Scottsdale unanimously approves $90M Cosanti Commons, 196-unit mixed-use development

Scottsdale Council Backs $90M Cosanti Commons Development Unanimously; Rejects Downtown Fitness Studio Text Amendment 5–2; Approves Sustainability Plan

On December 3rd, 2024, the Scottsdale City Council delivered a split verdict on three major policy items: a clean unanimous approval of a transformative downtown mixed-use project; a decisive 5–2 rejection of a text amendment to permit fitness studios downtown; and a contentious 5–2 passage of the city's first comprehensive Community Sustainability Plan. The meeting, which stretched past 11 p.m., exposed rifts on land-use precedent, environmental policy, and the proper pace of strategic planning.

Cosanti Commons: A $90 Million Bet on Struggling Retail

The evening's marquee moment came when the council voted unanimously to approve Cosanti Commons (also marketed as Sundown Commons), a 196-unit residential development at the northeast corner of East Shea Boulevard and North 70th Street. The project represents a $90 million investment in an area that applicant John Barry and city staff characterized as economically underperforming.

Key Speeches

"We eliminated the fourth floor which resulted in reductions in height and density. I think this is a critical point in the age of Amazon in that aerial photo that staff showed earlier and I know all of you know this intersection well this is an area that has a ton of small businesses and in the age of Amazon retail is struggling particularly in this area." — John Barry, Applicant and Project Representative

"I was on drb when this project came forward and everyone on drb thought that the four story architecture was phenomenal and then I poked a hole in their bubble. I said this is like threading a needle I walk the area there are no four-story buildings there are three story buildings and I don't want to set a new limit or a new high so I was very pleased that the people that represented the developer readily agreed to reduce it two three stories instead of four." — Councilwoman Betty Janik

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: John Barry outlined the project's evolution from a four-story, 240-unit proposal to a three-story, 196-unit plan. He emphasized the partnership with the Cosanti Foundation, highlighting Cante's role as a cultural asset to Scottsdale (though located just outside city limits in Paradise Valley). The foundation would receive free retail and exhibition space, plus air-conditioned classrooms—a critical amenity because Cante's existing structures reach 95–100°F in summer, making educational programming untenable.

• Staff recommendation: Senior Planner Katie Poler presented a favorable staff report noting the project's consistency with the general plan, the removal of one story at the direction of the Development Review Board (chaired by Councilwoman Janik), and three stipulations: maximum height of three stories and 42 feet, density compliance, and building height caps. Staff highlighted the project's provision of 25% open space (vs. 10% required), a 62% reduction in water use compared to-right commercial development, and a 67% reduction in surface asphalt.

• Public comment: Nine speakers addressed the council, all in support. David Turnbull, newly appointed executive director of the Cosanti Foundation, stressed the educational imperative: "The opportunity to have air conditioned space in Scottsdale in a city center location approximate to Cosanti is extraordinary." Other speakers included small-business owners, healthcare workers, and long-term residents who cited the need for workforce housing, the walkability benefits of mixed-use development, and the revitalization potential for the surrounding retail. Jerry Sims, owner of the Safeway Shopping Center directly across Shea Boulevard, issued a written statement of support (read aloud by Miriam Shakur). A speaker named Lee Coffel, serving on the city's Transportation Commission, noted that mixed-use development would reduce vehicle miles: "I think mixed use is probably the best way to address that especially after everything else I've heard here about how there's going to be incentives for Workforce and parents and teachers."

• Council discussion: Vice Mayor Barry Graham expressed initial reservations but concluded supportively: "I like how much is overparked… I like that it doesn't disturb single family neighborhoods in the area… I like that it protects almost all of the retail in the area… [but] after this you know the area is probably full." Councilwoman Caputi praised the applicant's responsiveness: "This is a perfect example of an Adaptive reuse project like the other handful of projects that we approved in the last several years you've got failed commercial being replaced by highquality live work Play. I don't know what reason you would ever give to say no." Councilwoman Janik, who had chaired the DRB hearing, noted the applicant's willingness to reduce from four to three stories without resistance, cementing her support.

