Scottsdale approves 47-unit independent living community after applicant reduces density proposal
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — May 14, 2025

Scottsdale approves 47-unit independent living community after applicant reduces density proposal

Planning Commission approved a 47-unit independent living community with mixed neighbor opposition and legal concerns, while also initiating state-mandated adaptive reuse text amendments.

Lifestyle Communities' 47-Unit Retirement Project Narrowly Approved After Last-Minute Height Reduction; State Adaptive Reuse Crisis Looms

Scottsdale Planning Commission advanced a 22.26-acre mixed-use development featuring independent living for 55+ residents to City Council on Wednesday evening, but the path was unexpectedly contentious. The applicant, Minnesota-based Lifestyle Communities, secured a 7–0 recommendation only after unilaterally removing an entire floor from its residential structures within 72 hours of the hearing—a concession that prevented Commissioner Ertell's bid to lock in the original 67-unit density. Meanwhile, the Commission initiated a state-mandated rewrite of adaptive reuse zoning with a July 6 compliance deadline, adding urgency to an already accelerated summer schedule.

Key Speeches

"I just look at that and I say, that's 20 plus Kathy's, if you will, Kathy's and Linda's that won't have the opportunity to age in that place. And there's nothing else right around there." — Commissioner Ertell, advocating retention of 67 units

"We need to bring in a local team to help us do this correctly. They did that and they've spent this time listening and responding to what the surrounding neighbors have asked." — Susan Bidder Smith, applicant's attorney, on Lifestyle Communities' engagement process

"I do highly support it and I thank the applicant for all the work you've done over the last two years. I was at that first meeting." — Commissioner Joiner, herself a neighbor, on the applicant's responsiveness

"There's a lot of things that go into those decisions and may not just be because they just want to build fewer units. I've seen other construction projects where they took two and three stories off of a hotel just because it was so dong expensive to build these days." — Vice Chair Young, on the economic drivers of design revision

Timeline

Applicant presentation:
Susan Bidder Smith introduced Lifestyle Communities as a Minnesota-based developer making its Scottsdale debut with a luxury independent living product marketed at $780K–$936K price points. She emphasized a two-year iterative design process, showing slides comparing the by-right grocery store alternative (which could have been 40+ feet and would generate significantly more traffic) against the proposed two-story cassitas and villas. The applicant detailed reductions: 40% fewer residents, 21% increase in natural area open space (NAOS), 31% reduction in daily trips, and shift from three-story to two-story massing to honor neighbor concerns raised at a recent April 15 open house.

Staff recommendation:
Jeff Barnes presented the zoning request as a Planned Community Center–Planned Shared Development overlay with Environmentally Sensitive Lands zoning on five parcels currently zoned PCC–ESL–HD. The existing 1983 PCC designation permits residential at four units per acre (89 units max); the applicant's original submission proposed 67, now reduced to 47. Barnes flagged the density change and advised commissioners that any motion should account for amendments. He confirmed the existing development plan footprint—setbacks, circulation, and NAOS—remained unchanged; only building heights dropped from three to two stories.

Public comment:
Two speakers: Lisa Black (Pinnacle Canyon resident, immediate neighbor) requested continuance to allow neighbors time to review changes and raised concerns about lighting and traffic, noting she was unaware of mid-process modifications. Mike Dolmer (50% owner of adjacent Serene development, $2.7M–$3.7M homes) objected to claimed lack of consultation, flagged a conflict-of-interest allegation involving zoning attorney John Barry (who had represented Serene but was now recused), and disputed the applicant's compatibility claims. Dolmer argued the lower-priced units ($780K–$936K) were incompatible with his luxury residential community and requested continuance.

The applicant's counsel (Bidder Smith) rebutted, asserting extensive outreach with Mike Feifer (Serene co-owner) via written and verbal correspondence, and cited neighbor input from open houses as the driver of design changes. Commissioner Joiner, herself a nearby resident and attendee of both the first and most recent open houses, contradicted the complainants' claims of inadequate notification, describing visible and responsive developer engagement.

