SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — August 27, 2025

Scottsdale approves Ranch Gate 32-lot rezoning, Ardan 23-unit abandonment despite dark-sky concerns

Planning commission approved two significant projects in Scottsdale: a 32-lot North Scottsdale rezoning with dark sky preservation concerns and a 23-unit multifamily street abandonment with design impact issues, while debating future traffic and lighting infrastructure needs.

Scottsdale Planning Commission Approves Ranch Gate Rezoning (7-0) and Ardan Abandonment (6-1) Amid Dark-Sky and Design Disputes

On the evening of August 27, 2025, Scottsdale's Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of two substantial projects—a 32-lot North Scottsdale residential rezoning and a 23-unit South Scottsdale multifamily street abandonment—but the seemingly routine consent masks deeper fault lines over dark-sky preservation, traffic infrastructure anticipation, and residential-design compatibility that will likely resurface during design-review board hearings and city council deliberation.

The Ranch Gate 40 rezoning (case 8ZN2024), rezoning 40 acres from R1-30 ESL to R1-35 ESL in the Dynamite Foothills area near 128th Street and Ranch Gate Road, passed unanimously, but Commissioner Joiner's sustained questioning about a proposed street light at the 128th/Ranch Gate intersection—and his call for a roundabout to future-proof the area against 1,300 anticipated homes—revealed a schism between safety-focused infrastructure planning and preservation-minded commissioners worried that any light would be visible from neighboring developments and compromise the region's last pristine dark sky. The Ardan Scottsdale Rideway abandonment (case 9AB2024), a request to abandon 25 feet of east Pulk Street to enable a 23-unit multifamily project, passed 6-1, with Commissioner Gonzalez as the sole dissenter; his concerns about private-access gating and the city's future servicing obligations foreshadowed design objections from an adjacent property owner who, during public comment, catalogued the project's 21-foot setback from her bedroom window and contrasted it with 50–80-foot setbacks historically maintained between neighboring residential developments in the area.

Key Speeches

"I'm real concerned. Our last remaining pristine area in Scottsdale. That is the last dark sky area we have in Scottsdale. Any light that's put in down there, it's going to be visible from the whole area. And I think this is a perfect place for a roundabout and maybe anticipating the amount of development that's going on out there and that traffic is going to increase." — Commissioner Joiner, planning commission member

"Um, I would imagine the applicant team is more in depth on that one and would be able to answer." — Chris Zimmer, Senior Planner, City of Scottsdale, when asked about sewage-line and lift-station infrastructure for Ranch Gate

"I came here to provide public comment so it's available for other commissions and so that you are aware of my issues and hopefully when other people go through this, they don't have to go through the pains that I went through. The site plan does not consider for the second and third story which actually provide a pop out of about four feet to cover that patio which makes that three story wall even closer to my home. At this time I'm measuring it at about 21 feet set back from my bedroom window. And the elevations which are not shown here either show balconies facing our bedrooms for all of us at Casar Amigos." — Milen Pinkyovich, resident of adjacent Casar Amigos development

"We wouldn't expect the city to be investing large amounts of money to maintain a roadway that doesn't go anywhere. By making it private, we do have to have easement rights to make sure that cities can come in and all of that can be preserved. Um, but we aren't we aren't prohibited from saying, 'Hey, you can't loiter in the middle of our project.'" — Taylor Earl, Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C., applicant attorney for Ardan Scottsdale Rideway

"I'll be on DRB when you bring this forward. So, I will be watching for what you're going to do about lighting carefully." — Commissioner Joiner, signaling close oversight of Ranch Gate 40 design-review proceedings

Timeline

Ranch Gate 40 Rezoning (Case 8ZN2024)

