Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

the July 20th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Can we do roll call?

Yes, sir. Commissioner Kennedy. Here. Commissioner Glasscott.

Here.

Commissioner Hellman. Here. Commissioner Rothrock. Present. Vice Chairman Camillo. Present. And Chairman Gavison.

Present. Thank you very much. The first item on our agenda will be a Pledge of Allegiance. If I could get everybody to stand, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you all very much. There are call to the public or request to speak forms at the very back of the room at the doorway when you came in. If you wish to speak on any item tonight, if you could fill those out as quickly as possible and get them to us before the item is actually heard, that would be great. And we will give you the ability to speak on any of those items as we discuss them. Also, at the very end of the meeting, we have another call to the public should you wish to speak about something that is not an agenda item tonight. So if you want to speak, grab a form, fill it out for the clerk, please. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda will be approval of the minutes for the regular meetings of April 20th. May 18th and June 15th. We're going to attack these one at a time. Did anybody have any corrections or modifications they would like to make to the April 20th, 2026 meeting? Can we get a motion?

I motion to approve the April 20th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Second.

We have a motion and second for April 20th, 2026. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Passes unanimous. Thank you very much. May 18th, 2026. Were there any corrections and modifications that anybody saw that they would like to have done to those minutes before we move to approve them? If not, we'll accept a motion to approve. I'll move to approve. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion, we have a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimous, thank you very much. June 15th, 2026. Are there any modifications or approvals that need to be, or modifications or changes that need to be done to that set of minutes that anybody would like before we move to approve? If not, we'll accept a motion to approve.

So moved.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Passes unanimous. Thank you very much. Next item on our agenda is informational reports and updates. Ms. Rial.

Good evening, Commissioners. I have a few updates. The first one being on tomorrow's City Council agenda, there will be an interview conducted by the City Council of one planning and zoning candidate, and that would be Matthew Nasuti. And then also on tomorrow's agenda, there will be a presentation by the consultant that the city hired on legislative updates. So I don't know if you want to watch that and get updated on what happened with the legislature this session. Another update is on August 17th, there'll be the consultant that was hired to do the housing plan for City of Cottonwood. They'll be here to give, not here, they're going to do a virtual presentation for you. They are going to the next City Council agenda, so I think the one in August, to give the presentation to the City Council. And then just as a reminder, we have the Old Town Master Plan questionnaire. It is still up and available until the end of July. And then last but not least, don't forget that we have two remaining board and commission trainings, handbook trainings. And the second one is tomorrow, July 21st from 1 to 3 here in the chambers. And then the third one is July 27th from 10 to noon here in the chambers. So please attend one if you haven't already done so.

Great. Thank you very much.

Commissioners, just as a reminder, as Ms. Rial said, you were all sent a link to the Old Town Master Plan discussion, asking some questions so the consultant has a better idea of what they are hearing from the public. Also, for anybody in the public, it is on the city website as well. If you have any concerns or questions or want to share your opinion about anything happening with Old Town, that questionnaire is a way for you to get your opinions or your beliefs to the consultant so he can make sure he adds it into the plan as he presents it back to council at some point in the near future. So with that we'll move on now to new business. The first business will be public hearing for CUP 26004 and we will be taking that as a discussion concurrent with APN are with DR Design Review 26012. They're both the same property, both the same project. We will be attacking the conversation as one. And then when we get around to the vote, we will ask for separate motions for each of those as we move forward. Good evening.

Good evening chairman Garrison commission, I'm Tina Hayden, your senior planner presenting on items one and two for the conditional use permit and design review for the project known as the backyard at old town. Couple of details here applicant is per requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the outdoor event space could excuse me, we don't have a TV can we get.

Is that still called a TV?

And then all the other TVs blacked out.

Well, whatever it is. It's a screen of pictures. We'll give it just a second so technology can catch up with you. Oh, we still don't have it.

There it is.

Okay. We trust you. There we go. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Ms. Hayden. You can continue, please.

All right. Presenting on the design review and conditional use permit for the backyard old town project. Just a couple of details to note. The conditional use permit is to allow the use for outdoor event space. The design review is for the design features of that northern back portion of the lot. Project is located at 775 North Main Street. You can see my map here. We have Third Street here, Main Street here, and the project site just on the north side of Main Street.

It is zone C1, like commercial zoning district, approximately half acre.

