arriving at the May 28th planning commission hearing. Um we've had no real opposition to this. We have support letters in on the case. And it wasn't until a few weeks after the planning commission meeting on June 9th that we got word from staff that they thought a major general plan amendment would be required to keep the mini warehouse component of our application in it and it had been there the whole time." — Carolyn Overholzer, Bergen Franks, Small, and Overholzer

She also stressed that the conversion would reduce vehicle trips from 4,700 per day (office use) to near zero (storage), and that the property's four-year vacancy demonstrated economic obsolescence. The applicant advocated for Option 2: approve the citywide amendment to allow all three uses.

Public Comment: Division Emerges

Two speakers addressed the item. Michael Joiner, identified as one of the two planning commissioners who voted against the text amendment, testified against it:

"I am greatly in favor of this application. The uh this is a perfect use for the application that they came in with. They did all the right things. They went to the neighbors. They went to the surrounding businesses. They got buyin from it. and that's the way it should be. I am not in favor of the text amendment. This would al eliminate neighborh neighborhood input and possible concerns from adjoining businesses having the opportunity to speak." — Michael Joiner, planning commissioner

He warned that a citywide amendment would eliminate the public hearing process for the other 682 properties and set a dangerous precedent for bypassing neighborhood review.

Michael Schaefer, a Scottsdale business owner and resident since 1982, opposed the amendment on public safety and quality-of-life grounds:

"I used to have an office right next to the gate of a storage facility. It had a gate with a code, next to no supervision. It probably had some cameras. I doubt that anyone ever looked at these cameras. I saw people drive in and out with their boxes. No one ever checked what was in the boxes. There are proven concerns on storage facilities which reveals a dark side. Whether it's open 24 hours or not, they are very easy to misuse. You come through a coded gate, enter the door, maybe at night, um with a car, a truck with who knows what's in the box. With an increase in gangs, illegal aliens, the cartel, crime, these facilities are easy places to store stolen or illegal items, drugs, biohazardous materials, maybe even trafficked people." — Michael Schaefer, Scottsdale resident and business owner

Council Debate: "Too Dangerous" vs. "Work with the Applicant"

Councilman Barry Graham opened by questioning whether the CO district should allow internalized storage at all. He moved to deny the application.

Councilwoman Solange Whitehead asked staff whether the applicant could pursue a site-specific zoning case instead of a citywide text amendment. Staff confirmed yes—rezoning to C-3, C-4, or I-1 would allow all three uses but would require a separate application and public hearing limited to that property.

Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield expressed concern about the breadth of the amendment:

"A general plan text amendment like this is very different than when you're looking at one piece of property. Then you're only dealing with that one location. This has 683 locations throughout Scottsdale and I see very little protection for those other 682 locations." — Kathy Littlefield, Mayor Barowski, who lives near the site and is familiar with the property, sought a middle path:

"So, I'd like to make an alternate motion to approve it with uh number one, the number one alternative that was staff's recommendation without the external perimeter storage units." — Mayor Lisa Barowski

She then asked whether the applicant could pursue a site-specific rezoning that would allow the warehousing component without affecting the other 682 properties. Staff confirmed it was possible but would require a new application and public outreach.

The mayor's alternate motion (Option 1, citywide text amendment allowing internalized storage and vehicle storage but not warehousing) passed on a second, but then Barry Graham objected that even Option 1 was still a citywide amendment affecting hundreds of properties:

"Um that is in my opinion dangerous. Um that is a path that is a precedent we do not want to set. that is a chilling effect on hundreds of property owners and neighborhoods." — Barry Graham mayor withdrew her motion, stating:

"I'm going to withdraw that motion. Essentially, what I'm trying to get to is I'd like us to work with this property owner. And how do we get there? I guess we get there by denying their application. They've been going through the process since December of last year. And certainly their vision version of this is they're having a lot of difficulties getting to do something at this location without it being broadstrokes across the whole city." — Mayor Lisa Barowski

She expressed frustration that the applicant had spent months in the process but council could not approve a citywide text amendment. She asked staff to be "creative" in working with the applicant on alternatives.

Solange Whitehead agreed that staff should work with the applicant but reaffirmed she would not support a citywide text amendment:

"But that said, um I guess the lesson learned is our staff, our planning staff, I think, is the best in the state. So, thank you for your work on this. And I always encourage um the applicants to work with staff. And so there are paths besides text amendments and text amendments you all could your client could build the most beautiful wall but the other 700 may not and our ability to enforce the idea uh via DRB is really limited and could be getting more limited." — Councilwoman Solange Whitehead

Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield proposed a creative hybrid: could the applicant rezone only the Catalyst Site to a different district, or even split the zoning on different parts of the same parcel?