Applicant presentation: Keith Nicter (Kimley Horn) presented a voluntary reduction from 40 allowable lots (under R1-35 ESL density) to 33 initially, then 32 finally, citing preservation of three large wash corridors, addition of emergency and construction-access points (temporary), trail connectivity to 128th Street multi-use pathway, and natural-area open-space dedication of 27% (14% above minimum). Density of 0.80 compares to existing 0.30 (12 lots) and zoning-maximum 1.04 (41 lots). Applicant confirmed David Weekley Homes under contract as builder, committed to 24-foot one-story maximum height, tile roofs, low-level landscape lighting only at entries, and willingness to work with design-review board on street-light photometric analysis despite initial staff stipulation for a 7,000-lumen fixture at 128th/Ranch Gate intersection.
Staff recommendation: Jeff Barnes (filling for Jesus Mario) recommended approval, noting consistency with Dynamite Foothills Character Area Plan goals of rural-desert preservation, amended ESL development standards, three-wash preservation, 3.87 acres of open-space dedication above minimum, scenic corridors (100-foot average, 85-foot minimum along 128th), and secondary emergency access. Staff had flagged street light at 128th/Ranch Gate (7,000 lumens, one fixture, dusk-to-dawn photocell, no traffic signal) as required to illuminate dark intersection, but clarified it is not a traffic signal and no traffic warrants currently exist for signal or roundabout.
Public comment: One speaker, Pam Stubs, 40-year Scottsdale real-estate specialist in horse property, spoke in favor, noting large lot size, city water availability, and appeal to equestrian-property buyers given depletion of alternatives and well-water challenges in the region; she also predicted property-value enhancement from high-caliber builder and rural character preservation.
Council discussion: Commissioner Joiner expressed aesthetic and dark-sky concerns, citing three-day personal site tour and conversations with the original master-plan engineer for Story Rock; she requested traffic-warrant analysis, raised sewage/lift-station capacity questions (deferred to applicant), urged consideration of roundabout to future-proof against 1,300 anticipated regional homes, and criticized the street light as incompatible with dark-sky preservation, noting it will be visible from McDow Mountain area and east-side residences. She stated: "I think this is a perfect place for a roundabout and maybe anticipating the amount of development that's going on out there." Commissioner Artel questioned the lighting-lumen comparison to the Happy Valley and Alma School roundabout (14 fixtures at higher intensity vs. single 7,000-lumen fixture here), asked about white roof visibility from higher elevations (answered by Curtis as tied to IGCC international green building code for heat and energy conservation, not zoning-specific), and sought explanation for the drop from 33 to 32 lots. Commissioner Gonzalez asked John Hong (Senior Manager, Traffic Engineer) about hooded/downcast fixtures to control sky-glow and confirmed that proposed fixtures have internal shields and will direct light only onto roadway, not neighboring property or sky. Vice Chair Young asked whether a roundabout would require additional lighting; Hong confirmed 14 fixtures with higher intensity were used at Happy Valley/Alma School for public safety and pedestrian crossing. Applicant (Nicter) reiterated willingness to submit photometric plans during design-review board phase and acknowledged that the street-light stipulation came from city staff (not applicant preference), offering flexibility to explore low-level alternatives or private-land placement if feasible.
Vote: 7-0, all commissioners voting yes (Chair Scarboro, Vice Chair Young, Commissioners Gonzalez, Artel, Joiner, Drake, Reid).

Ardan Scottsdale Rideway Abandonment (Case 9AB2024)