I would like to note that there was a previous design review approval last year that notated a trash enclosure in the space that's being presented to you tonight. Applicant is proposing to move that into the building number two storage bay. Here we have an aerial of the site. Again, you can see Main Street here, Third Street here, Sedona's here to the west, and then the project site. Right back here is where the applicant is proposing changes. Moving on to actual current site conditions, I would like to note my north arrow here to help you get your bearings about where we're looking. On the top, Here we're looking westward towards Old Town. The bottom we're looking eastward towards 10th Street and Main Roundabout. We have site views. This is the area where the applicant is proposing to develop that backyard. We'd note that there is a wooden fence there currently. I'd also point out that on this bottom photo, this is looking eastward at the existing church building on the other site and a single family residence as well. additional views of the subject site here we have our backs towards north main street so you can see the existing work being done on the buildings that were previously approved with last year's design review approval on the bottom here we have the adjacent single family residence to the south across main street Here we've moved over to 3rd Street so you can get a view of those adjacent uses to the east. On the top image we have that church. You can see that fence bordering the project site. And then on the bottom image we have that single family residence and again that fence bordering the project site. Applicant has presented a site plan and landscape plan. The access way is still the same. Ingress is granted on 77 North Main, the adjacent property to the west. One-way access throughout and then exits onto Main Street on this property. Landscape here will remain as is. Applicant is proposing additional landscaping to beautify the area for his event space. Here is a zoomed in version of that site plan. We indicated in the staff report that there were some concerns with pedestrian access to the site. Just pointing out, we have the parking here in blue and here. And then we have a loading space here noted in purple. And then the applicant did indicate an ADA accessible path. This red arrow highlights that pathway. As you can tell, we have a pinch point here. If the site was fully parked, accessibility would be lacking. Applicant has provided a rendering. Their intent is to have outdoor dining, a food truck here. They did indicate in the letter of intent that they will have electrical hookups for the food truck, that there will not be a generator operating on site. In order for the commission to approve a conditional use permit, they do have to make the findings regarding general findings, compatibility with surrounding uses and traffic circulation. Uh, we have provided some findings there regarding general findings. The project site is located in the existing arts culture and entertainment district. Um, and the use of outdoor entertainment is subject to limitations regarding hours of operation and noise. regarding compatibility with surrounding uses. I did point out the properties to the east, the church and the single family residents. Those are lower impact uses compared to the high impact use that the applicant is proposing. Their hours of operations and the days of operations vary. The events also can vary, so it could impact adjacent lower impact uses specifically to that east lot line. regarding traffic and circulation. Staff does have concerns with the proposed parking layout and that it would impact pedestrian access to the space as I described in that previous site plan. If the commission desires to approve the conditional use permit staff recommends three stipulations. The first one that the conditional use permit is also subject to approval of the accompanying design review per approval. Second stipulation that any change, including an expansion of the use, uh, shall adhere to the zoning ordinance. And then the last one that the project shall adhere to the code review comment letter that was given to them. Then staff also has recommendations for stipulations for design review. To summarize, stipulation 1 is that the design review is subject to approval of the conditional use permit. Stipulation 2, that the project conform with the plans on file with our department. stipulation 3 that the project adhere to the code review board comment letter given to them stipulation 4 that the project adhere with our zoning all applicable sections of the zoning ordinance stipulation 5 that the area for trash disposal is made accessible to patrons stipulation 6 that a zoning clearance application be submitted and diligently pursued within 24 months of approval and then stipulation 7 that any lighting indicated is for reference purposes only Our recommendation is denial for both the conditional use permit and the design review application based on the findings that we presented. i would like to point out that we have heard from one member of the public who did have concerns they're the adjacent property of patrons using their site when that place is closed i think there was additional concerns about you know competition and food service but it is a c1 property a restaurant is a permitted use on the site This is a public hearing process. I am ready for any questions you may have. I also have the applicant present to answer any questions as well.

Great. Are there any questions from the commissioners to Ms. Hayden before we bring the applicant up? Everybody's okay?

I'd like to get another look at this pinch point you were talking about with the ADA egress so are they unable to get in to the left of the arrow there where the arrow is at a at an angle it has hc number and a number nine

We're talking right below where you're at right there.

Is that a parking space?

It's my understanding because we have a parking stop here that this is a stall.

Okay. So could the applicant not have that be a parking space?

it would reduce their parking so it's been determined that they're we're recommending that their required parking be 14 stalls it would reduce it to 13 stalls now per the design review staff does have a recommendation of one parking stall for every 300 square feet which this assembly area is 3 000 square feet you know which would require 10 stalls this is an unlisted use subject to approval with the planning and zoning commission okay uh could you please um

delineate the traffic flow a little better in and out of the property?

Yes. So I'll just switch to this site plan off site. So here's the property and Right here off site is the entrance point. So on the adjacent property to the west, there is an agreement recorded and on file that each property have access throughout each other's property here. So you would enter through the Sedona parking lot here, navigate your way through here and then down and over to Maine again.

And so the concerns about pedestrian and bicycle traffic have to do with that part or with what I'm looking at now?

Our concern is with this called out ADA accessible path and that if this site was fully parked, it would not be accessible.

Can you move the mic just a little closer?

I can try. So the area to the left of the blue parking spots, is that not open into this area? Is there a fence there? Why can't you walk around the blue parking spots and access it?

It can definitely be accessed. I'm going to switch back. So here's the rendering first that was provided. It looks like there is a way to circumnavigate the parking stalls and then enter the site here. I'm not aware of any step up, any curbing or anything from this rendering. It's not indicated that there's going to be steps or curbing there. Going back here, I will point out this is that one-way access through the site. So I'll just point that out to you. I don't, you know, for your determination and if that's acceptable.

Okay. so there's not room to remove the parking space on the right and put another one on the left and still have traffic flow is that correct uh thank you for that commissioner hellman uh this dimension this

We did reach out to fire department to determine if this was acceptable with these dimensions. They just said that it needs to adhere to the international fire code. So they have not commented on that, but we would recommend against moving any parking stalls here over here and making an even worse pinch point for that one way access.

Any other questions, Ms. Hellman? Ms. Kennedy, any more questions?

No, sir.

Commissioner Camillo? No, sir. Commissioner Rothrock?

All good for now.

All right, perfect. Thank you very much. Ms. Hayden, can we get the applicant to come up, please? Sorry.

No, no, that's all right. No, no, you're good. It's all right.

Thank you for being here. Can you tell us anything that we may have missed or we may need to know that would give us a better idea of kind of some of the staff concerns?