• Vote: Unanimous 7–0. (Kathy Littlefield, remote, voted yes.)

Project Details

• Case numbers: 2GP 2023, 6ZN 2023, 3DA 2023
• Applicant / Developer: John Barry, represented by his own firm
• Location / Address: Northeast corner of East Shea Boulevard and North 70th Street
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: C2C P4 (Central Business conditional parking district, established 1980s) → PUD/PSD (planned unit development with planned shared development overlay)
• Units / Square footage: 196 dwelling units; approximately 345,000 square feet of new multifamily residential (three-story); existing commercial buildings (79,200 sq. ft.) retained
• Density: 22 dwelling units per acre
• Key design changes from original proposal: Reduced from four stories and 240 units to three stories and 196 units; building setback from Shea Boulevard increased to 40 feet (vs. 20 feet by-right under C2 zoning); 25% open space provided (vs. 10% required); two underground parking garage levels
• Parking: Overparked by 70 spaces; includes underground parking and remote parking credits via the city's in-lieu parking program
• Amenities / Community commitments: Partnership with Cosanti Foundation including prime retail/exhibition space (at no cost to foundation), air-conditioned flex space for educational workshops and art creation; Cosanti Originals handcrafted bronze and ceramic wind bells available for retail and tourism; public bike station on Saro Drive; annual one-month free rent for Chapparel High School teachers and eligible parents; below-market rents estimated at 18% less than comparable new construction; 10% workforce housing units (approximately 20 units)

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 7–0 (Unanimous)
• Yes: Mayor David Ortega, Vice Mayor Barry Graham, Councilwoman Tammy Caputi, Councilman Tom Durham, Councilwoman Betty Janik, Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield (remote), Councilwoman Solange Whitehead
• No: None
• Abstentions / Absences: None

Outcome & Next Steps

The council adopted four resolutions and one ordinance: Resolution 13137 (minor General Plan Amendment from Commercial to Mixed Use Neighborhoods designation); Ordinance 4639 (zoning map amendment to PUD/PSD with amended development standards); Resolution 13138 (declaring the minor General Plan Amendment and rezoning a public record); and Resolution 13139 (authorizing Development Agreement 4-Z). The project is now eligible to proceed to permitting, subject to the stipulated three-story, 42-foot height limit. The existing commercial buildings on the west side of the property remain in place and will undergo landscaping and pedestrian connectivity upgrades as part of the unified development plan.

---

Pevolve Fitness Studio Text Amendment Denied 5–2

The council's second major land-use vote of the evening ended differently. A proposal by Whitney Goodwin to amend the downtown district zoning code and allow health and fitness studios as a permitted use in the downtown core subdistrict (subject to a 3,000-square-foot size limit) was denied 5–2.

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Senior Planner Katie Poler outlined the applicant-initiated text amendment to amend Ordinance 4554 Section 530004. The proposed change would add health and fitness studios as a permitted use in the downtown core (Type One subdistrict), with two restrictions: maximum 3,000 square feet and all activities must occur indoors (no outdoor fitness). Poler noted that three of the five downtown subdistricts already permit fitness studios by right. Parking would increase from 18 on-site spaces to 21 required, with a deficit of three spaces to be met via in-lieu parking credits. Poler emphasized that the 3,000-square-foot limit aligns with the parking ordinance and matches the ratio for restaurants (1 space per 300 sq. ft.). The city notified 1,250 feet; the applicant held two open houses (two attendees total) and received two phone calls about parking concerns.

• Applicant presentation: Whitney Goodwin introduced Pevolve, a functional fitness boutique focused on small group classes (maximum 21 participants plus one instructor). She emphasized the business model: "this is a more of a small boutique uh group class uh setting this means that we're able to really function in a smaller space like the 3,000 square foot uh limitation that we have in the text amendment… it's very easy with this um method and with that small close proximity of group classes to really build a community." Goodwin highlighted synergies with nearby salons, restaurants, and retail; noted scheduling controls (55-minute classes with 20-minute turnover); and stressed low occupancy (24–25 people maximum in the space at any time). She also noted that peak class times (early morning and evening) fall outside peak downtown parking demand.