Applicant presentation: Taylor Earl (Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C., 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000) explained the 25-foot east Pulk Street abandonment request as a precursor to multifamily design-review board approval (case 32DR2024). He contextualized the abandonment as removal of an oddly situated public rideway that does not extend further east, creates an unenforced "middle of nowhere" public area subject to vagrancy, and is costly for the city to maintain. By privatizing with easement rights for fire, refuse, and city services, the project would assume maintenance responsibility and enforcement authority (without gating) while preserving all city access rights. He confirmed no HOA gating intentions and noted that typical multifamily developments do not include public roadways. He acknowledged that fire truck turnaround geometry, waste-collection logistics, and precise setbacks remain subject to design-review board scrutiny and potential redesign.
Staff recommendation: Chris Zimmer (Senior Planner) presented the location map (7601 East Pulk Street, near southeast Scottsdale near McKellips and Miller Road), the 25-foot abandonment area (southern portion of Pulk Street), and R5 existing zoning. He noted the associated multifamily case (32DR2024) contains building, landscaping, circulation, and infrastructure details; all city departments (infrastructure, solid waste, fire) had reviewed the design and provided comments. The site plan showed a single access point off Miller Road with truck turnarounds for refuse and fire access, and a communal waste area in the project center.
Public comment: One speaker, Milen Pinkyovich (303 North Miller Road, Casar Amigos development immediately east of the proposed project), identified himself as a planner with prior experience as principal planner at City of Tempe and principal transportation planner at City of Scottsdale. He raised safety and design concerns about the ungated private access, walkway, and lack of sight lines; cited a 21-foot setback from his bedroom window with a 3-story structure (21 feet from wall plus 4-foot pop-out for patio coverage = three-story structure very close); documented balconies facing Casar Amigos bedrooms; and contrasted the design against historically observed 50–80-foot setbacks between R5 developments in the immediate area (Scottsdale Chastal and Park Villas 60 feet apart, Park Villas and Scottsdale Garden 50 feet, Scottsdale Garden and Scottsdale Park Suites 80 feet, Papago Lux condos and Scottsdale Park Suites 70 feet, San Traveria and Scottsdale condos 80 feet). He stated he was not opposed to development but wanted the design-review board to respect historical precedent for setbacks and stepbacks rather than pop-outs. Chair Scarboro advised him to confer with Chris Zimmer to ensure his concerns reach the design-review board, noting that Zimmer was taking notes.
Council discussion: Commissioner Joiner asked whether the Ardan project had previously come before planning (it had not; the abandonment precedes design-review board); she confirmed that final site-plan approval and fire/refuse access would be decided by the design-review board. Commissioner Gonzalez pressed on access control, HOA gating potential, and city service maintenance, asking repeatedly how fire trucks would enter and exit a 25-foot width, whether there would be barriers, and whether the city would maintain easement or abandon outright. Zimmer and Earl clarified that the city would abandon the right-of-way (property would go to parent parcels), all city departments had reviewed the design and confirmed feasibility, a truck turnaround was shown on the site plan, and refuse collection would occur at a communal location in the project center. Gonzalez asked whether an HOA would be created and whether it might gate the property later (Earl and Zimmer confirmed no gating intent and property owners shaking their heads "no"). Gonzalez stated his satisfaction with answers but maintained concern about the abandonment's impact on city service obligations: "I think you've answered everything and I'm satisfied with your answers." Joiner asked how many of the 23 units sat within the 25-foot rideway; Earl answered one, possibly two.
Vote: 6-1, with Commissioner Gonzalez voting no; all others (Chair Scarboro, Vice Chair Young, Commissioners Artel, Joiner, Drake, Reid) voting yes.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: One speaker (Milen Pinkyovich) testified against the Ardan Scottsdale Rideway project; no organized opposition to Ranch Gate 40 was documented.

Main concerns (Ardan Scottsdale Rideway):

Inadequate setback from neighboring bedroom: 21-foot setback from Pinkyovich's bedroom window in adjacent Casar Amigos development, with a 3-story building and 4-foot pop-out patio coverage bringing the wall even closer.
Balconies facing adjacent units: Design includes balconies oriented toward Casar Amigos bedrooms, compromising privacy.
Lack of stepbacks: Structure employs a pop-out design rather than traditional stepbacks observed in neighboring R5 developments, which maintain 50–80-foot separation distances.
Safety and access concerns: Ungated private access, multi-use walkway, and ambiguous enforcement authority create hiding spots and potential loitering risks immediately adjacent to residential bedroom windows.
Precedent-breaking design: Historical area developments (Scottsdale Chastal, Park Villas, Scottsdale Garden, Papago Lux, San Traveria, Scottsdale Park Suites) maintain 50–80-foot setbacks between R5 properties; the proposed 21-foot setback breaks that standard.
Timing mismatch: Abandonment and design cases were not heard together, preventing unified consideration of access, design, and setback issues in a single public forum.