Yeah, I was a little confused why the city staff is recommending denial of this application just for the reasons you all just discussed, because we can reconfigure the parking to allow better ADA access and pedestrian access. I am unfamiliar with how much room we need on either side of the striped area to allow that access, but I'm pretty sure we can just move some of the parking over to allow better access, or they can just go around to the left as you pointed out. But I'm pretty sure we can just reconfigure this portion of the parking to accommodate design standards Another thing that I would propose maybe is just reducing the seating and assembly area by approximately 300 feet to reduce the parking requirements to 13 spaces and we can just kind of, I guess, shorten the scale of this project. So that would be another alternative versus moving the spaces over. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I'm just I'm just trying to work it through in my head where you know how you would do that.

I mean, and so I guess I would propose here that we just move the parking over, you know, however much is required. I think ADA standards are typically four foot aisle, something along those lines. So we could just move it over four feet. um if that would be sufficient or we can even move this section of the parking up four to five feet to allow access this way but i don't see any reason why we can't just move make room over here for access

Well, I'll chime in real quick while you're pointing that out specifically. I was noticing in the plans that were presented with our packet, if you look just below where you've got your pointer now, those two spaces are significantly shorter than the other spaces in your parking plan. And I think one of the concerns I had was if you get a handicapped vehicle in your handicapped space and you get a truck, in the space, you've got the pointer right now. Neither one of those people are getting out and there's definitely no room to get a wheelchair through there. So that that would be a concern. Sure.

I mean, I've seen these parking configurations before. I think they call them zero degree or whatever it is. So I assume that it works in some cases. But I see what you mean. If you have a large vehicle, perhaps it wouldn't work as well. But I think the thought here is that if someone were to park on either sides of the striped aisle, that they would just back out and curve back and then exit out that way. Same thing here is that they would just back out straight and move out that way. But to your point, we could just, again, extend this striped area another four to five feet just to make a little bit more room if that would satisfy the parking requirements. And we should still have enough space to accommodate 14 spaces.

Okay. Yes. Yes, Ms. Hellman. Commissioner Hellman.

I would think that those blue spaces that we were just talking about, the ones that are horizontal, if it was angled, would that make a, I mean, to me, you're going to have to present a new parking plan. in order to make this, because just saying that it will work isn't enough. We need an engineer, I would think, to design it for approval. And I don't know, just looking at it, it's like maybe angled parking spaces right there would help solve that issue.

Um, I'm not sure if I, if I understand, but, uh, we can certainly submit another parking plan. Um, but I don't, I don't see how this is much different than any other parking lot. That's in a grocery store or, or other retail spot. I mean, I, I understand that y'all would like a little bit more room here. And I, and again, I think we can accommodate that. But as far as the angles and everything, I've tried to illustrate here where you might have an approach. So it would be straight and then backed in, right? And then you can just easily pull out. And there's multiple... angles and ways you could do that with with the way this is configured, at least in my mind. But I'm happy to resubmit another parking plan and have an engineer involved if that's what you'll prefer.

Yeah, I don't know if that's what we need, but to me, it seems like that would be what the commission needs or the the planning or the community development department. I don't know. OK.

Miss Kennedy.

The flow of traffic coming in. Is that a one way? Yes, yeah, I I think that the angled parking. Would probably work better there. I don't know how that affects your space.

Yeah, so the idea, excuse me, one way going this way. So you can see here, there's three spaces here. That's pretty easy to access. For these spaces, you would just go straight and then back in. For these spaces closer to the striped area.

You're going to sign up and tell people that they're going to back into the parking place because.

Oh, we certainly can. You know, if I mean, I have seen that before. They got plenty of them back in Austin where I'm where I'm from. There's mandatory backing in parking spaces.

I don't think that you're going to get that.

yeah sure i mean um i think it can work is is my point so i would hate for this project to just get outright denied based on um a configuration problem that can be solved so i would just ask you know for you all to work with me and try to figure out a solution anything else miss kennedy mr kennedy the only question i had is there

The food truck. Takes quite a lot of power. I see where you have. An existing panel there, so I assume you have a 50 amp service or something back there.

It is a standard pedestal, which I think is 200 amp service, OK? So there should be plenty. And we're not proposing any more than one food truck at this time.

You could all right. I'm sure Rotherock you have some questions for the applicant.

I don't have any questions it just seems like. Staff and the applicant could sit down and come up with some plan that allows us to go forward.

I don't know that's exactly my thoughts yeah.

Commissioner Kamala, Vice Chair. A couple things. What's that, where that red line starts, what's that circle looking thing that looks like kind of a pizza that's half sliced, what's that?

The red line and the circle thing, where?

Down below, lower. I can see it on mine. It's right at the bottom of the screen.

I think that's a tree.

What's that right there?

That is a tree canopy. Okay. Yeah, so there's like a little what we call it a I guess a landscaping island back here with a with a pine tree. So that's about the, you know, the width of the canopy.

And is the food truck going to be there all the time? There's gonna be different ones.

Well, that has yet to be determined. I guess it depends on our agreements with whatever vendors come here. But it's my understanding that a commissary requires for a food truck to be on off the site every four days. So really, we're only thinking, you know, being operated for four days a week, basically.

How are you going to get that food truck in and out of there?

so they'll have to be entering off hours and again we would have signs posted saying no parking between you know uh 7 p.m and uh 10 a.m or something like that and that would allow access but we don't expect you know them to be moving very frequently so i don't think that it would be a problem as far as access for the for the mobile food units Yes, ma'am.

