Scottsdale approves Cosanti Commons mixed-use project with 199 units after developer eliminates fourth floor
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — March 21, 2024

Scottsdale approves Cosanti Commons mixed-use project with 199 units after developer eliminates fourth floor

Cosanti Commons mixed-use residential development approved for recommendation to Planning Commission with three-story design featuring 199 units, significant sustainability benefits, and Cosanti Foundation cultural partnership following community height concerns.

Scottsdale Board Approves Three-Story Cosanti Commons After Applicant Drops Fourth Floor in Response to Councilwoman Janik's Community Concerns

The Scottsdale Development Review Board voted unanimously on March 21, 2024, to recommend approval of the Cosanti Commons mixed-use development to the Planning Commission and City Council, but only after the applicant, High Street Residential, agreed to eliminate a fourth story in response to community sentiment and Councilwoman Janik's sustained advocacy. The 6-0 vote came on a project designed to inject $100 million in revitalization into a struggling commercial corridor at North 70th Street and East Shay Boulevard, an area that has seen minimal new investment for decades.

The decision represents a calculated compromise between design aspirations and political reality in Scottsdale's increasingly density-conscious city council. Attorney John Barry, representing High Street Residential, opened his remarks by announcing the voluntary reduction even before staff or the board could ask questions—a strategic move that defused what had threatened to become the meeting's central tension. Yet the enthusiasm expressed by board members Brand and Joiner for the original four-story configuration suggested the issue is not entirely settled and may re-emerge during zoning review.

Key Speeches

"I just want to note that for the record that Mr. Faki is recusing on this item." — Councilwoman Janik, chair, noting the recusal without explanation.

"In recognition of that sentiment and that communication from the community, I would like to let you know that we have opted to eliminate the fourth story on this project. What we will be asking for your recommendation to commission and council on today is a project that is three stories in height, not four." — John Barry, attorney for High Street Residential.

"I kind of want to settle things down. I think there's way too much controversy and I think in my mind to pierce the third story level and go up to the fourth I think that's a bit of an affront to the citizens... I do think it will be a great addition to an area that definitely needs this type of construction." — Councilwoman Janik, explaining her position on height and reiterating the necessity of the project despite her concerns.

"I was surprised to see the fourth floor eliminated because I thought the fourth floor did not detract but added to the potential benefits to the residential area because it increases the number of people would be shopping and using the area." — Board Member David Paser, expressing regret at the height reduction.

"I kind of want to settle things down. I just totally hope that you are able to make the adjustments so that we can proceed with this because I do think it will be a great addition to an area that definitely needs this type of construction." — Councilwoman Janik, encouraging the applicant to move forward despite her prior advocacy for three stories.

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: None appeared in person.

Written or submitted comments: Four comment cards submitted during community outreach meeting, all opposed to the proposal on grounds of density and/or height. One condominium owner (Montera homes subdivision, south side of Shay Boulevard, approximately one block south) submitted email noted in board packet expressing concern about density and height.

Main concerns (from applicant and staff summary):

  1. Building height (four stories) perceived as incompatible with surrounding context
  2. Residential density incompatibility with perceived neighborhood character
  3. General citywide sentiment against increased density in established areas
  4. Potential traffic impacts from residential infill

Most compelling arguments: Councilwoman Janik's direct references to constituent email volume and her characterization of four-story development on Scottsdale Avenue as having "very strong objections" and not fitting the city's evolving standards appeared to carry weight with the board, even though no immediately adjacent single-family residents formally opposed the project.

Organized groups: No organized opposition groups identified in the transcript or background materials.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: None appeared in person; applicant presented directly.

Written or formal support: Staff recommendation for approval (noted in Katie Poler's presentation). Unanimous approval from Scottsdale Airport Commission in February (noted for both three-story and four-story configurations).