Council discussion:
Commissioner Ertell opened with a personal anecdote about aging-in-place needs, noting two widows he knows who wished to remain in the area. He criticized the reduction to 47 units (down from the zoning-allowed 89, then 67) as a missed opportunity to serve critical demand, particularly in a market where no competing independent-living product exists nearby. He also raised a broader policy question about reconciling the city's "100-year water supply" assurance with recent bond measures for water recycling—a complaint directed at staff but left unanswered. Ertell indicated he would move for approval at 67 units unless the floor objected.

Commissioner Gonzalez focused on building height methodology relative to topography. After clarification that the 36-foot PCC limit is measured from pre-disturbed (natural) grade, he expressed concern that a sloping site could make buildings visually overwhelm the surrounding area and asked whether the finished floor would be higher than nearby developments. Barnes explained the site actually slopes downward to the southwest, holding buildings lower rather than creeping uphill.

Commissioner Kaminsky questioned the natural area open space plan, asking whether the green swale would be disturbed and recreated artificially or left as-is. Barnes outlined the required native plant salvage inventory and civil engineering to accommodate drainage. She also flagged a design-review concern: covered parking not integrated into units would reduce amenity value for residents.

Commissioner Joiner, a resident living 200 yards from the site, praised the applicant's responsiveness to neighbor concerns and noted she had attended both the first and most recent open houses. She emphasized that 47 units, while lower than 67, still represented fewer vehicles than a grocery store and that seniors drive fewer miles than families with children. She opposed continuance, noting the project had already consumed significant applicant resources over two years.

Vice Chair Young noted this was his second presentation review and commented that forcing developers to build more units than they want is unproductive; if economic or construction factors drove the reduction to 47, so be it. He praised the small visual impact and applicant responsiveness.

Commissioner Higgs asked the applicant's architect whether 67 units could fit in two stories without expanding the footprint. The architect (relayed through Bidder Smith) replied it could not be done without drastically reducing NAOS, which is a project highlight. Higgs accepted this constraint and noted the proposal meets all zoning criteria.

Commissioner Scarboro (chair) conducted a detailed comparative analysis with Bidder Smith, pulling slides showing setback improvements over the by-right grocery scenario: 230 feet (cassita-to-single-family) vs. 169 feet (grocery); 527 feet (two-story villa-to-single-family) vs. 379 feet (grocery). He noted that the site plan footprint remained unchanged and only stories were removed, and reviewed traffic generation data showing residential use far lighter than commercial. He affirmed the project is compatible and that removal of 20 units to improve neighbor relations is sound planning.

Vote (first motion):
Commissioner Ertell moved for approval at 67 units as originally submitted. Vice Chair Young seconded. Roll call: Scarboro yes, Young no, Gonzalez yes, Kaminsky no, Ertell yes, Joiner no, Higgs no. Motion failed 3–4.

Vote (second motion):
Commissioner Higgs moved for approval at 47 units "as amended based on the applicant's changes." Commissioner Kaminsky seconded. Roll call: Scarboro yes, Young yes, Gonzalez yes, Kaminsky yes, Ertell yes (with audible caveat, "47 is better than none"), Joiner yes, Higgs yes. Motion passes 7–0.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 2 (Lisa Black and Mike Dolmer)

Main concerns:

  1. Inadequate notice and timing: Lisa Black stated she was unaware of material design changes (three-story to two-story, 67 to 47 units) made in the 48–72 hours before the hearing and requested continuance to allow neighbors time to evaluate and respond.

  2. Conflict of interest: Mike Dolmer raised that zoning attorney John Barry previously represented Serene and had now recused himself from the matter, creating apparent conflict concerns (though Barry's recusal appeared to satisfy the issue).

