Scottsdale Planning Commission approves storage text amendment, excludes warehousing after 5-2 vote

Commission Approves Storage Text Amendment Minus Warehousing, Citing General Plan Misalignment and Concerns Over Citywide Impact

On July 9, 2025, the Scottsdale Planning Commission voted 5–2 to recommend approval of a zoning text amendment that would allow internalized community storage and vehicular storage facilities in the Commercial Office (CO) zoning district, but only after excluding the warehousing component that had sparked contentious debate. The split decision reflects the commission's struggle to balance support for adaptive reuse of a vacant office building with anxiety over whether a citywide policy affecting 683 properties should be adopted without neighborhood-by-neighborhood review.

The catalyst for the proposal is 10001 North 92nd Street, a commercial office building vacant since 2022. Applicant attorney Carolyn Overholzer, representing the property owner, sought to convert the structure into an internalized community storage facility with 320 vehicle storage spaces in an adjacent parking garage. She also proposed mini-warehouse buildings (accessory structures limited to 30 percent of the existing building's footprint and 12 feet in height) to utilize excess parking. But staff planners argued that warehousing, even in miniature form, conflicts with the general plan's definition of the Commercial Office category as an "employment office" use intended for professional and administrative offices compatible with nearby residential areas.

Key Speeches

"When we look at the light industrial office again, that more intense office or employment land use subcategory, it specifically states that it provides for opportunities such as warehousing. So we would be typically seeing that warehousing use within the light industrial land use category. So in review of that, the applicant's proposal to include warehousing as an appropriate use within the CO zoning category would not align with our general plan." — Taylor Reynolds, Principal Planner, Long Range Planning

"We allow daycare uses here with outdoor play areas. Outdoor play areas is different than the office category. There are subsets of these uses that are generalized and they are consistent with a character type, but this general plan conversation is important because it is very broad and it is not it is very general." — Carolyn Overholzer, Attorney for Applicant

"I really like this application and I actually went to the doctor today and drove right across the street, sat in the parking lot in the little covered garage and I thought about it. So I wish you would have just brought this through for that application. I think you would be done with us by then by now. But I've sat on the dis long enough that I've seen lots of unintended consequences come and I am just not comfortable um with 683 properties not being subject to neighborhood comments." — Commissioner Joiner

"I would make a motion to continue uh K6TA 2024 um for a date to be uh determined in the nearest possible future. um expedite this uh to resolve the definitional issues of mini storage and the um to clarify uh potential impacts on the other 682 properties." — Commissioner Ortell

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Taylor Reynolds outlined the general plan alignment issue. The current zoning code allows warehousing only in C3, C4, I1, and IG districts—all more intense, non-residential-compatible zones. Meredith Tessier, senior planner, emphasized that the catalyst site is adjacent to residential zoning (R5 PCD) and that new mini-warehouse construction would be "out of character" with the employment office category.

• Applicant presentation: Overholzer presented the evolution of the proposal. The applicant initially proposed a narrower, lot-size-based text amendment; commission feedback prompted a broader citywide version with better residential-compatibility standards. She presented definitions from the zoning code: internalized community storage (storage units in an enclosed building), vehicular storage (parking of four or more vehicles), and warehouse (a building for storage of any goods, with no standard definition for mini-warehouse). She noted the site had been vacant for three years, market absorption is poor in the CO-heavy area, and the McCormack Ranch Property Owners Association approved the entire package including mini storage.

• Commissioner questions: Commissioner Joiner asked whether warehousing was in the prior draft and learned it had been in the original proposal but received little discussion at the previous hearing. She expressed concern that 683 CO properties would gain permitted-use status without neighborhood input. Commissioner Gonzalez asked about hours of operation, gating, charging stations, and lighting standards. Vice Chair Young probed the 30-percent limit on mini-warehouse footprint and whether it could accommodate a single large tenant (e.g., 30,000 square feet for one user) that might function more as a distribution warehouse than accessory storage.

