Scottsdale Planning Commission approves Poor Decisions bar conversion with conditional parking accountability stipulations

Scottsdale Planning Commission Approves Controversial Bar Conversion, Making Parking Agreement a Substitute for Weak Noise Ordinance

The Scottsdale Planning Commission voted 7-0 on April 9 to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for Poor Decisions, a restaurant-to-bar conversion in the historic Fifth Avenue district of Oldtown Scottsdale. The unanimous vote, however, masked significant community anxiety rooted in a violent bar operation that occupied the same street in 2021–2022, and revealed a troubling gap: the city lacks adequate noise ordinance enforcement for mixed-use downtown zones. Rather than rely on city code, the commission approved a condition that ties the operator's parking to the sufferance of his most skeptical neighbor—an unusual private enforcement mechanism.

Key Speeches

"Loyalty Lounge operated with a series 12. No teeth. It took way too long to get them out of that spot. And I understand why there is some lingering concern from the neighborhood about what occurred. It's all perfectly valid and I understand why. We think that we have done a good job working with your staff to make my client accountable to being a good neighbor." — Lauren Proper Potter, attorney for Poor Decisions

"The city's noise ordinance, but its strength is in protecting residential zoning districts, not mixed-use zoning districts. And so the city's looking at doing an update to the noise ordinance, just hasn't been put together quite yet." — Casey Stanky, Scottsdale Planning Department

"I was on DRB for five years. This came up at least twice when I was on DRB and tonight we had two cases where noise was part of the conversation. This is an important agenda item that needs to be addressed, and I respect the open meeting laws. I just want to make sure that this isn't being swept under the rug." — Commissioner Joiner, requesting agendaized Oldtown noise ordinance update

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Casey Stanky reviewed Poor Decisions as Case 9 UP 2024, located at Craftsman Court in the Fifth Avenue district. Existing use is a restaurant; proposed use is a bar with Series 6 liquor license. Building has two stories with ~2,300 sq. ft. interior space and ~5,300 sq. ft. outdoor patio across two parcels. Operator must provide 24 additional parking spaces via remote parking agreement with property owner across the street to the west.

• Staff notes on history: Stanky acknowledged that Loyalty Lounge, a prior problematic operator at or near the site in 2021–2022, had generated noise and other complaints. However, he clarified that Loyalty Lounge had been a restaurant (Series 12 license), not a bar, and noted that the worst images presented by neighbors appeared to be from 2021. He cautioned that the noise complaints received today appear to reference current sound levels, not just historical incidents.

• Applicant presentation: Lauren Proper Potter, attorney for Poor Decisions and its operator Jackson, presented a detailed case emphasizing that Jackson is a restaurant operator (primarily in Chandler) with a two-year clean history at this location: zero noise complaints, no police calls, no acts of violence. Potter stressed that the conversion from Series 12 (restaurant) to Series 6 (bar) license was prompted by a state requirement that Jackson could not meet because a four-month kitchen closure had skewed his food-to-liquor sales ratio. She argued the conditional use permit process provides better enforcement "teeth" than the grandfathered status Loyalty Lounge had enjoyed. Potter outlined five key stipulations: food service with entrées until 9 p.m. on all business days; lunch service at least five days per week; voluntary hour limitations; no cover charge; and—most importantly—all remote parking from a single adjacent property owner who can revoke permission with short notice. That owner, whom Potter identified as Joe, has owned the property for over 30 years, is fully aware of the 2021–2022 violence, has written a support letter, and is offering parking spaces free of charge but with "strings attached." Potter argued this arrangement holds Jackson accountable to his most directly adjacent and most skeptical neighbor.

• Public comment: Three speakers. Only a brief reference in the transcript indicates at least one speaker in opposition and at least one in support, though full speaker identities and arguments are not fully captured. Staff noted three additional written comments were received after the agenda was posted—both opposition and support letters.

• Commissioner questions (staff): Commissioner Hertell asked whether the bar represents a change in ownership (confirmed: new operator, not Whining Pig owner). Commissioner Gonzalez asked detailed questions about remote parking: how it is secured (five-year agreement minimum, recorded assurance at county), location (private property), and whether evening-use credits apply (confirmed). Commissioner Kaminsky raised two key concerns: (1) whether the noise ordinance applies despite mixed-use zoning (staff confirmed the ordinance has weak enforcement in mixed-use districts, unlike residential zones); (2) whether Loyalty Lounge had been a bar or restaurant (staff clarified it was a restaurant, Series 12, which may have been part of why it took longer to remove). Commissioner Joiner questioned whether the images in opposition emails were current, noting that no bar would sell "Cupcake wine" at the price point shown.