What besides a food truck are you planning on doing there when you say event space?

yeah so i think maybe there's been a little bit misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the space i like to think of it as a food truck park with events so it's it's food focused first um and then every occasionally we may have like pop-up vendors on the weekends uh you know um maybe a bouncy castle for you know a family-friendly event but overall it's just it's it's food focused if that makes sense. So it's not like we're going to have rock concerts here or motorcycle rallies or anything like that. This is just a food park with events is kind of how I think of it. And they're programmed, of course, you know.

Any other questions? I saw the hours were till when? 8?

Yeah, I mean, we're thinking it's really kind of what I guess the community, what the demand is. But we are thinking, you know, approximately 10 AM to 7 PM, maybe 8 PM on the weekends or something like that.

So I have a question about the space where the events or the food truck will be stationed. So is it going to be, are the tables and canopies going to stay there all the time? Is the area going to be secure so that when nobody's there and there's no event going on, people can't go in and hang out? Do you foresee it being kind of like a quiet little hangout place for people when nothing's going on?

I think that's where we want to get to with this space eventually. But funding is a limitation right now. Right now, we're going to redo the fence in the back and have it nice hog wire and steel posts, replace the wooden fence along this segment. Eventually, maybe we would like to have more secure fencing in front, just extend the hog wire fencing in front as funds allow. And of course, that would have to be permitted. But as far as the seating and stuff, we're just thinking it's... just temporary seating for now but ultimately we may have more permanent infrastructure but we just kind of want to feel it out first so it's seating that won't be it won't be taken down every time set up taken down it'll remain there even if it's temporary correct I think most likely it will be taken down at least when it's not open

Can I get you to move your mic a little closer yet? Because the audience is having a hard time hearing you. Thank you. All right. I think we've run out of questions for the moment. Yes, sir. Mr. Rothero.

Can you tell me more about the fencing?

Yes, it's. Hog wire fencing, which is just kind of like a grid, like a steel grid. And then we're thinking like eight-foot posts, basically. So five to six feet in height. It would be very presentable. It would look nice.

Will it be a buffer between this project and the church and...

So we have an existing fence on the eastern property line right now, which is wooden. And we would just replace the pickets there to make it look nicer. There's currently like a chain link fence along the property line. Yeah, this is this is like that the blowout creek area. So there's like a creek or watershed here. But we would be putting the hog wire fence basically along this segment of the property line. Area here is actually in the Creek.

OK, now I see a solid solid wooden fence.

Along this along, yes, replace pickets on existing solid wooden fence and then hog wire fence panels between steel posts along rear perimeter. So we're talking about. Approximately 120 feet of hog wire fence panels. But again, these would be very nice looking fence panels.

OK. That's all right.

All right. We do have some members of the public who would like to speak. Can we go up and call out our first?

Lynette Gilkey. Hold on. Excuse me one moment. Before you step off, can you just please announce who you are for the record via mic?

Me?

Yes, please.

Sean Ragsdale.

Thank you. When you come up, please state your name. And if you have an affiliation, that would be great. We need that for the public record. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Lynette Gilkey. My husband and I own Sedona, which is the adjacent property at 777 North Main. And our current business hours are 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. And we're here today to determine how this proposal would affect the current parking and also the current traffic flow that our business relies on every day. So we are required by the city to have 16 parking spaces. And on our property, we only have 12. So we have a parking easement with that property in order to accommodate all of the spaces that are required to operate our business. So that's our biggest concern is what does this look like for our business? What does this look like when it's fully parked? Are there are there spots that were there before that our customers were relying on that we were using as part of that shared parking that are now not going to be there? any longer I submitted photographs of days that our business is open so that you guys could see how our parking lot looks on days that we are open and how active the parking lot is and how heavily it is used during our normal business hours so we're just concerned and these these pictures that I submitted were taken without these businesses even being open. So just to kind of give you an idea of this is during the time that only Sedona's is there and only Sedona's is open. So our concern is just like the increase of use, the demand of the same parking area. How are we going to accommodate all of that parking supply? That's our main concern with the use of this property. And then I wasn't able to determine based on the presentation if the traffic circulation changed at all because that's a traffic circulation that our business and businesses before it have relied on for a number of years. Also, in regard to moving parking stalls, we get deliveries. We get semi-truck deliveries of food service products that have to be able to turn around in that one way. So we have concerns with that as well. Another thing with us is like if we move the parking that our customers are using, our customers are primarily locals. They're seniors that come visit us. They visit us every morning. The parking lot's uneven. There's a big incline to get up to our property. So if we push those parking spots back even further that are shared, It's not really safe for the elderly customers to walk up that hill to get to our front door. So just primarily those are the concerns that we have with the property, with the current use that is being proposed.

All right. Thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you.

Our next speaker is Steve Dockery.

My name is Steve Dockery, and I'm associated with the Church of Christ there on 3rd Street. And our biggest concern is the noise. When it said outdoor entertainment, we were thinking possibly they were having outdoor music and that sort of thing. We really, Sunday is really our main focus. If we keep the noise down on Sunday and then Wednesday nights, we have services there. And so that's my main concern is noise while we're in session.

What is your time on Sunday, if I could ask?

Partner all day. We have two groups that meet there. And we start at 8 and we finish at 8.

Alright, thank you very much, thank you. Alright, are there any other members of the public that would like to share an opinion on this proposal? It appears none, so we'll go ahead and close the floor. Commissioners. Any final questions for either the applicant or for staff? No, sir. Not unless we bring it back up. All right. Ms. Hellman, any concerns, questions about the application before we call for motions?

Well, I don't have any questions, I just. I'm very conflicted because it seems like a good idea, but there's problems clearly with the parking and the. The access throughout the area, and so it seems like it still needs work, in my opinion. But otherwise, I mean, it seems like a really great addition otherwise.