• Property owner support: Jennifer Biffer, co-owner of the subject building, spoke in favor, noting complementary schedules (her salon/med spa operate opposite hours to the fitness studio) and unmet demand: "I constantly have people coming in the front door asking me where they can go take a yoga class or work out or find a great coffee… I have nowhere to send them today."

• Council discussion: Vice Mayor Barry Graham opened with skepticism rooted in precedent and parking:

"I share the mayor's concerns on this I as I was studying the packet here you know it's um the um downtown park downtown has a parking problem and um there I believe there's a reason that gyms aren't currently allowed there and so I'm where I'm going with this is I'm on the side of respecting that we know that um gyms have you know they're not especially down the evenings uh but it's you know it's kind of come and go but it's they do have very intense parking demands and um gyms like this don't cater this is a tourism area Walkin shop like the mayor said this is attracting tourists and visitors and gyms tend to more cater to locals and um I think that's something else to consider when you think about this from a uh you know concerns I have as far as precedenti affecting the area how is this precedence going to affect it." — Vice Mayor Barry Graham

Councilwoman Tammy Caputi offered a more nuanced objection:

"my thoughts are that this is not actually a gem that it's kind of a high-end yoga studio and so you've got a handful of folks who are going to use the studio right… your customers are going to be a handful of folks uh mornings mostly and evenings um you know off hours from when the demand would be for most businesses in the area." — Councilwoman Tammy Caputi

She then pivoted to support, noting the low occupancy, the proximity to the Fifth Avenue parking garage, and the alignment with Scottsdale's Blue Zone values. "I can't imagine another use in there that would be less intensive… I don't share the fear that suddenly our downtown area is going to be overwhelmed with um gyms desperate to open up there."

Councilman Tom Durham also supported: "this is only a 3,000 foot facility so it's completely different from the normal health club with lots of weight machines and bicycles and treadmills and things like that… I don't I don't see the problem with this."

However, Councilwoman Solange Whitehead raised the unintended-consequences argument:

"I agree it's a lovely idea I think that the problem many of us have is text Amendments have unintended consequences so I think what probably a lot of us would like to see is a way of moving forward without a text Amendment but I won't support a text Amendment because that does add a broad swath across our downtown." — Councilwoman Solange Whitehead

Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield (remote) concurred, stating hesitation to "open the door on this."

• Vote: Motion to deny Ordinance 4654 passed 5–2.

Opposition

• Number of speakers: None formally against during public comment.

• Main concerns articulated by council majority:

  1. Parking pressure: Downtown already has a documented parking deficit; fitness studios generate intense, unpredictable demand.
  2. Precedent risk: A text amendment, even with a 3,000-sq.-ft. cap, opens the door to other franchise fitness operators and could alter the character of the downtown core retail district.
  3. Use mismatch: Fitness studios attract locals, not the tourists and walk-up retail customers the downtown core is designed to serve.
  4. Alternative solutions: Applicant should pursue a conditional use permit or architectural certificate of design review, not a blanket text amendment.
  5. Unintended consequences: Text amendments, once adopted, are difficult to limit and can cascade into similar requests.

• Organized opposition: None identified.

Support

• Number of speakers: Two: Jennifer Biffer (property owner/building co-owner) and Whitney Goodwin (applicant).
• Main arguments:
  1. Complementary schedules: Biffer's salon/med spa operate opposite hours, avoiding parking conflicts.
  2. Unmet demand: Residents and workers in the area lack convenient fitness options within walking distance.
  3. Low occupancy: Maximum 24–25 people in the space; scheduled classes with predictable turnover (20 minutes between sessions).
  4. Off-peak timing: Classes scheduled early morning and evening, outside peak downtown demand.
  5. Proximity to alternative parking: Fifth Avenue garage is a four-minute walk away and regularly has availability.
  6. Blue Zone alignment: Supports Scottsdale's reputation as a health and wellness community.
  7. Small-footprint design: 3,000-sq.-ft. limit means only boutique, specialized fitness (not large gyms with weight machines and treadmills) can succeed.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 5–2 (Motion to deny)
• Yes (to deny): Vice Mayor Barry Graham, Councilwoman Tammy Caputi, Councilwoman Solange Whitehead, Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield (remote), and one other council member (individual votes not named in transcript).
• No (to deny, i.e., in favor of the amendment): Councilman Tom Durham, and one other council member (individual votes not named in transcript).