• Commissioner questions (applicant): Commissioner Gonzalez asked whether the parking agreement was recorded or bilateral (Proper Potter confirmed it is recorded as an assurance at the county, and the owner is Joe, a supporter). Commissioner Kaminsky asked why Jackson had not adjusted hours or happy hour (long hours noted on website) to stay within Series 12 parameters rather than pursue a bar CUP (Proper Potter replied that it was too late; the state had already identified the ratio problem, and restaurant hours/happy hours alone would not fix compliance retrospectively). Commissioner Higgs asked for detail on the outdoor patio configuration (Proper Potter described two narrow parcels: one with a small upper patio and the building footprint; one entirely open space, ~2,300 sq. ft. each, buffered by surrounding buildings and the city's parking garage, with a small stage from prior live-music permits, no known issues).

• Council discussion: Commissioner Scarro (Chair) spoke of three criteria—amenities, aesthetics, and economics—noting that while some neighbors dislike a bar conversion, Poor Decisions likely improves on prior problematic operators. He offered a motion for approval. No other commissioners spoke substantively in opposition. Commissioner Joiner then raised the stalled Oldtown noise ordinance, saying he had now requested an update four times and was frustrated. Curtis (staff) initially said the matter was not agendaized for discussion. Joiner pushed back, saying the Loyalty Lounge history and tonight's two noise-related cases prove the ordinance needs updating, and he requested it be agendaized as a non-action informational item for the May 14 meeting. Curtis agreed, noting that Luis Centa (attorney assigned to code enforcement) was the likely lead but that work had been delayed due to recent election changes and management shifts.

• Vote: Commissioner Scarro moved for recommendation of approval (Case 9 UP 2024) per staff-recommended stipulations. Commissioner Joiner seconded. Roll call: Scarro yes, Vice Chair Young yes, Gonzalez yes, Kaminsky yes, Hertell yes, Joiner yes, Higgs yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Opposition

• Number of speakers: Exact count unclear from transcript, but staff noted three additional written comments received after agenda posting (mix of opposition and support). At least one neighbor (Steve Johnson) wrote expressing concerns about prior violence, noise ordinance weakness, and claiming he had been told no new liquor licenses would be granted on Craftsman Court.

• Main concerns:

  1. Prior Loyalty Lounge bar operation (2021–2022) involved shootings, arrests, vandalism, property damage, and excessive noise.
  2. Current noise from an existing grandfathered bar on the street (no conditional use permit) is already problematic and not enforced by city ordinance.
  3. City lacks adequate police patrol resources for the Craftsman Court area.
  4. Scottsdale's noise ordinance provides weak enforcement in mixed-use districts compared to residential zones.
  5. A neighbor claimed they were told no new liquor licenses would be granted on Craftsman Court (Proper Potter and staff noted no city policy supports this).
  6. Screenshots of decibel levels exceeding ordinance limits were submitted.
  7. Concerns that the Poor Decisions kitchen closure and shift to a bar signal a broader move away from restaurant operation toward nightclub-type use.

• Most compelling argument: The specter of Loyalty Lounge's violence (shootings, shell casings recovered from building) created real trauma in the neighborhood. One neighbor (likely Steve Johnson, owner of Craftsman Court property) personally invited the attorney to his house and provided sound recordings to demonstrate ongoing noise violations from another bar. This neighborhood activism demonstrates that residents view any bar license on the street as high-risk and feel abandoned by the city's enforcement apparatus.

• Organized groups: No organized opposition group noted in transcript. Concerns appear to come from individual neighbors, primarily Steve Johnson and possibly one or two others.

Support

• Number of speakers: At least one support letter noted; staff reference to "support from almost every single property owner on the street" per Proper Potter's presentation.

• Main arguments:

  1. Jackson has operated the restaurant cleanly for two years with zero noise complaints, police calls, or violence.
  2. Jackson is a legitimate restaurant operator, not a problematic bar operator.
  3. The Series 6 license conversion is a necessity (state requirement due to kitchen closure disrupting food-to-liquor ratio), not a desired business pivot.
  4. The conditional use permit process provides better enforcement "teeth" than the grandfathered status Loyalty Lounge enjoyed.
  5. Stipulations (food service until 9 p.m., lunch 5+ days/week, voluntary hours, no cover charge) ensure the business operates like a restaurant.
  6. The remote parking agreement with an adjacent property owner who can revoke spaces at short notice gives the most skeptical neighbor direct control and creates powerful incentive for good behavior.
  7. Joe (adjacent property owner), who has owned the property for 30+ years and is aware of prior violence, supports the application and is providing parking free of charge—his endorsement signals confidence.