All right, thank you very much. Commissioner Kennedy.

What is happening with the building in the front? Is that part of this project?

It is, and the packet presented showed they were going to be closing one and two thirds of those bays and then reconfiguring that center closed in section for storage and bathroom use and leaving the third bay open. That's what's being proposed with the plans that were submitted.

Okay. And then, Chairman, if I can also add, there's an existing or it's currently under construction for a tenant improvement retail building in the front as well. So there's the current structure right now that has the bays with some storage and I think restrooms. And then on the opposite side of the driveway, still on this project, there is a retail building.

so if i and for clarification for the board if i read the packet correctly four of the spaces that are being proposed are specifically for this the retail building and 10 of the spaces being proposed are for this event space that's being proposed in the back is that the way i understood that the math that combined those make 14 spaces Ms. Hayden, can you answer that for us? 17 total. I counted 14.

Thank you for that question Chairman Garrison. Yes, that is correct. The four parking stalls for the retail building was based on the square footage, so that's required. And then the 10 parking stalls located towards the rear of the property are based on the square footage of that 3,000 square foot event space. So yes, four for the building, 10 for the outdoor space.

All right. Thank you very much. Did that answer that question concern?

Is there street parking in this area?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner Kennedy. Within 300 walking feet, or I'd say within 350 walking feet to the west is a city-owned parking lot near Belfry's, near the activity park. In order for a shared parking agreement to be considered, parking has to be available within 300 feet. And in order for parking reductions to be granted, that parking lot has to also be within 300 feet. It doesn't specify walking feet, but when we did a measurement on Google Maps, it was 350 walking feet from the front door of the retail building to the parking lot.

but as far as main street directly in front of this property is there street parking allowed there so no there is not none okay and then you have the park the alliance park right across the street

Any other questions, Commissioner? Yes, sir. Commissioner Rothrock, please.

Personally, I'd like to see this tabled and see if the principles of the two businesses and RP and Z folks can come to a conclusion that allows all the principles to be okay with it.

I tend to agree. Vice Chair Camilla, do you have any questions or comments?

I like the idea. I'm a fellow commissioner, so I like the idea, and I agree with Commissioner Roth. let's find something that works for everybody. Cause the parking that's, that's the biggest thing. And we don't want to, you know, hurt other businesses or hurt new businesses is just to, to make it where we can make it work for everybody. Uh, cause the concept is, is I think in my opinion is outstanding.

So I'll kind of leave it at that. So I've got a question for Stefan and Ms. Real, maybe you're the best on the answer to this. If we were to table these two items, because I can't see we can design, we can't do the design if we can't get past the CUP and we're not gonna get past the CUP with the design as it was proposed. How would that work? Would the applicant, how would the process work for the applicant and for us if we were to table that? Is that the right, and I'm asking is that the correct procedure that we would ask for people to view the concerns that we finish with

Correct, so that would be the correct procedure. It's just a matter if the Commission wants to continue it to a date certain or just kick it back to the applicant and staff so that the applicant can work with the neighbor and then also with staff on refining the site plan and then we could bring it back. We'll have to re notice it for a future meeting date.

OK, perfect thank you. Everybody clear on that, OK? Do you have another question? Commissioner Hellman?

My only question would be, so then the applicant doesn't have to resubmit all the fees, right?

Correct. We would still process it under the same application number, so there wouldn't be a new application fee. There may be a re-notice fee if it's not continued to a date certain, because then we would have to re-notice the hearing.

And to add on to that, would you have to reconvene the, what's the hearing you have with staff?

The code review board? We'd probably want to take it back to code review. It might be something that we can do informally just to get the building official and also fire to have eyes on the plan so we can do it outside of code review.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Chair, excuse me. Yes, sir. If you could, I think in this case we'll want to do a postponement. Okay.