Main arguments in support:

  1. Urban revitalization of a struggling commercial corridor (Scottsdale Road/Shay Boulevard intersection area) that has seen minimal investment for decades
  2. Mixed-use format with ground-floor commercial/retail activation creates pedestrian-friendly environment superior to surface-parked detached multifamily typical of R5 zoning
  3. 77% reduction in traffic generation versus permitted commercial uses (retail, restaurants) on the site
  4. 62% reduction in water consumption versus permitted commercial uses; approximately 12 million gallons annual savings
  5. 65% increase in trees, removal of 43% of black asphalt (reduced from 43% to 14%), directly addresses urban heat island goals emphasized in city's recently adopted sustainability plan
  6. 25% open space provision (exceeds 10% minimum requirement) enables enhanced landscaping and tree canopy
  7. Underground parking (eliminates surface parking lot visibility) despite acknowledged astronomical cost burden
  8. Cosanti Foundation partnership implements voter-approved 2035 General Plan goals for cultural partnerships and public art; iconic sculptural art installation at Shea Boulevard entrance; free ground-floor public space and adjacent flex community space for Cosanti art instruction, lectures, and programming for students citywide (Chaparral High School, ASU, U of A)
  9. Continued collaboration with Chaparral High School (prior successful partnership at Goldleaf Commons near Scottsdale Road and Goldleaf Avenue, 600 feet away), including outdoor learning garden for sustainability education, one month free rent for teachers, one month free rent for parents with enrolled students
  10. No short-term rentals or rental arbitrage permitted (to be codified in development agreement)
  11. Unified architectural vernacular with adjacent shopping center (shared materials: stone, standing seam metal roofs, metal shading elements, masonry block)
  12. Enhanced pedestrian connectivity: new 8-foot-wide shaded sidewalk along Shay Boulevard with separation from vehicle lane where topography permits; strong pedestrian connections to existing retail and restaurants; public bike station on Saro
  13. Project density (approximately 199 units, 17.8 units per acre post-reduction) below R5 zoning threshold of 23 units per acre
  14. Building height (three stories) now comparable to height permitted under existing C2C zoning

Board member expressions of support: Vice Chair Joiner stated: "I think this is a project that's well done. It's everything that we want to ask for out of multifamily developers within the city of Scottsdale." Board Member Brand stated: "I think when we start to produce a lot more variety in the housing typology that we have in this city, as well as kind of promoting more of a missing middle type of residential offering... but overall I really commend the applicant team. I think they've done a great job and looking forward to this project specifically improving the area that it's on." Board Member Paser: "I did meet with Mr. Barry earlier on, he explained the project to me. I really like the existing project and I think it's well thought out. I think the benefits to the community are really going to be excellent."

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Outcome & Next Steps

The Scottsdale Development Review Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of case 6-ZN-2023 to the Planning Commission and City Council, contingent on the development plan elements and proposed amended development standards being finalized to reflect the three-story configuration as presented to the board. The motion specified: "move to make a recommendation of the Planning Commission and city council for approval of the proposed development plan elements including proposed amended development standards for case 6-ZN-2023 after determining that the proposal meets the applicable design related considerations... [with] development plan elements including proposed amended development standards as per the case was presented to the drb today with the three-floor version of this project."

Next steps: The case advances to the Scottsdale Planning Commission and City Council for zoning approval. Vice Chair Joiner noted in his remarks that the project will require follow-up DRB review for more finalized construction documents once zoning is approved, as the current renderings and elevations are conceptual.

Conditions/Commitments articulated on the record:

Controversies & Context

Height as the central tension: The reduction from four to three stories represents the meeting's primary point of friction, though the applicant moved to eliminate this debate by announcing the concession at the outset. Councilwoman Janik's sustained advocacy for three-story design derived from what she characterized as citywide community sentiment against density and height. She referenced constituent email volume and specifically cited community opposition to a four-story building on Scottsdale Avenue as evidence of a shifted citywide perspective on appropriate residential scale. However, when pressed by Vice Chair Joiner on whether opposition came from directly adjacent residents, neighbors, or HOAs, John Barry clarified that community outreach had yielded four opposing comment cards (no speaker names or sources identified in transcript) and only one email from a non-adjacent condominium owner south of Shay Boulevard. No immediately adjacent single-family or multifamily residents formally opposed the project.

Board member preference for four stories suggests political tension beneath the surface: Both Vice Chair Joiner and Board Member Brand expressed genuine preference for the four-story design on architectural and economic grounds. Vice Chair Joiner noted that below-grade parking for ground-level unit activation and mixed-use integration justified taller buildings and that compressed density often produces inferior housing typology. Board Member Brand stated: "I was surprised to see the fourth floor eliminated because I thought the fourth floor did not detract but added to the potential benefits to the residential area because it increases the number of people would be shopping and using the area... I would appreciate you're saying Never Say Never and I would hope that consideration would still be given in the future considerations to keeping the four story." Board Member Paser echoed: "I was surprised when you took the fourth story down... I like the force story. I thought it added architecturally to it." John Barry's response—"I'm not a bing man but if I were a bing man you'd say no"—was cryptic language apparently declining to commit that the fourth story would never be revisited during zoning phase. This suggests the height compromise, while politically necessary for Development Review Board approval, may not foreclose future applicant appeals or reconsideration during city council zoning review.