Most compelling arguments: Pinkyovich's detailed comparative analysis of setback distances (50–80 feet) versus the proposed 21-foot separation, combined with his professional credentials as a planner and his direct adjacency to the project, elevated the specificity and credibility of design-compatibility concerns. His point that neighboring R5 developments do not employ pop-outs and stepbacks in ways that bring three-story walls within 21 feet of bedrooms provided a quantifiable standard against which the Ardan design appeared to diverge.

Organized groups: None identified.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: One speaker (Pam Stubs) testified in support of Ranch Gate 40.

Main arguments:

Appropriate density for rural character: Realtor with 40 years' experience in North Scottsdale horse-property market endorsed the 32-lot reduction from zoning-maximum density as maintaining the rural feel appropriate to the area and neighboring Story Rock, Sereno Canyon, and McDow Mountain Manor developments.
High-caliber builder enhances value: Confirmation that David Weekley Homes (high-end builder) is under contract boosts confidence in construction quality and property-value enhancement for existing and future residents.
Large-lot appeal to equestrian market: Lot size and city water availability make the project attractive to horse-property buyers in a market where large parcels are increasingly scarce and well-water logistics are challenging.
Property-value uplift for neighborhood: Stubs predicted that the development would enhance property values for existing Story Rock and neighboring residents.
Market demand: Sign inquiries and phone calls from prospective buyers demonstrate strong interest and readiness-to-purchase demand.

Most compelling argument: Stubs's 40-year market expertise and hands-on knowledge of equestrian-property scarcity, combined with her prediction that a high-caliber builder would drive neighborhood-wide property enhancement, provided market-side validation of the project's fit within the North Scottsdale context.

Project Details

Ranch Gate 40 (Case 8ZN2024)

Case number: 8ZN2024
Applicant / developer: Keith Nicter (land planner, Kimley Horn); David Weekley Homes (builder, under contract pending approval)
Attorney: Not named in transcript (applicant team included civil engineer and other members not individually identified)
Location / address: Southeast corner of Ranch Gate Road and 128th Street, North Scottsdale (Dynamite Foothills Character Area Plan)
APN (if stated): Not stated in transcript
Current zoning → Proposed zoning: R1-30 ESL (Environmentally Sensitive Lands) → R1-35 ESL
Density: Existing 0.30 (12 lots); zoning-maximum 1.04 (41 lots); proposed 0.80 (32 lots)
Units / square footage: 32 single-family residential lots
Changes from previous version: Voluntary reduction from 40 lots (applicant's initial concept) to 33 lots (R1-43 density match) to 32 lots (final), motivated by wash preservation, emergency/construction access provision, and trail connectivity; additional open-space dedication of 3.87 acres above minimum (27% vs. 14% required); scenic corridors along 128th Street (100-foot average, 85-foot minimum) and desert scenic roadway buffer along Ranch Gate Road; secondary emergency vehicle access and temporary construction access off 128th Street (later to become trail connection); one street light (7,000 lumens, hooded) at 128th/Ranch Gate intersection for safety (required by staff, subject to design-review board photometric analysis).
Building height / setbacks: Maximum 24 feet (one-story homes), consistent with existing Story Rock and surrounding developments; amended ESL lot-width, lot-area, and building-setback standards per design-review board authority; large wash-corridor buffers (southeast corner ~400 feet, north side average ~200 feet above 50-foot minimum scenic buffer).
Open space / environmental: Three large washes preserved; middle wash revised for site drainage; 27% natural-area open-space dedication (14% above minimum), majority in tracts rather than on-lot; tracts maintained by HOA.