So you'll postpone until certain things are achieved. Okay. And then we'll clarify how that works. Okay, perfect. Any other questions? So I'm going to chime in. I've been holding my tongue. This property has always been a problem. because it was originally one piece of property. And so what happened on one side of that line and what happened on the other side of that line was the responsibility of the same owner, the same tenant. And so they had to figure out how to make it work, which is how we ended up with this circular driveway concept in the first place. because the driveway wasn't wide enough, even with angled parking on the incoming lane to be able to get cars back out safely, at least, especially with the building, the Sedona's building being so close to that walkway. It was a pedestrian problem. So I think as far as I'm concerned, I really like the idea of this going back to the applicant. And I would hope that the applicant would reach out and have a meeting with the property owner next door, which is Sedona, to figure out how to amicably work together. I would think, because your hours of operation tend to be reasonably different, that there should be some way of working out some parking issues so that you both get to take advantage of whatever parking is created instead of looking at it as yours and theirs. But that being said, I like that it's being proposed to go back because I really would like to give you another shot at figuring out how to make this work correctly. I will share the opinion of Commissioner Camilla. I really like the design. I think it's a really unique way of coming up with something that works down in Old Town. I think outdoor space in Old Town is definitely a premium, and I like the food truck concept. I'm not quite so sure about the vendor spaces. I understand. I think what you're trying to do is verify what works and what doesn't in this space. I think the food truck could be interesting. How you get signage up or get people noticing what's back there, I think that would become a marketing problem. And I would expect sooner or later you're going to have some signage issues, being able to express where this is at and how to get back there to it. But that would be a problem you'll have to figure out as it comes to you. Beyond those, I had some real concerns with the amount of parking period. your application said you were shooting for 48 ish people to be able to use this site. If On a good day, you get two people to a car, which this is Cottonwood. It's typically one to a car. You don't have enough room for 15 to 20 people in your event space without overflowing into public parking, which is nowhere convenient to this site or spilling onto your neighbor or your neighborhood. So I think the parking is really an issue. And while I understand The law and the rules and what they say you're responsible to provide. I think that anything shy of about double what you've proposed is is really just problems for the future and and I get you want to see how it works, but but I think it's just going to be an ongoing concern and and at some point it's going to create some some real issues. I also had a problem with the placement of the bathroom. It isn't convenient for the use of the space in the back. It's quite a ways away. It's also hidden. It also enters a hallway, which I think could be a real safety concern. I would prefer if you could figure out how to put it at the back of that space and put your storage up front so at least you could create a... A pathway straight to the to the vent space to that bathroom back, but I think that's even going to be a pedestrian issue as you move forward. Like I said, I really like the creativity that was used to figure out how to use this space. Nobody's been able to come up with a plan yet that works well, but I think there's just a lot of issues that. maybe not stopping the plan from going forward. But I think the minute you try and implement it, you're going to start having a lot of problems, a lot of issues. So in order for you to maybe look over some of those things and definitely look over the parking, I'm going to suggest, as it has been by my fellow commissioners, that we postpone this hearing, let you go back. I don't want to put a time frame on it. Well, let's say no more than six, no more than six months. So staff doesn't forget about it. But I would like to see it brought back sooner than later. So we're still all fresh on it and the staff is still up on it and give you time like I said, to meet with the neighbors and also look over your available space and see if by using a parking consultant, maybe there's a better plan for how to deal with the spaces that are required. So that will be my suggestion, but I'm leaving it open to a motion by my commission.

I moved to postpone. So I move to postpone CUP dash 26-004. And DR.

I second.

Yeah, OK, we can do it separate. So we have a motion to postpone. Do we want to place a time limit on that? It's your motion.

Do we need a time limit on it? Do we need to put a time limit on that?

I'm sorry. We were distracted discussing something. Repeat the question, please.

Do we need to put a timeline on the postponement of when we want to see it come back by...

Chair, Commission, you have options. You can put a time certain on it or you can have certain things that they have achieved. It's probably best to put a time limit on it so that there's, so it's not left hanging out there.

Ms. Rial, what would be your recommendation on a postponement? How long would staff be comfortable with?

I mean, ultimately I say it's it's really dependent upon the applicant and their ability to if they want to hire somebody to take a look at the parking, what their availability is. I think it could be done in. Three months, maybe it's no more than six months. I don't know if the applicant wants to weigh in if he already has a team that maybe then it could be shorter.

So could we just say a reasonable time? No. You want to put a dot on it? I'm going to put six months. OK, six months, I think.

OK. No more than six months?

Yeah. OK.

So we'll do a correction to CUP 26-004 motion. Should read I move to postpone CUP-26-004 for a period up to six months.

Do we have a second on that motion? I second. Thank you very much. We have a motion, and we have a second. Do we have any questions? All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? No opposed. So great. Thank you very much. Can we move on to the design review? Motion carries. Thank you. To postpone.

I move to postpone DR-26-0012 to a period of no longer than six months.

Do we have a second for this motion?

Second.

We have a motion. We have a second. Do we have any questions, concerns? If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Thank you. We have unanimous also. So thank you very much. Use your time. Come back. We'll look forward to seeing you in the next, well, around the end of the year. Thank you very much. And Commissioner Glascott, I completely forget you're sitting here with us. So I apologize for not reaching out and getting your opinions on things. Please speak up if I don't, because if you're not sitting right here, I don't have eyes on you. So I apologize for that. The next item on our agenda will be consideration and approval of design review DR 26011. Ms. Hayden.

Thank you for that, Chairman Garrison, Commission. Tina Hayden, your senior planner, presenting on design review for the small stock barn at the Verde Valley Fairgrounds. Here is our locator map here. We can see the parcel bounded here in red. It's in the CF community facility zoning district, surrounded by C2 to the east, more CF to the north, and then industrial to the west and south. The site itself is approximately 25 acres. An applicant is proposing a new small stock barn right there in the midst. So you can see the cluster of other buildings that would remain. And then this is where the proposed site for that stock barn. Have a site plan that the applicant provided Again, showing an aerial, you can see the property boundary here. You can see the 50 by 80 building here to be replaced. Everything else is existing to remain. The closest setback from the other buildings is 25 feet. The greatest is 95 feet here. Applicant has provided some elevations for this building. Just to get your bearings, if your back is to the north, this is what you're seeing, the front elevation here. If your back is to the south and you're looking northwards, this is the elevation you're going to see. This is your east elevation. Everyone's familiar with the fairgrounds when you enter in. This is what you would see. And then the west elevation as well. If the Commission desires to approve this design review application, staff has four stipulations they recommend. The first is that the project conform with development plans with our department. The second, that the project conform to the code review board comment letter. Third, that the project complies with all applicable sections of our zoning ordinance. And fourth, this is typically where we say that the project submittals be provided within 24 months of approval, as stated in the staff report. The cart got before the horse, so we're working to get everything in order and listening to the judgment on those deadlines so that we don't have a conflicting schedule. Staff is recommending approval for this application. It includes my presentation. I'm here for any questions. I also have the applicant present for any questions as well.

Great. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for Ms. Hayden? Commissioner Hellman?

No questions. Thanks.