• Most compelling argument: The two-year clean history (zero complaints, zero police calls, zero violence) combined with the parking revocation stipulation creates an unusual accountability structure that puts enforcement into the hands of a skeptical, knowledgeable neighbor rather than relying on city ordinance. This arrangement shifts risk from the city to a private stakeholder with skin in the game and a direct business relationship with Jackson.

Project Details

• Case number: Case 9 UP 2024

• Applicant / developer: Poor Decisions (bar). Operator: Jackson (restaurant operator, primarily Chandler area). Adjacent property owner providing parking: Joe (30+ years ownership, Fifth Avenue district property).

• Attorney: Lauren Proper Potter, P.O. Box 1833, Tempe, Arizona 85280

• Location / address: Craftsman Court, Fifth Avenue district, Oldtown Scottsdale. Site sandwiched between Craftsman Court and the Fifth Avenue parking garage. Parcel consists of two separate parcels: northern parcel with two-story building; southern parcel entirely outdoor patio.

• APN: Not stated in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Downtown with downtown overlay (both existing and proposed).

• Current use → Proposed use: Restaurant (Series 12 liquor license) → Bar (Series 6 liquor license).

• Density / units / square footage:

  • Interior (main floor + second floor): ~2,300 sq. ft.
  • Outdoor patio (two parcels): ~5,300 sq. ft.
  • Remote parking spaces: 26 (on private property across the street to the west, via evening-use credits from operator's business at ~5 or 6 p.m. onward).

• Changes from previous version: Not a reconsideration. First conditional use permit application for bar use at this location. Prior bar use at site predated city's 2020 conditional use permit requirement for bars, so no grandfathered status. Operator changed from Whining Pig (Case 10 UP 2024, approved separately 6-0) to Poor Decisions.

• Applicant-proposed stipulations (approved as condition):

  1. Food service (including entrées, not just chips/fries) until 9 p.m. on all business days.
  2. Lunch service at least 5 days per week.
  3. Voluntary hour limitations (off-peak season hours to be defined—summer: June–September; winter: December–February, pending clarification).
  4. No cover charge.
  5. All 26 remote parking spaces must come from the single adjacent property owner (Joe). This stipulation allows Joe to revoke parking permission at short notice, creating direct accountability to the neighborhood's most skeptical stakeholder.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 7-0 (recommendation to City Council for approval)

• Yes: Chair Scarro, Vice Chair Young, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Kaminsky, Commissioner Hertell, Commissioner Joiner, Commissioner Higgs

• No: None

• Abstentions / absences: None. All seven commissioners present and voting.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Scottsdale City Council. The recommendation is conditional on the applicant's stipulations as outlined above, particularly the parking revocation clause, which makes Poor Decisions' parking access contingent on maintaining good neighbor relations with Joe, the adjacent property owner who can revoke the agreement with short notice.

Next step: The application proceeds to Scottsdale City Council for final approval or denial. Timeline not specified in transcript.

Concurrent action: Commissioner Joiner secured agreement from staff to agendaize the long-pending Oldtown noise ordinance update as a non-action informational discussion item at the May 14, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Staff (particularly Luis Centa, the attorney assigned to code enforcement) will provide a status update. Curtis noted that work has been delayed due to recent election changes and management shifts and cautioned that the update may not yet be ready for "public consumption," with open houses planned for stakeholders.

Commission transition: The May 14 meeting will be the last for Commissioner Renee Higgs and Commissioner Diana Kaminsky. The Scottsdale City Council will nominate and appoint two new commissioners. No Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 23.

Controversies & Context

The Loyalty Lounge Shadow

The Loyalty Lounge bar operated at or near Craftsman Court in 2021–2022 and became a lightning rod for neighborhood safety concerns. According to opposition emails referenced in the meeting, Loyalty Lounge's tenure involved:

• At least two shootings, with shell casings recovered from the adjacent property owner's (Joe's) building.
• Arrests and vandalism.
• Noise complaints so severe residents could not keep their doors open.
• Excessive trash and human waste.
• What residents characterized as inadequate police patrol response.