Outcome & Next Steps

Ordinance 4654 is denied. Pevolve and the property owner may pursue alternative pathways (e.g., conditional use permit, design review for a different use, or reapplication with substantial project modifications), but a text amendment to add fitness studios as a permitted use in the downtown core is off the table for the foreseeable future.

---

Scottsdale Community Sustainability Plan: Approved 5–2 After Hours-Long Debate

The council's final major item was the adoption of the Scottsdale Community Sustainability Plan—a multi-year, citizen-driven, aspirational (non-mandatory) policy document addressing energy, water, waste, air quality, and extreme heat mitigation. After public testimony from 15 speakers (predominantly youth and business advocates), six separate motions to amend specific targets, and extended council debate touching on climate skepticism, misinformation, and the proper timing of strategic planning, the plan passed 5–2.

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Sustainability Director Lisa McNelly briefly recapped the plan's three-year gestation (beginning June 2021 with ASU support), emphasizing the extensive community input: two 90-minute workshops in September 2024 with nearly 70 attendees and ~200 comments; over 14 public speakers in support at prior meetings; dozens of written submissions. McNelly explained the document's structure: five elements (Energy, Water, Waste, Air Quality, Extreme Heat) with non-mandatory strategies, indicators, and implementation tables. She highlighted recent edits (in red font for Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission recommendations; in blue for staff clarifications) and noted the plan is aspirational, with no enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or mandates.

• Public comment (15 speakers, ~90 minutes total):

  • Youth voices: High school students Lila Yang, Freya Carvey, Emerson Randall, and Taliana Altco spoke passionately about air quality, heat, and water scarcity. Yang lamented walking on campus seeing pollution haze and felt despair about a future where outdoor activity becomes impossible. Randall addressed the "culture of hopelessness" around climate and praised the opportunity for dialogue and action.
  • Environmental professionals: Dr. Uta Brady, chair of the Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission, confirmed SEAC's unanimous endorsement and noted the plan's collaborative, multi-year development. Tim Whitney, Eagle Scout and co-founder of Circular Earth (a green business consultancy), highlighted SEAC members' expertise (doctors, nonprofit directors, finance experts) and underscored Scottsdale's existing achievements (133% reduction in family household landfill use since 2009; 7% greenhouse gas reduction in recent years).
  • Business advocates: Jason Lowry, director of sustainability initiatives for Local First Arizona (representing 125+ locally owned Scottsdale businesses), stated that small businesses want city guidance to reduce environmental footprint and save costs. Ryan Johnson invoked Georgetown, Texas (100% renewable energy by a Republican mayor and council) and Phoenix's LED street light conversion ($4.3 million annual savings) as cost-effective precedents.
  • Residents and property owners: Multiple speakers tied sustainability to property values, quality of life, and economic resilience. Brandon Putman, a parks and recreation professional, noted that sustainability attracts corporate investment and skilled workers. Tammy Bossy, a former commissioner, equated environmental stewardship with economic prudence: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
  • Medical perspective: Dr. Tara Alagard, a medical oncologist and SEAC member, framed sustainability as a health plan, linking environmental quality to healthcare costs and pandemic-revealed strain on the medical system.