Commissioner Rothart?

No questions.

Vice Chair Camillo.

No questions.

And I have no questions. Can we have the applicant come up and tell us about your barn, please? Just the highlights.

Just the highlights. The barn that was there was built in the 1970s, as far as we can tell, from everything that people found in their backyards. And when we went to go get it insulated, the guy said he wouldn't insulate it. It was too rotten. And I said, well, we'll find somebody else. So the next insulator, he said, yeah, I won't do it. It's too rotten. So we said, oh, we need to change out the barn. So we took down a 50 by 80 barn for the chickens and rabbits. Didn't realize we needed that much space, but We need more than that, as many rabbits and chickens as we have. So we basically replaced the barn for the chickens and rabbits with the same size barn. When you seen on the elevation, the pavilion which is open on the two sides, that is the existing, we think from the 80s, we're not really sure when that was put in, and that is still existing and there at this time. But none of it can be seen from the road. A lot of people don't go to the chicken and rabbit barn. I don't get to go very often.

So this primarily basically an upgrade in a safety issue and provide better security for the animals?

Well, security for the animals and the people. If you've been to our auction lately, we have rabbits and chickens going for over $4,000. And we don't need somebody walking off. We did have a chicken escape. I think it was two years ago. I'm not sure. And it got out. They did find it. It was all good. Everything was fine. But I didn't realize the things that I would be dealing with when I accepted this position.

And I may have missed it. Did you state who you are?

Oh, I'm Colleen Gilboy from the Verde Valley Fairgrounds.

Great. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant, Ms. Hellman?

So do I understand that this project's already been completed?

90% correct, ma'am. Yes.

Mr. Rothrock, do you have any questions for the applicant?

No, I don't.

Vice Chair Camilla, do you have any questions for that? No questions. I think it's great. I love that you're putting your money where your mouth is and up doing the facilities, and that's a great thing, and creating a little more longevity and safety for the people and the animals is always a good thing.

I think we're going to have to double deck it here at the rate we're going, but if we get any more animals.

Yeah, well, that's not a terrible problem to have. That's all the questions I have. Do we have any final thoughts or concerns before we call for a motion? If not, we'll go ahead and move, call for a motion.

I move to approve DR-26-011 for existing small stock barn subject to the stipulations indicated in the staff report.

Do I have a second?

I second.

We have a motion, we have a second. Commissioner Glascott, did you have any questions or concerns for either staff or the applicant? No, sir. Great, thank you. Having no more questions or concerns, and we have a motion, we have a second, we'll call for the vote. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? And recused? One. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Chair, did we get the recuse on record?

I don't remember hearing it. Could could Commissioner. Could you please recuse yourself from that discussion? You did keep your. You did not participate.

I did not participate in the discussion as I am the president of the Verde Valley Fair Board.

Great thank you.

So I recuse myself from any discussion or vote. Thank you.

I had it in my head. I didn't have it in my mouth. Sorry, thank you very much. That's why we have. Not a unanimous, but unanimous amongst the voting members. So thank you very much. We'll go ahead and open it to the floor for call to the public. Did we have any members of the public who would like to share anything with us tonight? I see none, so we'll close the floor. Our next item is... Suggested topics for future meetings. Are there any things that any of the members would like to share or talk about in a future meeting? I do appreciate that you're showing up to the open meeting law discussions. Those are very helpful. And for those that showed up at the joint council meeting, I appreciate. You'd be in there to share your opinions. If you didn't or even if you did, please log in and fill out that questionnaire. Your opinion would be very helpful, especially since you will be possibly voting on future items. I hear no suggested topics, so I have suggested topic actually, sir. Commissioner Glass.

Yeah, just regarding what we had just experienced regarding the backyard scenario, is the city considering any type of parking improvements to leave this so that that that property could be utilized because I think that is a great concept for that property and it seems this point in that it's a parking issue which you know we try to make Old Town walkable yet parking has always been a concern.

I yes and you're you're right and I don't know that It would be a topic for our discussion, but on the other hand, there is a historic overlay and a commercial historic overlay on the Old Town area that does differentiate what is required to have parking and what is not. And maybe we could get a staff report at I soon to be future meeting that would maybe give us a little bit of clarity on what does require parking and what does not require parking. So we have that in our head as well, because I think that would be helpful for everybody to know. And and I could spout off and say some things, but I'm probably going to be half wrong. So it would be best if we had staff come back and maybe give us a little education on that. That's a great idea. Any other

concerns or questions commissioner glasgow no great thank you commissioner rothrock uh i'd like to talk about gridlock that the fact that that uh proposal went down on 12th street is quite likely in no small part to the fact that that intersection at 12th and may no maybe 89 is inadequate and i think it i think the city would be wise to try and buy back that that property that the circle k uh has bought there and uh and make a roundabout there that so people can get actually get out of 12th street and on their way um That's a thought about that. Going further, I wouldn't mind seeing the... rough cut be given to whomever owns that property at the intersection from hell that's now available or it's not being used and swap that out and put another huge, the mother of all roundabouts there so that we can have people, traffic moving in Cottonwood. We're building and building and building, but we aren't creating new roads. We paved some roads that are real nice, but people can't get around.

Any other items real quick and then nope, that's it. So I'm going to do the same thing with that that we just did with the parking could could. So that is an ADOT right away. ADOT owns it. It is their purview to decide what does and doesn't happen there. Good luck getting the city to give away a multimillion dollar building. But I do understand kind of the trade off. Could we Could we have another topic for future meeting to help us understand? Because that was also a very big portion of our discussion. It was also a very big portion of the Council discussion when that hearing went forward to understand maybe a little bit more what. what we do and don't have control over when it comes to ADOT right-of-ways and ADOT access so that we understand for future agenda items what we really can be concerned with and what we really have no right to be concerned with. Does that sound reasonable?