Staff responded that while unusual, splitting zoning within a single parcel was theoretically possible and worth exploring.

Withdrawal

At that point, Overholzer requested that the application be withdrawn. The council accepted the withdrawal without a formal vote.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 2 (Michael Joiner, Michael Schaefer)

Main concerns:

  1. Elimination of public hearing process: A citywide text amendment bypasses neighborhood review and public comment for 682 other properties.
  2. Unintended consequences: Council cannot predict or control how the new use will be implemented at distant, unknown sites.
  3. General plan misalignment: Warehousing belongs in employment light-industrial districts, not employment office.
  4. Neighborhood incompatibility: Mini-warehouses adjacent to residential uses are out of character.
  5. Public safety risks: Unmonitored storage facilities facilitate theft, drug storage, and other crimes.
  6. Vacant building reuse caveat: While the applicant's site might be appropriate, a citywide rule opens the door to misuse elsewhere.
  7. Precedent: Approving broad text amendments for one applicant invites similar requests and erodes neighborhood protection.

Most compelling argument: Joiner's point that the applicant had done everything right—neighborhood outreach, stakeholder buy-in, collaborative design—but that a citywide text amendment was not the appropriate vehicle.

Organized opposition: None formal; Joiner identified himself as a planning commissioner who voted against the amendment.

Support

Number of speakers for: 1 (Carolyn Overholzer, applicant attorney; no separate public comment speakers testified in favor of the Catalyst Site amendment, though Overholzer noted support letters were on file and McCormack Ranch Property Owners Association voted to approve the application).

Main arguments:

  1. Adaptive reuse of vacant building: A four-year vacant office building is a blight; storage use reoccupies it.
  2. Dramatic traffic reduction: Conversion from office (4,700 trips/day) to storage (near zero) benefits surrounding neighborhoods.
  3. Mini warehouse ≠ warehouse: The term "mini warehouse" in the application refers to individual drive-up units for personal storage, not commercial bulk warehousing.
  4. General plan amendment not required: The applicant argued that renaming or reinterpreting "warehouse" does not alter the general plan's intent or density.
  5. Apartment protection: Approving storage use gives the owner an economically viable option and forestalls higher-density residential proposals.
  6. No neighborhood opposition: Only one resident objected to the design at two neighborhood meetings; multiple neighbors submitted support letters.
  7. Expedited review: The applicant has been in the process since December 2024 and has worked collaboratively with staff through three submittals.

Most compelling argument: That the Catalyst Site itself is appropriate for storage use and that a site-specific rezoning (not a citywide text amendment) could achieve the goal.

Project Details

Case number: 4GP 2024 (General Plan Amendment), 5ZN 2024 (Zoning), 8AB 2024 (Easement Abandonment)

Applicant / developer: Catalyst Site Partners (applicant identity not fully named in transcript; property owned by long-term owner identified by applicant attorney as having held it for "quite some time")

Attorney: Carolyn Overholzer, Bergen Franks, Small, and Overholzer

Location / address: 100001 North 92nd Street, northeast corner of 92nd and Mountain View, Scottsdale, Arizona

APN: Not stated in transcript

Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Commercial Office (CO) → allow internalized community storage, vehicle storage, and warehousing as permitted uses (citywide text amendment affecting 683 CO-zoned parcels)

Density / units / square footage: Existing building: 115,000 sq ft (vacant); proposed conversion to internalized storage and vehicle storage; new mini-warehouse units on parking area (exact unit count not stated in transcript, but applicant estimated ~1,200 internal units plus 600 vehicle parking spaces)

Changes from previous version: Application was filed in December 2024; revised after May 28 planning commission hearing to reduce external mini-warehouse units and introduce landscaping breaks; warehousing component remained throughout.

Vote Breakdown

Westworld (Collector's Garages):

Catalyst Site Citywide Text Amendment:

Photo Enforcement Cameras Presentation Directive (Item 20):

Ethics Code Comprehensive Review (Item 20A):

Outcome & Next Steps

Westworld Collector's Garages:

Catalyst Site Amendment:

Westworld Operational Issues:

Controversies & Context

Citywide Text Amendment Debate

The Catalyst Site application crystallized a fundamental tension in Scottsdale's land-use policy: how much regulatory burden should apply to a single project vs. a citywide rule?