• Council amendments and discussion: Councilwoman Betty Janik, who led the amendment process, moved to accept SEAC and staff edits (striking red-font deletions, affirming red-font additions and blue-font clarifications). Five subsequent motions amended specific targets:

  1. Energy targets (page 10): Janik moved to remove the long-term 90% greenhouse gas reduction targets (both city-wide by 2050 and municipal by 2050), retaining only the near-term 45% reduction targets (by 2035). Her rationale: focus on achievable near-term goals. Motion passed 5–2 (Barry Graham and Kathy Littlefield dissenting).

  2. Water targets (page 11): No amendment; Janik noted Scottsdale's 133% household water reduction since 2000 and expressed confidence in continued progress.

  3. Waste targets (page 12): Councilwoman Solange Whitehead moved to reduce residential landfill diversion targets (25% by 2030, dropping the 90% long-term goal) and municipal targets (35% by 2030, dropping 90%), reasoning that the city should prioritize apartment and condo waste reduction (populations without current recycling access). The motion also added a residential and commercial food waste collection service target. Motion passed 5–2 (Kathy Littlefield dissenting).

  4. Air quality (page 13): Janik moved to amend "reduce Municipal Fleet fuel use" language to "reduce Municipal Fleet fuel use consistent with Fleet replacement schedule," ensuring vehicle retirements follow existing cost schedules rather than forcing accelerated replacement. She also deleted target numbers and dates for publicly available EV charging ports, allowing market-driven expansion. Motion passed 5–2 (Kathy Littlefield dissenting).

  5. Extreme heat (page 14): Janik stated no motion; noted new research showing tree bark breaks down methane (28 times more potent than CO₂) and emphasized the importance of canopy expansion.

• Council debate: The substantive discussion revealed two ideological camps:

  In favor (Durham, Caputi, Janik, Solange Whitehead):

  • Councilman Durham stressed cost savings (solar installation cut his July bill 37% year-over-year), the absence of mandates or enforcement, and market-driven uptake.
  • Councilwoman Caputi rejected the "false choice" between sustainability and economic development, noting that Scottsdale's 40% preserve and 50% single-family zoning require careful stewardship of the remaining buildable land. She also disputed claims of "mandates," pointing out that Green Building Codes do impose requirements on commercial and multifamily projects but this plan does not.
  • Councilwoman Janik delivered an extensive historical summary of Scottsdale's sustainability journey: the 2001 General Plan (unanimously adopted, voter-ratified) with six subcommittees; the 2021 General Plan 2035 update (with sustainability element); the 2022 heat mitigation studies; the 2024 Proposition 490 (15% sales tax for parks and preserve, passed despite opposition); and now this sustainability plan. She framed the plan as the fourth "round" of a civic commitment and rebutted "suspension and innuendos," citing false claims circulating on Nextdoor about espionage, forced EV purchases, and wealth redistribution.
  • Solange Whitehead also noted the plan's alignment with Scottsdale's "Blue Zone" values and praised the SEAC's diversity and expertise.

  In opposition (Barry Graham):

  • Barry Graham questioned why the plan was not adopted pre-election if it enjoyed such support, implying political timing. He also challenged the distinction between "aspirational" goals and de facto mandates, arguing that staff will execute whatever council adopts as policy (citing the "roundabouts first" policy, which he said led to a costly, unnecessary roundabout at Scottsdale Road).
  • Barry Graham moved to continue the vote to the second meeting in January 2025, allowing the incoming council to weigh in (Lisa Borowsky, Adam Kwasman, and MaryAnn McAllen were elected in November). His motion died for lack of a second (only Kathy Littlefield indicated support).

  Kathy Littlefield (remote, abstaining substantively):

  • Kathy Littlefield voted no on most amendments but did not deliver extended remarks; her emails to constituents pre-May were cited by Councilman Durham as triggering the earlier postponement request.

• Vote: Motion to adopt Resolution 1338 (the sustainability plan as amended) passed 5–2.