• Public comment: Zero speakers from the public.

• Council discussion: Commission members divided sharply. Commissioner Joiner and Commissioner Drake opposed the citywide scope, fearing loss of neighborhood oversight and unintended consequences on hundreds of other properties. Commissioner Reid questioned whether mini-warehouse should be defined separately to distinguish it from industrial warehousing. Commissioner Ortell initially moved a continuance to August 13, but staff director Curtis cautioned that any definition changes (particularly to Article 3 of the code) would require re-advertisement and could not meet that date. Ortell later withdrew that motion.

  A critical moment came when Commissioner Reid asked whether the applicant would accept a continuance to September 10 or later. Overholzer initially agreed to September 27, but then reconsidered, stating that because re-notification would be required anyway, the applicant preferred to withdraw the continuance request and allow the commission to vote on the staffâ€"recommended version (excluding warehousing) so that the applicant could pursue mini-warehouse through a separate conditional-use-permit track. This strategic withdrawal reversed momentum: Ortell then re-moved approval of staff's draft excluding warehousing.

  The first motion (Ortell's) to recommend approval of the staff draft (excluding warehousing) failed 4–3. Joiner, Drake, Reid, and Gonzalez voted no. Vice Chair Young then moved for approval; this time it passed 5–2, with Joiner, Drake, and Reid voting no.

Opposition

Number of speakers: Zero public speakers; opposition expressed entirely by commissioners.

Main concerns raised by opposed commissioners:

1. Citywide impact without neighborhood review: 683 CO properties would be approved by-right; no conditional-use permit or design review would apply to future projects at other sites, eliminating neighborhood input.
2. Loss of adaptive-reuse flexibility: Once mini-warehouse structures are built on surface parking, reverting the site to office use becomes economically infeasible, reducing future options if market conditions change.
3. Warehousing use incompatible with residential adjacency: CO districts often abut residential areas and are designed as transitional buffers; warehouses generate traffic, noise, and utilitarian character inconsistent with that buffer function.
4. General plan inconsistency: Staff's formal position that warehousing belongs in light industrial (I1/IG) or intense commercial (C3/C4) categories, not employment office.
5. Insufficient definition of mini-warehouse: The zoning code does not define "mini-warehouse"; conflating it with internalized community storage (interior-accessed units) conflates two different uses. Without standards (unit size limits, single-user caps), a 30-percent building could become a de facto commercial warehouse.
6. Burden on future applicants and city: Applying to 683 properties creates uncertainty; staff will face requests to enforce (or not enforce) standards that should have been clarified upfront.
7. Procedural concern: Text amendment should have been packaged with a general plan amendment (major amendment) or pursued as a site-specific rezone if warehousing is the goal.

Most compelling arguments:

• Commissioner Joiner's emphasis on loss of neighborhood oversight: "I am just not comfortable with 683 properties not being subject to neighborhood comments, lighting…"
• Commissioner Reid's concern that adaptive-reuse incentives should be balanced against irreversible site changes that foreclose future office use.
• Staff's general plan argument: the employment office category definition explicitly limits to offices; warehousing is listed only in the light industrial category, signaling a deliberate geographic separation intended.

Organized opposition: McCormack Ranch Property Owners Association (notably, this group supported the applicant's proposal; no organized opposition group was present).

Support

Number of speakers: Zero public speakers; support expressed entirely by commissioners.

Main arguments for approval:

1. Adaptive reuse imperative: The site has been vacant for three years; office absorption is poor in this CO-heavy area. Allowing interior storage use and vehicle storage revitalizes an asset and reduces blight risk (the property has been broken into repeatedly).
2. Internalized community storage is widely permitted: Storage facilities are already allowed in many zoning districts; this amendment simply extends them to CO.
3. Accessory limitation protects against misuse: The 30-percent cap, 12-foot height limit, 200-foot building breaks, and requirement that mini-warehouse be subordinate to the primary storage use prevent dominance. Design review applies to all structures over 12 feet.
4. Residential compatibility measures are robust: Setbacks from residential, screening, lighting standards (full cutoff), and gating restrict access and noise. This is not the industrial warehousing described in the general plan.
5. Efficiency and predictability: A citywide text amendment provides property owners and market with clear rules; case-by-case conditional-use permits are slower and more expensive.
6. General plan supports adaptive reuse: The general plan includes a policy favoring "innovative adaptive reuse" and calls for adjusting districts to match economic realities.
7. Mini-warehouse is functionally equivalent to internalized storage: The only difference is exterior vs. interior access; functionally they serve the same residential storage purpose, not commercial warehousing.

Most compelling arguments:

• Overholzer's traffic study showing 4,700 fewer vehicle trips per day if the site is storage instead of office: measurable benefit to the surrounding area.
• Commissioner Ortell's market-risk argument: "if the owner does something that puts himself at a disadvantage sometime in the unforeseeable future, that's on him, not on the city." Government should not micromanage future flexibility.
• Commissioner Reid's observation that a properly worded definition of "mini warehouse" could clarify the code and enable approval without general plan amendment risk.

Organized support: McCormack Ranch Property Owners Association approved the entire package; resident Overholzer noted community support and low projected impact.

Project Details

• Case number: 6TA 2024-C
• Applicant / developer: Property owner represented by Carolyn Overholzer, Attorney
• Attorney: Carolyn Overholzer, Bergen Frank Smallley and Overholzer, 4343 East Camelback Road, Scottsdale
• Location / address: Catalyst site: 10001 North 92nd Street, Scottsdale, Arizona
• APN: Not stated in transcript
• Current zoning: Commercial Office (CO), with R5 PCD (residential) to the southeast
• Proposed zoning: Commercial Office (CO) with added permitted uses: internalized community storage (conversion only), vehicular storage, and (in applicant's draft) warehousing as an accessory use
• Density / units / square footage:
  • Existing office building: 115,000 square feet (functionally obsolete for office)
  • Proposed internalized community storage: reuse of existing interior
  • Vehicle storage: 320 spaces in parking garage
  • Mini-warehouse (applicant proposal, excluded from final recommendation): maximum 30% of existing building footprint (~34,500 sq. ft.), limited to 12-foot height, with 200-foot breaks between buildings
• Changes from previous version: Applicant's original proposal (November 2024) included minimum lot size and maximum building height requirements; revised version (July 2025) removed those restrictions, focused on functional or economic obsolescence standard, and added residential-setback and screening requirements for loading, vehicle storage, and mini-warehouse structures.

Vote Breakdown

Final recommendation vote (motion by Vice Chair Young to approve staff's draft excluding warehousing):

• Final: 5–2 (approved)
• Yes (5): Chair Scarborough, Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Ortell, Commissioner Reid
• No (2): Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Drake
• Abstentions / absences: None

Failed motion (Commissioner Ortell's initial motion to recommend approval of staff draft excluding warehousing):

• Vote: 4–3 (failed)
• Yes (4): Ortell, Scarborough, Young, Gonzalez
• No (3): Joiner, Drake, Reid

(Note: Ortell's first motion, which had included warehousing in the applicant's version, was never formally moved and voted upon; the discussion history shows it failed 4–3 in Joiner's recollection, but the first formal motion and vote was the 4–3 failure on the staffrecommended version without warehousing, followed by the 5–2 approval on Vice Chair Young's re-motion.)

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning Commission recommended approval of the text amendment to the City Council, with the warehousing/mini-warehouse component excluded. The approved version permits internalized community storage facilities and vehicular storage as permitted uses in the CO district citywide, subject to specific standards:

• Internalized community storage limited to conversion of existing buildings; no additional building area permitted.
• Vehicle storage allowed only within existing or proposed parking areas; carports required for surface storage over certain distances from residential areas.
• Loading and storage access points must meet setback requirements from residential districts.
• Design review required for all structures.