The applicant's attorney argued that a citywide text amendment was the only efficient path because the CO district is so narrowly defined that even a site-specific rezoning would require amending the general plan's land-use category definitions—making it a major amendment anyway. Staff disagreed, asserting that a site-specific rezoning to C-3, C-4, or I-1 is a viable alternative that limits public impact to the Catalyst Site.

Council members, particularly Barry Graham, Solange Whitehead, and Kathy Littlefield, were alarmed by the prospect of a rule affecting 683 properties. Barry Graham explicitly called it "dangerous" and a "chilling effect." Kathy Littlefield worried about "unintended consequences going forward." This concern appears rooted in a principle: citywide text amendments should apply only to uses that are universally appropriate across that zoning district, not to uses tailored for a single property.

Notably, both the planning commission (5-2 vote) and staff recommended against warehousing, citing general-plan misalignment. The applicant's request to include warehousing anyway—and to force council to either approve a citywide amendment or deny the whole project—was seen by some as a pressure tactic.

Adaptive Reuse & State Law

Staff raised the possibility that the building may be eligible under Arizona's recently enacted adaptive-reuse statute, which allows multifamily apartments in certain vacant commercial buildings without local zoning approval. The Catalyst Site may or may not fall within the statute's exclusions (proximity to airport airspace was mentioned). Council members expressed concern that denying the storage amendment could inadvertently trigger apartment conversion under state preemption. This added urgency to finding a creative, site-specific solution.

Vacant Building Nuisance

Overholzer emphasized that the 115,000-sq-ft building has been vacant for four years and is a "blight" attracting crime, fire hazards, and vandalism. Staff shared a slide showing recent police reports of break-ins (including one incident of 100 fire extinguishers being discharged). The council appeared sympathetic to the need to reoccupy the building but not at the cost of a citywide zoning change.

First Amendment & Police Conduct Allegations (Non-Agendaized Public Comment)

At the start of the meeting, during non-agendaized public comment, Steve Sutton alleged that Councilman Barry Graham falsely reported threats to police and attempted to have officers intimidate Sutton. Sutton also alleged that city staff had drafted a policy to violate First Amendment rights. He requested council action on police conduct and dog park safety. No council action was taken; Mayor Barowski acknowledged the comment but did not respond substantively.

Sustainability Plan Repeal Concerns

Lynn Rubicam testified that she was "distressed" at the council's early 2025 decision to repeal the community sustainability plan. She cited climate impacts, air quality, and economic harms (e.g., tourism decline due to extreme heat). She urged council to complete the shade and tree plan and reconsider the repeal. No council action was taken.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Photo Enforcement Cameras Directive (Item 20): Council unanimously directed city manager to agendaize a presentation on photo enforcement cameras (speed and red light detection), funding mechanisms, and public safety efficacy, to be combined with a prior agenda item on red light signals. This was a non-controversial request by Adam Kwasman and appears to be routine policy development.

Ethics Code Review (Item 20A): Council unanimously directed interim city attorney Luis Santa to conduct a comprehensive review of Scottsdale Revised Code Chapter 2 (ethical behavior code), including comparison with other cities' ethics frameworks, with no specific deadline. Councilman Clausman characterized this as regular governmental maintenance and an undertaking he had promised during his campaign. Staff confirmed this would require special direction.

Library Board Annual Report (Item 19): Library Director Michael Beck and Board Chair Dr. Freda Hartman presented the library board's 2024 accomplishments, including a new website, the Mustang Storywall project, mobile hotspot and writers-in-residence grants, and a college and career corner initiative. The report highlighted the board's role in community outreach, branch liaisons, and policy review. Council members offered praise and no criticism.

Loss Trust Fund Board Annual Report: George Woods and Vice Chair Austin Brooker presented on the loss trust fund's funding confidence level decision (adjusting from 85% per the prior actuary to 80% per the new actuary Oliver Wyman), departmental claim deductible changes, and actuarial study review. No controversy.

Boards and Commissions Nominations (Item 21): Vice Mayor Jan Debbasquez oversaw nominations to seven advisory boards and commissions, including the Airport Advisory Commission (5 nominees), Board of Adjustment (2 nominees), Historic Preservation Commission (1 nominee), Library Board (5 nominees), and Tourism Development Commission Scottsdale Hotelier positions (2 nominees). Interviews and final appointments are scheduled for a September 9 special meeting. This was routine.