Vote Breakdown

• Final (all amendments and final adoption): 5–2
• Yes: Councilman Tom Durham, Councilwoman Tammy Caputi, Councilwoman Betty Janik, Councilwoman Solange Whitehead, Mayor David Ortega
• No: Vice Mayor Barry Graham, Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield (remote)
• Abstentions: None

Outcome & Next Steps

The Scottsdale Community Sustainability Plan is now officially adopted by council resolution. The document is aspirational and non-mandatory; staff will implement strategies and track progress against the five elements (energy, water, waste, air quality, extreme heat) and their amended targets. An annual report will assess progress. The plan is a "living document" subject to refinement as implementation unfolds. The incoming council (taking office January 14, 2025) will inherit stewardship of the plan.

---

Controversies & Context

Timing and Political Narrative

Vice Barry Graham challenge to the plan's timing illuminates a fault line. The council had initially scheduled the vote for May 2024 but postponed after Kathy Littlefield (then-candidate for mayor, who did not win re-election) circulated emails with sustainability plan critiques to constituents. The postponement was framed as an opportunity for additional community input. However, Councilman Durham directly rebutted this narrative:

"in may this was put on our agenda and Kathy Littlefield sent out a email to his list uh with a lot of misinformation uh asking his friends to bombard us with cut and paste emails filled with disinformation and as a result of that hey bab as a result of that um I asked to postpone the vote so that we could get more public input and we did get more public input and that public input was very favorable to adoption of the plan." — Councilman Tom Durham

The September 2024 workshops and subsequent outreach yielded overwhelmingly supportive feedback. The council then voted 5–2 to agendize the plan in December, post-election.

Misinformation and Nextdoor

Councilwoman Janik's closing remarks directly addressed what she characterized as false claims circulating on Nextdoor:

"I believe that most of the information on next door is false I would recommend that the people who are against it go back and read the plan and study and if they have questions Google that question but read sources that are reliable from accepted universities or uh schools um the problem is we have people who are spreading very false information on next door it gets everybody riled up it divides our community none of us want that." — Councilwoman Betty Janik

Examples of disputed claims, per council remarks: mandatory EV purchases, surveillance of home energy use, forced water rationing, loss of property rights. Council members consistently rejected these as unfounded.

State Preemption and Municipal Authority

The plan's non-mandatory nature is critical. Arizona is a Dillon's Rule state, meaning cities possess only the powers explicitly granted by state law. The plan does not attempt to impose mandates on residents or businesses; it guides municipal operations and encourages (but does not require) private-sector and residential action. This distinction proved central to the debate: opponents questioned why a non-binding plan matters; proponents argued that aspirational goals aligned with general plan principles and voter-approved measures (Prop 490, Prop 491) signal community priorities and influence staff decision-making.

Age and Generational Divide

One of the evening's most striking elements was the prominence of youth voices. Four high school students and one high school alumnus testified, emphasizing air quality, heat, water scarcity, and the psychological toll of climate anxiety. Their testimony appears to have resonated with the majority; Janik and Caputi both cited the young people's remarks as motivating their support. Barry Graham did not directly address the youth testimony.

---

Duration

• Cosanti Commons item (Item 19): Approximately 90 minutes (presentations, public comment, council discussion, vote)
• Fitness studio text amendment (Item 15): Approximately 45 minutes
• Sustainability Plan (Item 20): Approximately 180 minutes (presentations, 15 speakers, six council motions, extended debate)
• Total meeting: Approximately 5.5 hours (called to order ~6:00 p.m., adjourned ~11:30 p.m.)

---

Other Notable Items (Brief)

Scottsdale Ambulance Service Launch: City Manager Jim Thompson announced the launch of Scottsdale's first municipal ambulance service in January 2025, with three ambulances and phased rollout. The program addresses the fact that 72% of Scottsdale Fire Department calls are medical-related.

Digital Governance Award: Scottsdale earned the #1 ranking in the Center for Digital Government's digital cities awards, recognizing excellence in leveraging technology for citizen services, privacy, transparency, and constituent engagement.

Dog Park Signage Issue: Public commenter Steve Sutton raised concerns about "sign blindness" at the dog park where small and large dog area designation signs were switched, allowing dogs of all sizes to mix. He recommended more visually distinct signage to prevent confusion.