The applicant withdrew its continuance request and accepted the exclusion of warehousing, signaling it will pursue the mini-warehouse component through a separate conditional-use-permit application (likely site-specific, not citywide). This allows the broader text amendment to move forward without further delay or re-notification requirements.

Recommendation proceeds to City Council (expected fall 2025, timing not stated); City Council will make the final decision on whether to adopt the amended ordinance.

Controversies & Context

General Plan Alignment: The core controversy centered on whether warehousing—even in "mini" form—aligns with the general plan's employment office category definition. Staff argued that the general plan explicitly reserves warehousing for the light industrial office category and that approving it in CO would require a major general plan amendment. The applicant countered that the general plan is "aspirational" and broad; that mini-warehouse is functionally equivalent to internalized storage (a permitted use in many districts); and that the code lacks a separate definition for mini-warehouse, creating a "hole" in the ordinance. Commissioner Reid articulated this tension most clearly, questioning whether defining mini-warehouse separately might resolve the conflict without triggering a general plan amendment.

Citywide vs. Site-Specific: A secondary controversy was philosophical: should the commission approve a text amendment affecting 683 properties based on a single catalyst site's adaptive-reuse need, or should the applicant pursue a site-specific conditional-use permit or rezone? Commissioner Joiner and Commissioner Drake were adamant that a citywide text amendment should not bypass neighborhood review at other properties. Commissioner Ortell and Reid were more sympathetic to broad rules that provide predictability and market clarity, reducing case-by-case bureaucracy. Overholzer noted that rezoning would take 6–9 months and that a conditional-use-permit path for mini-warehouse could work but did not address the general plan issue.

State Preemption & ADU Conflicts: A related item (597PA 2024-2) underscored the tension between state and local authority. The state's ADU legislation prohibits cities from requiring fire sprinklers in accessory dwelling units, conflicting with Scottsdale's long-standing requirement for fire sprinklers in all residential structures. Commissioner Gonzalez raised this directly; staff acknowledged the city cannot override state law. This context makes clear that the commission is acutely aware of state legislation constraining local land-use control.

Procedural Issues: Director Curtis flagged a technical issue: if the text amendment were modified to add a new definition (mini-warehouse), Article 3 (Definitions) of the zoning code would need to be re-advertised, potentially triggering a re-notification process. This became the key reason the applicant withdrew its continuance request—indefinite continuance would require full re-notification anyway, so the applicant chose to move forward with the staff version and pursue mini-warehouse separately, likely through a conditional-use-permit.

Duration

• This item (6TA 2024-C): Approximately 2 hours (extended presentation, extensive commissioner questions, multiple failed motions, re-votes, and discussion of procedural options)
• Total meeting: Approximately 3.5–4 hours (including brief ADU text amendment initiation and routine minutes approval)

Other Notable Items

597PA 2024-2 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Text Amendment Initiation (7–0 approved)

Staff, represented by Mr. Carr, initiated a text amendment to update the city's ADU zoning requirements in response to new state legislation. The key change: the airport exclusion threshold shifts from a proximity-based standard to a 65-decibel sound level threshold. This dramatically shrinks the area around the airport where ADUs are prohibited, making most single-family properties citywide eligible for at least one ADU (and up to three in some cases). The state legislation, House Bill 2720 (passed November 2024), requires cities to adopt these changes by year-end 2025. A controversial element persists: the state prohibits fire-sprinkler requirements in ADUs, directly conflicting with Scottsdale's building-code standard requiring sprinklers in all residential structures. Commissioner Gonzalez raised concerns about this regulatory gap (no fire separation wall defined, integrated units vulnerable to fire spread); staff acknowledged the city cannot override state law. The text amendment will proceed to public outreach in September–October 2025, with a recommendation expected in early October and City Council hearing in November. Vote: 7–0 (approved for initiation), with Commissioner Joiner voting "under protest."

---

Minute Approval: The June 11, 2025 Planning Commission minutes were approved 7–0 without discussion.