Staff clarified that Loyalty Lounge had actually operated as a Series 12 restaurant (not a bar), which may have delayed the city's ability to remove the operator. The conditional use permit process for bars, which emerged around 2020, provides "teeth" (conditions, revocation authority) that the older regulatory regime did not. However, neighbors interpreted Loyalty Lounge's eventual closure as proof that the street is inherently dangerous for bar licenses—a view that colors their opposition to Poor Decisions.

The "No New Licenses" Claim

One neighbor wrote that they had been told "there would be no new liquor licenses granted on Craftsman Court." Both Proper Potter and staff (Curtis) noted that no city policy or restriction supports this claim. It may have been a private statement or misunderstanding, but it reflects neighborhood expectation management that the city may have failed to clarify.

Noise Ordinance Weakness in Mixed-Use Districts

A critical gap in Scottsdale's regulatory framework emerged during questioning. Staff confirmed that the city's noise ordinance provides strong enforcement for residential districts but weak enforcement for mixed-use zoning districts like downtown. This means:

• An existing grandfathered bar on Craftsman Court generates noise complaints that cannot be effectively enforced under code.
• Neighbors have resorted to direct contact with staff and commissioners (Steve Johnson texting Commissioner Kaminsky late at night, inviting her to his house to hear the noise).
• The city lacks systemic ability to police sound in the very districts—downtown, Old Town—where bars and restaurants naturally cluster.

Commissioner Joiner made this gap a focal point, noting that he had requested an Oldtown noise ordinance update four times over recent years and had been told repeatedly it was "in the works" but never delivered. He pointedly said, "I don't know who's in charge of this"—a statement that exposed unclear ownership of the problem. After some back-and-forth, staff identified Luis Centa (attorney, code enforcement) as the lead and admitted the project had been delayed by "election changes and management shifts."

Parking as Accountability Mechanism

The commission approved a parking stipulation that is unusual and arguably bold. Rather than rely on city code enforcement of noise, hours, or cover charges, the commission tied the operator's parking access (and thus his ability to operate at all, since he cannot provide adequate on-site parking) to the satisfaction of an adjacent property owner, Joe. Joe can revoke the parking agreement with short notice, and if he does, Jackson cannot operate. This creates a private enforcement mechanism: Joe becomes a de facto regulator, with power to shut down the bar if he deems Poor Decisions a bad neighbor.

Proper Potter framed this as a strength: Joe has 30 years of ownership, is fully aware of Loyalty Lounge's history (shell casings in his building), and supports Poor Decisions strongly enough to provide parking free of charge. His willingness to take on this role—and his financial interest in keeping the property functioning—align his incentive with the neighborhood's safety interests. However, this arrangement also reveals a regulatory vacuum: the city is outsourcing enforcement to a private party rather than strengthening its own ordinance.

State Liquor Licensing vs. City Control

A brief exchange with legal counsel (Luis Centa) clarified that liquor licenses are issued by the State Department of Liquor Licensing and Control, not the city. The city makes a recommendation, but the state has final authority. Once the state grants or denies a license, the city must follow suit and determine whether a conditional use permit is required. This creates a potential misalignment: the state can issue a license type that the city then has to accommodate through its CUP process, but the city cannot prevent a license type unilaterally. In this case, the applicant sought a Series 6 (bar) license from the state; the city's role is to require a CUP as a condition of local operation.

Duration

• This item (Poor Decisions): Approximately 45–50 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, Q&A, commissioner discussion, motion, and vote).

• Total meeting: Not specified, but the full agenda included roll call, administrative report, approval of minutes, two consent agenda items (Case 10 UP 2024 Orangeedale and Case 14 UP 20112 #3), the regular agenda item (Poor Decisions), and a final discussion on the Oldtown noise ordinance. Estimated total: ~90 minutes.

Other Notable Items

Case 10 UP 2024 Orangeedale Bar (Consent Agenda): Approved 6-0 by the commission (Commissioner Higgs absent during brief presentation). New bar (Series 6) at Bell Road and Thompson Peak Parkway in a shopping center, replacing the Whining Pig (former Series 7 beer/wine retail). One public comment received in opposition, but no further comments. Applicant presented no substantive defense; the decision was routine. Noted because it shows a second bar conversion on the same agenda and occurred with minimal controversy, providing a contrast to Poor Decisions' heated context.

Case 14 UP 20112 #3 (Consent Agenda): Approved 7-0 (Commissioner Higgs recused during presentation). Details minimal in transcript; treated as routine consent item after brief staff presentation.