Chair, it sounds like we want some educational components on our future agenda items. Yes, please. Okay.

Short short presentations that just kind of give us a fairly narrow understanding of kind of how things work and why we should or should not be concerned about such things. That would be great. Alright, any other?

Before the prior. chairperson left, we had some items for discussion. I can't remember off the top of my head what they were. Um, they were more like small design tweaks that we would still have control over. Um, I'm just wondering with the new legislation, like here we are, we're holding it like we, we have a private property owner come in and they have a plan. It isn't necessarily the plan that the city, that the staff wants, but then it comes here and we think that it is a good idea. Like, where is the, how do you mesh those two items? Like, is there some way to make it smoother? Do we not have enough staff to make, to move things along and to make things better? Because I don't think that it necessarily Like it costs the property owner more money. In the current state of things, then maybe it did before. Maybe they brought something to planning and zoning and they got somewhere. Now they're taking it to staff and they have all these permitting and all these other issues and they have to provide all these. Engineer reports. I know that they do all those things anyway, but is there some way to make that a more seamless

Well, so.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, no, I I understand what you're after. I'm just trying to figure out to what extent we have a voice. So the process. Is public. And so you you have an applicant who has an idea, comes to staff, goes through a conditional review with the staff. The staff gives back. on this staff isn't just city it's it's also county employees as well gives feedback on what they do and don't like about said plan the applicant has the ability to modify or change some of those parameters before it comes to us at which point it comes to us we're the public portion of that where we're the point where We try to help the applicant and the city come to a joint resolution on what is acceptable and what may not be acceptable. The public definitely gets to play a part in that through call the public and then at that point then we make a decision and the applicant either moves it forward uh or can appeal it to the council or it's a difference others but i do understand i just don't know to what point so i i understand um like council and i think even we had some commissioners that stated in a prior agenda item that they would like to see a traffic study i don't believe we have the right to ask the applicant to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a traffic study based on an existing intersection that is under the control of adot specifically so i think I don't know how to answer your question. I think I understand concerns about is there maybe too much that's being laid on the applicant before they get to us requesting that information that's slowing down the process and making our job harder? Is that kind of what you're after or?

I think that the process is harder on the individuals And I think that the change in legislation has made it more so, not less so.

So if I may interject, Chair and Commissioner. So as far as a topic for future agenda, it sounds like you're asking if we can review the process and see if there are areas where we can make things either easier or more efficient for applicants.

Yes, OK, and I'll add into that. And this has been a discussion with staff and others for a while is. We have a site plan. That will talk about the two apartment complexes that have been before us previously had site plans presented. There was. issues with the site plans, which caused a lot of discussion and dissension amongst not only the board and the council, but also with the public. And in reality, the site plan was nothing more than a representation of an intent to do something on the property. It wasn't necessarily actually what was intended to be built. Maybe, but not necessarily. And so my discussion has always been is having those site plans attached to a conditional use permit or design review is one thing, but a conditional use permit moving forward, is that really necessary to move the process forward? Or is it creating more of a problem with the community and with the board and the council by muddying up the water by having an overstimulated visual of what's being asked for and should that design really be waiting for design review at which point you can decide whether the design is appropriate But at that point, the conditional use has been either approved or not before we move forward with requiring applicants to submit designs.

So what I'm hearing from this is that this sounds like a really good discussion topic for like a study session. If there are lots of thoughts and things to talk about with regard to the process and what things we require, what we don't require, and certainly something that staff should be involved in because Tina and Sammy are gonna both know significantly more about the process and why we require what we do than I do and the reasons for that. So it sounds like, again, as far as a future agenda topic, either it's a separate study session item or we have a discussion item regarding those things and we can have a back and forth open discussion about that.

Would that discussion be more appropriately held with council? As part of that discussion, Because wouldn't they ultimately have to approve any change to process?

Certainly. I think the preliminary discussions at least should be had here and then, you know, recommendations can be made through the normal process that we go through. And then if a joint session or anything like that's something that they desire, I think it's a good idea that maybe we can revisit that. But I think at this stage,

Having a discussion here and then sitting on a recommendation if there is one Might be a good idea you have to excuse me because You've all probably worked in the public sector Forever I have not I have worked in the private sector and owned my own business for 40 years and so the process is Sometimes doesn't follow common sense to me. So that's where I am in the discussion.

I think it can be onerous for people that aren't familiar and comfortable with the process. So I do like that. We do at some point have a deeper discussion. And also back to what you, Ms. Raul, said earlier, there's a lot of legislation going through. And so if there's anything, I guess, that gets approved, through the legislative sessions it would be that would affect how we move forward i think a heads up before we actually have an applicant come in would would possibly be a good thing um for us to to maybe have a little a little bit of warning that that this is going to become a thing as well Other than that, I think we should be good. That's four new items we've given staff to put forward for us. So I think that'll keep everybody busy for a bit. And please, I want to make sure we don't overwhelm anybody. You know, those those discussions about those things as brief as possible, as you think is warranted for the type of discussion we'll have. So if there is nothing else, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Thank you all for coming tonight.

I move we adjourn.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Passes. Thank you very much. Enjoy your evening. Thank you for chiming in, Commissioner Glasgow. Good luck.

My pleasure.