Airport Commission context: Staff and the applicant emphasized unanimous Airport Commission approval for both the three-story and four-story configurations. John Barry noted that unlike a competing multifamily proposal heard by the Airport Commission the month prior (which was recommended unanimously for denial), this project posed no aviation hazards at either height. Even at four stories, clearance remained substantial before triggering Federal Aviation Regulation red-light requirements—Barry cited "an additional 300 plus feet in height" would be needed before mandatory red lights became necessary at four-story height. Councilwoman Janik appeared surprised that the property fell within the airport influence zone at all, but airport approval did not override her community-sentiment-driven advocacy for three stories.

General Plan alignment: John Barry extensively emphasized that the project implements specific voter-approved 2035 General Plan goals for cultural partnerships (specifically naming Cosanti Foundation as the only cultural facility identified in the plan despite its location in Paradise Valley outside Scottsdale city limits), public art integration, and support for established small businesses. The applicant positioned the Cosanti Foundation partnership and public art installation as direct implementation of voter-approved directives, not merely bonus features. This framing positioned density reduction advocates (Councilwoman Janik) within a context of broader civic goals, potentially easing her position.

Urban revitalization framing: Both staff and the applicant characterized the project as essential to reversing decline in a commercial corridor that has stagnated for decades. John Barry noted the closed CVS drugstore just south of the site as evidence of retail distress attributable in part to Amazon competition and short-term rentals (the latter eliminating the demographic that patronizes drugstores and small retailers). The applicant proposed residential infill as a private-sector economic stimulus that requires no taxpayer subsidy—a framing likely resonant with a conservative development-friendly board and council. Vice Chair Joiner explicitly endorsed this rationale, stating: "bringing rooftops... yearround residents to this area with incomes that can walk to these small businesses literally walk 100 feet and be at multiple restaurants and small businesses and enjoy and patronize them and help those businesses" represents sound city policy.

Missing middle housing context: Vice Chair Joiner's extended remarks on housing typology flexibility and "missing middle" residential products (buildings taller than single-family but more varied than surface-parked detached multifamily) indicate broader board concern that Scottsdale's zoning and design approval processes constrain housing diversity. He noted that reliance on R5 density thresholds produces inferior urban form (gated communities, surface parking, limited engagement with community). His suggestion that below-grade parking justifies four- and five-story configurations in certain contexts (rather than current practice of compressing density into singular rectangular products) suggests potential future precedent for taller infill projects with high parking investment.

Chaparral High School partnership: The applicant's prior experience with a successful school collaboration at a nearby project (Goldleaf Commons, 600 feet north, approximately 3/10 mile away) and commitment to continue with Chaparral High School (one month free rent for teachers and parents, outdoor learning garden for sustainability education) appeared to weigh positively with board members, particularly Councilwoman Janik, a former teacher who explicitly praised this element.

Water and sustainability alignment with city council priorities: The applicant's detailed commitment to water conservation (62% reduction versus baseline commercial uses, submetering, voluntary measures beyond code) aligned closely with Scottsdale City Council's recently adopted sustainability plan, which Councilwoman Janik referenced as emphasizing urban heat island mitigation and tree canopy. The 65% increase in trees and conversion of asphalt to open space directly answered council-level sustainability directives. Commissioner Gonzalez's specific questions about water recapture and infrastructure (sewer/water line resizing) and the applicant's confirmation that no infrastructure upgrades would be required appeared to satisfy a major category of potential DRB concern.

No short-term rental prohibition as economic stabilizer: The applicant's commitment to prohibit short-term rentals (to be codified in the development agreement) appeared to be a response to observed CVS closure and retail decline attributed partly to short-term rental demographic drain. Board Member Paser explicitly noted this benefit, stating: "I commend them for having being excluded short-term properties so that the community will indeed receive the benefit that we would like to see." This represents an emerging anti-STR land-use policy flavor in Scottsdale board-level discourse.

Duration

Other Notable Items

No other agenda items were discussed. The development review board meeting consisted solely of administrative items (roll call, public comment, administrative report, minutes approval) and the single Cosanti Commons case. Staff noted that the regularly scheduled April 4, 2024, meeting might not occur if no items are added to the agenda.