  3. Lack of direct consultation with adjacent property owners: Dolmer claimed Serene (the southern-adjacent development) was never consulted despite being immediate neighbors, contradicting the applicant's claim of extensive outreach.

  4. Incompatibility of pricing and residential character: Dolmer argued that $780K–$936K units are incompatible with Serene's $2.7M–$3.7M homes and surrounding luxury neighborhoods, and that the development violates community standards (e.g., open driveway parking prohibited in Serene).

  5. Negative property value impact: Dolmer, a licensed broker, predicted the proposal would depress property values in Serene, Pinnacle Canyon, Estancia, and True North subdivisions.

  6. Infrastructure concerns: Dolmer questioned whether sewer, water, and other infrastructure could handle the density increase from Serene's 21 homes to a combined 68–90 with the development, and noted existing traffic congestion.

  7. Request for continuance: Both speakers requested postponement to allow further negotiation and resolution of concerns.

Most compelling arguments:
Dolmer's infrastructure and density-impact argument resonated with the zoning framework (going from 21 homes to nearly 90 combined), though commissioners noted the site's by-right entitlement to a large grocery store with inline retail would have imposed far greater infrastructure and traffic stress. Lisa Black's observation that mid-process design changes had not been communicated to neighbors prior to the hearing was factual and raised legitimate procedural fairness questions.

Organized groups: None identified.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 1 primary (Commissioner Joiner, speaking as both commissioner and resident)

Main arguments:

  1. Niche market serving critical local need: Multiple commissioners noted no competing independent-living product exists in the immediate area; this project addresses documented aging-in-place demand in Scottsdale's northern neighborhoods.

  2. Significant design concessions: The applicant voluntarily reduced from 67 to 47 units and removed an entire story (three to two) in the 48–72 hours before hearing, demonstrating genuine responsiveness to neighbor feedback rather than adversarial posturing.

  3. Far less impactful than by-right alternative: The PCC zoning permits a grocery store (40+ feet, with high traffic, parking, and evening lighting for food service). The proposed two-story residential project (31 feet, low-level motion-sensor lighting, ~47 trips/day vs. ~250 trips/day for the grocer) is objectively less intensive.

  4. Substantial setback and open-space improvements: Setbacks from single-family homes increased significantly over the grocery scenario (230 ft vs. 169 ft for cassitas; 527 ft vs. 379 ft for villas). NAOS increased 21% relative to the original 67-unit plan.

  5. Topography favors visual compatibility: The site slopes downward to the southwest, minimizing visual impact and avoiding the "creeping uphill" concern that might otherwise arise.

  6. Traffic and senior-related benefits: Commissioners noted 47 units of seniors generate far fewer vehicle trips than a grocery store and that seniors drive fewer miles than families raising children; this is a net traffic improvement over existing zoning entitlements.

  7. Two-year collaborative design process: The applicant engaged in multiple open houses, stakeholder meetings, and responsive redesigns over approximately 24 months, demonstrating good-faith community partnership.

Organized groups: None explicitly; however, Commissioner Joiner indicated implicit support from neighboring homeowners (herself included) who attended open houses.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Final (second motion): 7–0

Yes: Chair Scarboro, Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Kaminsky, Commissioner Ertell, Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Higgs

No: None

Abstentions / absences: None

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 2ZN2024 as amended (47 units, two-story) to City Council. The proposal now advances to the City Council for final decision; the Commission's recommendation is advisory and not binding. The applicant indicated willingness to continue community engagement and address design/site-plan details through the development review process and development agreement finalization. No continuance was granted, despite requests from Lisa Black and Mike Dolmer. The applicant signaled openness to ongoing dialogue with Serene regarding proximity and design compatibility concerns, though no formal mediation or stipulation was required by the Commission's vote.

