Planning commission recommends City Council approve ‘Poor Decisions’ bar conditional-use permit in Old Town

The Scottsdale Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend City Council approve a conditional-use permit (CUP) for Poor Decisions, a business on Craftsman Court in Old Town, allowing the business to operate with a Series 6 liquor license and expanded patio use.

The recommendation, made at the Planning Commission hearing, follows a staff presentation on case 9-UP-20-24 and a presentation by the applicant’s representative. Commissioners said the motion was based on staff-recommended stipulations and findings that the CUP criteria were met and that the proposed use conforms with the adopted general plan.

Staff member Casey Stankey of the Scottsdale Planning Department summarized the site and project details, saying the property sits between Craftsman Court and the Fifth Avenue parking garage in the Fifth Avenue district and is subject to the downtown zoning overlay. Stankey said the interior gross floor area is about 2,300 square feet, the combined outdoor patio space is roughly 5,300 square feet, and that repurposing the site from a restaurant to a bar increases parking needs by 24 spaces. He said the applicants propose 26 remote parking spaces across the street and that both the city and the applicant conducted outreach within 750 feet of the site; staff received several public comments both in support and opposition.

Lauren Proper Potter, representing the applicant, told commissioners the owner had expanded food service and hours to demonstrate an ongoing restaurant component and described negotiated stipulations intended to address neighborhood concerns. “We have two years of data here. We have no noise complaints, no issues, no calls for service, acts of violence, nothing like that,” Potter said, adding the operator will offer entrees until 9 p.m. on business days, be open for lunch at least five days a week and will not charge a cover. Potter said the applicant negotiated an agreement for all 26 remote parking spaces with a single property owner directly west of the site; the owner has supported the applicant and made spaces available “free of charge,” she said, while noting the private parking owner may revoke permission and that the city records evidence of the agreement at the county.

Commissioners asked about the history of prior operators on Craftsman Court, noise complaints, how remote parking is secured and whether a city noise ordinance would apply. Stankey said prior operators at the site had generated complaints in earlier years but that some complaints cited in public comment may have been from 2021 or earlier, and that city staff could not independently assess police patrol adequacy. Legal counsel noted liquor licenses are issued by the State of Arizona’s Department of Liquor Licensing and Control and the city’s role is advisory; the state could still determine the license type.

Commissioner questions focused on: the source and recording of the remote parking agreement (Stankey said the parking agreement is recorded at the county and the spaces come from private property immediately west of the site), the definition and measurement of off-peak seasons, remedies if the remote parking agreement is revoked (Potter and staff said loss of the recorded remote parking could leave the CUP out of compliance unless alternative parking or an in-lieu payment to city council was arranged), and whether the city’s noise ordinance protects mixed-use districts (staff said the ordinance is aimed at protecting residential zoning districts and that mixed-use areas are treated differently; the city is working on a noise ordinance update).

After discussion, a motion to recommend approval to City Council for case 9-UP-20-24, per staff-recommended stipulations, passed on a roll call vote: Chair Scarborough — yes; Vice Chair Young — yes; Commissioner Gonzales — yes; Commissioner Kaminski — yes; Commissioner Hertel (recorded as “Hotel”) — yes; Commissioner Joiner — yes; Commissioner Higgs — yes.

The applicant and staff emphasized that the CUP creates enforceable conditions (stipulations) that they say provide more regulatory tools than the prior liquor license status, and the applicant said those stipulations were intended to ensure the business remains a “good neighbor.” The commission’s recommendation now goes to City Council for final action; council review and the state liquor-license decision remain separate processes.