Ardan Scottsdale Rideway (Case 9AB2024)

Case number: 9AB2024 (abandonment); associated design case 32DR2024
Applicant / developer: Not named in transcript (represented by Taylor Earl, Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C.)
Attorney: Taylor Earl, Earl & Earl & Earl & Curley, P.C., P.C., P.C., 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000
Location / address: 7601 East Pulk Street (southern portion of east Pulk Street), southeast Scottsdale, near McKellips and Miller Road, adjacent to Casar Amigos development
APN (if stated): Not stated in transcript
Current zoning: R5 (multifamily residential)
Proposed use: 23-unit multifamily development with private access (abandonment of 25-foot public rideway)
Changes from previous version: Street abandonment request; applicant notes that design details remain subject to design-review board approval (case 32DR2024)
Access / servicing: Single access point off Miller Road; truck turnaround for fire and refuse; communal waste collection in project center; city maintains easements for fire, trash, emergency access; no HOA gating intended
Setback / design concerns (per public comment): ~21 feet from adjacent Casar Amigos bedroom window; 3-story building with 4-foot patio pop-out; balconies facing adjacent units; lack of traditional stepbacks as seen in neighboring 50–80-foot-setback developments.

Vote Breakdown

Ranch Gate 40 Rezoning (8ZN2024)

Final: 7-0 (unanimous approval)
Yes: Chair Scarboro, Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Artel, Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Drake, Commissioner Reid
No: None
Abstentions / absences: None

Ardan Scottsdale Rideway Abandonment (9AB2024)

Final: 6-1 (approval with one dissent)
Yes: Chair Scarboro, Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Artel, Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Drake, Commissioner Reid
No: Commissioner Gonzalez
Abstentions / absences: None

Outcome & Next Steps

Ranch Gate 40

The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval to city council, finding the zoning district map amendment consistent with and conforming to the adopted General Plan, subject to staff-recommended stipulations. The project advances to:

Preliminary plat review by design-review board, including detailed site-plan, landscaping, and infrastructure approval.
Photometric lighting analysis for the 128th/Ranch Gate street light, to be conducted during design-review board proceedings; applicant signaled willingness to work with staff and design-review board on alternative fixture configurations, shielding, or private-land placement to minimize dark-sky impact.
City council final approval (after planning commission recommendation).
Sewer capacity assessment: Applicant confirmed that the master plan for Story Rock anticipated 40 lots on this site, so current infrastructure capacity exists; a regional sewer improvement program (currently under city study) may require an in-lieu fee from the applicant when regional upgrades are necessitated by cumulative development.

Commissioner Joiner stated she would be on the design-review board and promised close oversight of lighting decisions, noting: "I'll be on DRB when you bring this forward. So, I will be watching for what you're going to do about lighting carefully."

Ardan Scottsdale Rideway

The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval to city council, finding the street abandonment consistent with and conforming to the adopted General Plan, subject to staff-recommended stipulations. The project advances to:

Design-review board (case 32DR2024) for detailed review of site plan, landscaping, building elevations, circulation, and infrastructure.
Design-review board consideration of Milen Pinkyovich's public-comment concerns regarding setbacks, stepbacks, balcony orientation, and privacy impact on adjacent Casar Amigos development; Chris Zimmer (city planner) documented the concerns and advised Pinkyovich to confer with him to ensure the design-review board receives detailed written input.
City council final approval (after planning commission recommendation).

Commissioner Gonzalez, the sole dissenter, expressed ongoing concern about the city's future service and enforcement obligations under a private-access easement regime, though he acknowledged that the applicant had answered his immediate questions about fire-truck access, refuse collection, and gating intent.

Controversies & Context

Dark-Sky Preservation and Regional Development Pressure

The Ranch Gate 40 project sits in Scottsdale's "last remaining pristine area" (per Commissioner Joiner's characterization), with views extending to McDow Mountain, the Story Rock golf course, and east-side residential elevations. The proposed street light at 128th/Ranch Gate—a single 7,000-lumen fixture (half the intensity of an arterial's 12,000-lumen standard)—triggered debate over whether the city and applicant are adequately future-proofing the intersection against 1,300+ homes anticipated to be built in the broader region as 128th Street is eventually paved to Dynamite Road. Commissioner Joiner argued that a roundabout should be anticipated now, before traffic warrants are met, to avoid the incremental lighting escalation that often follows traffic-signal installation. However, John Hong (Scottsdale's traffic engineer) and staff emphasized that traffic-warrant analysis currently shows no need for a signal or roundabout, and that future reassessment (if warranted by traffic growth) would follow safety-based rather than cost-based criteria.