Controversies & Context

Neighbor conflict and notification concerns:
Mike Dolmer's allegation that Serene was never consulted despite direct adjacency contradicted the applicant's claim of extensive outreach. Bidder Smith asserted conversations had occurred with Serene co-owner Mike Feifer, yet Dolmer (co-owner) stated he was only "informed by our zoning attorney" shortly before the hearing. This disconnect suggests either incomplete internal communication at Serene or divergent owner expectations regarding notification thresholds.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure:
John Barry, a zoning attorney representing Serene, had a potential conflict because the applicant's legal team involved parties with whom he had prior dealings. Barry recused himself, resolving the conflict procedurally. However, Dolmer's raising of the issue mid-hearing added procedural friction and raised questions about pre-hearing vetting.

Pricing and compatibility claims:
Dolmer's assertion that $780K–$936K units devalue $2.7M–$3.7M homes is a classic neighborhood compatibility argument grounded in economics rather than land-use law. The Commission did not engage this argument substantively, instead focusing on zoning entitlements and traffic/density metrics. This reflects a broader planning-vs. exclusionary-zoning tension: the by-right grocery store could legally be built; the retirement community is a permitted use in PCC zoning; and the price-point argument, while emotionally resonant, does not constitute a land-use compatibility criterion under Scottsdale ordinance.

Speed of design modification and procedural fairness:
The 48–72-hour window in which the applicant removed an entire story and 20 units raised valid procedural concerns articulated by Lisa Black: neighbors had no opportunity to re-evaluate and comment on the amended proposal. However, the Commission viewed the amendment as a positive concession (addressing neighbor concerns) rather than a procedural violation warranting continuance. Commissioner Joiner's on-site attendance at both open houses and endorsement of applicant responsiveness may have shifted the procedural fairness calculation in the applicant's favor.

State preemption and adaptive reuse legislation context:
While not directly affecting this project (which is residential-permitted in PCC zoning), the emergency passage of HB 2110 and the Commission's simultaneous initiation of adaptive reuse amendments underscores state-driven pressure on Arizona municipalities to facilitate residential conversion of commercial property. Scottsdale's 1% cap (down from state-mandated 10% minimum) has been overridden; the city must now revise its ordinance by July 6, 2025. This broader context reflects state-level concerns about housing supply and market flexibility that may influence how commissioners view projects like Lifestyle Communities' retirement housing as filling a legitimate need.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Adaptive Reuse Text Amendment Initiation (596PA2024-2):
Adam Carr presented a state-mandated zoning ordinance rewrite triggered by HB 2110 (signed by the governor this session). The legislation mandates that at least 10% of a city's commercial parcels (changed from "up to 10%" in prior HB 2297) be eligible for conversion to multifamily residential, measured by parcel count rather than building area. Scottsdale's prior ordinance (adopted November 2024) conservatively capped conversion at 1% based on staff analysis of the city's limited commercial land. The new statute overrides that limit. Statutory exclusions remain: historic areas, airport vicinity, designated employment hubs (up to 10%), and parcels exceeding 65 dB noise. The Commission unanimously voted 7–0 to initiate the text amendment; draft amendments will be presented at the May 28 hearing, with City Council action targeted for June 24 to meet the July 6 deadline. [See full notes under Outcome & Next Steps in main article for expanded discussion.]

Noise Ordinance Status (Non-Action Item):
Tim Curtis reported that the city's 2010 noise ordinance (68 dB threshold, A-weighted) remains under review by the City Manager's office following 100+ participant workshops in November 2023. The Commission requested a status update after handling numerous pickle-ball and bar-noise conditional-use-permit cases. Commissioner Joiner emphasized the need for a clear decibel standard (potentially including C-weighted measurements to address bass and low-frequency noise) to reduce case-by-case disputes, applicant legal costs, and planning commission time. Curtis noted no completion timeline and that police/code enforcement and legal teams manage the ordinance, not Planning. The Commission passed a motion to continue monitoring and recommend City Council action. The request reflects planning commissioners' frustration with behavioral (noise) vs. land-use regulation blurring and the need for objective standards to replace subjective compatibility findings.