The applicant acknowledged that the street-light stipulation came from staff (not applicant preference) and offered flexibility to work with the design-review board on photometric analysis, hooded fixtures, and low-level configurations. Commissioner Joiner's concern that "any light that's put in down there, it's going to be visible from the whole area" reflects the tension between incremental infrastructure requests and landscape preservation in an area where light pollution is currently negligible.

Setback and Design-Compatibility Tensions in South Scottsdale

The Ardan Scottsdale Rideway project exemplifies a broader friction between zoning-entitlement maximization (R5 allows three stories, the developer is entitled to build three stories) and neighborhood design standards established by existing developments. Milen Pinkyovich's public testimony—detailed, professionally credentialed, and specific (21-foot setback vs. 50–80-foot precedent; pop-out vs. stepback; balconies facing adjacent bedrooms)—created a public record that the design-review board cannot ignore. His point that the abandonment and design cases should have been heard together presages potential arguments that the two-step process (abandonment first, design later) allowed public scrutiny of access to bypass more detailed design critique.

The city's response (Chris Zimmer taking notes, advice to Pinkyovich to file detailed written comment with the design-review board) suggests staff takes the concern seriously, but the 6-1 commission vote (Gonzalez's dissent on access control, not design) indicates that design issues remain pending. Taylor Earl's assertion that "typical multifamily development, you would not have public driveways" reflects a common developer argument that private-access design is standard practice; whether the design-review board will require stepbacks or increased setbacks to match neighboring R5 developments' 50–80-foot standards remains unresolved.

HOA Gating and City Service Obligations

Commissioner Gonzalez's repeated questions about the potential for HOA gating and the city's future maintenance and enforcement role under a private-easement regime signal concern that privatization of a public rideway could, over time, become a gating issue if homeowner association policies change. The applicant and city confirmed no gating intention and noted that city easements for fire, trash, and emergency access are preserved; however, Gonzalez's skepticism that "eventually a lot of HOAs decide later on in the fact that will either gate or ungate something" reflects historical experience that HOA policies can shift. The fact that this issue will recur during design-review board deliberation (where specific easement language and enforcement mechanisms will be detailed) suggests it is not fully resolved.

Sewage Capacity and Regional Infrastructure Planning

Commissioner Joiner raised a question about a lift station and sewage-line improvements stipulated in the original Story Rock master plan for the broader development area. The applicant confirmed that the current project was anticipated in the Story Rock master plan (which assumed 40 lots on this site), so capacity exists today; however, a regional sewer improvement program is under city study, and the applicant will pay an in-lieu fee when those improvements become necessary. The fact that the applicant initially deferred this answer to staff (who then deferred to the applicant) reveals some gap in design clarity, though the applicant's eventual clarification (capacity exists, regional improvements will be fee-funded) resolved the issue for most commissioners.

Duration

Ranch Gate 40 (Item 5, 8ZN2024): Approximately 60–75 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation with multiple slides, commissioner questions, public comment, deliberation, motion, vote)
Ardan Scottsdale Rideway (Item 3, 9AB2024): Approximately 30–40 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, commissioner questions, public comment, deliberation, motion, vote)
Total meeting: Approximately 120–150 minutes (including administrative report, minutes approval, consent-agenda votes, and two regular-agenda items)

Other Notable Items

Consent Agenda (Items 1AB2025 and 4TA2024): Approved 7-0 without debate or discussion, per standard procedure. Cases included case 1AB2025 (an abandonment, approved per staff stipulations and conformance with General Plan) and case 4TA2024 (a text amendment, approved per staff stipulations and conformance with General Plan). Commissioner Joiner moved for a fully verbatim motion including case numbers and findings language, ensuring a clear record.

Joint Planning Commission–Development Review Board Meeting: Staff announced that a previously planned joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Development Review Board, originally scheduled before the summer break, will be rescheduled for "the near future" to address topics identified earlier in the year. Commissioners Young and Joiner appeared to expect this resumption, though no specific date or agenda was confirmed during this meeting.