Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Laughter]

[Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Laughter] [Music]

[Music] [Laughter] [Music] Cottonwood Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting Monday, August 18, 2025 at 6 PM. Roll call, please. Commissioner Camella,

present. Commissioner Gayler, here. Commissioner Glascott, here. Commissioner Rothrat, here. and chairwoman Masten here. Thank you very much. Our first order of business is the election of a vice chair. The election was tabled last meeting. The vice chair is elected by a vote of membership. We were going to have to start over. Um would any of the commissioners like to nominate themselves or another commissioner for the position of vice chair? I nominate George. All right. Uh George, would you please state your name for the record? Oh, just kidding. Uh, Bob, will you please state your name for the record and uh your nomination?

Robert Roth. Robert. Okay. Thank you. Uh, George, do you consent to this nomination? Well, yes. Oh, sorry. Yes. You need to train me on the microphone. Yes. Uh, George has been nominated for the position of vice chair. Are there any further nominations? No one has come forward. Uh, the nominations are now closed. May I have a second motion to nominate George as the new vice chair? Second. Did that turn on? Yes. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? No discussion. All those in favor? I

I unanimously carried. Uh, George Gaylord is now the vice chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Amazing speech. Just kidding. All right. Our second order of business is to approve the minutes for the meeting held Monday, July 21st, 2025. Do any of the commissioners have any corrections or additions to the minutes? There are no corrections or additions. So, I move to approve the June or I'm sorry, the July 21, 2025 minutes. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I I unanimously carried. Our next order of business, ourformational reports and updates.

Thank you, Madame Chair, Commission. Welcome. Good evening. Uh, I'd like to mention that our new city manager started today, uh, Mario Cuentes. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to join us tonight, so hopefully he'll be here next month to, uh, say hi to you and introduce himself.

Uh, you have the second quarter project updates in front of you. Uh, if you have any questions on it, please let us know. Uh we do apologize for the delay. We're trying to do it quarterly. We got a little backed up on this one. So you should get it again sooner than later. Um may seem duplicated, but we're going to try and get back on track with that quarterly update for you. Uh the last thing I want to mention is last week I attended a housing conference in Tucson. It was uh very interesting, very eye opening. uh came back with a lot of information that we as staff are going to try to use, put some things in place. Um we'll definitely keep you updated on what that looks like obviously as well as city council when we move down that road. And that's all I have.

Thank you very much. Uh and with that, we move on to our one item of new business this evening. DR-25- Z008, a design review request for building and site improvements for commercial and tourism use. Please take it away, Tina. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commission. I'm Tina Hayden with Community Development, presenting an application for design review uh for the remodeling of some existing vacant buildings and also unlisted parking uses. The request tonight is for consideration of design review approval for building and site improvements for existing buildings and approval of the parking proposal for an unlisted use. Uh we ask that you consider the staff report with the recommended stipulations and our parking proposal indicated in both the staff report and the applicant's letter of intent. Just a couple of details here. The project is zone C1 like commercial. Uh it's a little over half an acre. Uh staff did confirm that there is a shared access agreement with the western parcel. Another item I'd like to point out is that in the staff report I confidently state that the screening is of block wall construction. Upon site visit, it is a wooden fence. it still is uh sufficient for the screening requirements per the zoning ordinance. This property is not located in the Cottonwood commercial historic district. It is the boundary is right on that western lot line of the property. It is located in the entertainment and arts district. And what that does is it allows the community development director to make some additional modifications to landscaping and setback

areas. Uh, I'd also like to point out that the tenant indicated in the letter of intent has dropped out of this project. Uh, they were the ones that were bringing that proposed park and ride use. It may not be utilized. Uh the applicant would appreciate if there was some consideration on allowing the parking to not be developed that especially that overflow area if they don't have that tourism use. Um here's a breakdown of the parking per the square footage of the building. We've determined that five spaces are required. Uh two of those are ADA compliant. Uh, additionally on the the site plan, the applicant proposes seven additional strike place spaces and then indicates the eight spaces for overflow if required. Since we are analyzing parking, I did include a element here. Uh, this is our locator map. You can see the property bounded here in red. It's that C1 zone. We do have R2 zoning here to the east. Uh some more C1 zoning here and here. Uh CR which is our commercial residential zone and then CF community facility zone. Uh regarding the parking, there is a provision that allows for a reduction if a um public parking lot is located within 300 ft of the front of the building. Uh, I would say that using the county GIS that it is about 300 ft to that point right here, but as far as walking feet, uh, it's probably about 340 ft to that first car there. So, that's just for the commission consideration.

Here is the applicant site plan. You can see that lot line, that western lot line. So, the project area is here. The Sedonuts park uh property is here and then you can see that shared access. Um I'll call that out later. Here is that bounding fence, not Samuel Wall. These are the existing building one here, building two here, and then the proposed trash enclosure here. This is the proposed circulation path. Again, it originates offsite and then goes and you can exit on site. The areas in purple are the parking that will be striped right here and right here is the existing parking with the ADA spaces. Applicant does propose additional parking here. Uh then this area is at uh overflow additional parking to be considered as required. regarding the easement information. This is just the um the survey that was provided. Uh again calling out this is that um Sedonut's property here and then this is our project site here and the easement encompasses all of this for parking ingress and ingress. This is the landscape plan. Staff is not requiring any additional landscaping. Uh this is all that's existing. And then we also have our color samples and we have a physical copy for you so that you're not having that uh RGB screen and I'll move on to the elevation. So this is building one. One of the biggest

changes that you're going to notice is that instead of the rollup door that's currently existing, they are proposing a glass storefront there. So, that should look extra attractive there. Uh they will provide steps here. There is a door here currently. Uh they're just going to create a window there and then some additional decking so that they can access safely. This is building number two. They are going to wall in this bay here. So, this is the south elevation looking from Main Street. And then this is the north elevation. Uh they will have some rollup bay doors there. This is the trash enclosure elevation again at that northwestern location. Here are the renderings the applicant has provided of landscaping looks true and correct to the site. And so you can see that glass storefront there walled in area here. And then we move on to site views. So here I have our street views looking southeast on Maine. Looking southwest on Maine. our adjacent sites. To the south here we have uh those cute little residential units there. Uh to the east we have some it is vacant uh can be used for multifamily residential. And then actually further to the east is some that R2 zoning and then to the west we have commercial and then on to the site views. This one focuses on the building one area. So we have the existing landscaping here with that little rock wall that's going to be

maintained. The Wayne's coating here will also be maintained. Uh there is that door that will be turned into a window. And then the rear of it. Again, they're going to remove that rollup door and um just put in a double door entry there with some steps. Now, we're looking at building two where that bay is currently open. They'll be walling this bay in and leaving this open here. Again, this will be walled in for storage. And there's some landscaping area here. And then to the rear of the property, again looking at the fence here and not the block wall and that vacant area that can be used for overflow. And here you can see that adjacent residential to the east. There are six step stipulations that staff has recommended in the staff report. I'm just going to touch on each one. Stipulation one is that the project conforms with the development plans as reviewed tonight. Uh, stipulation two, that the project conform to the code review board comment letter. Stipulation three, that the project complies with all applicable sections of the zoning ordinance. Stipulation four, any signage or light lighting indicated on the plans is for reference purposes only. Stipulation five, building permit application must be submitted and diligently pursued within 24 months of approval. And then stipulation six, we do say that the overflow parking area shall be developed to the standards as set forth by our city engineer and fire marshall. However, uh since the tenant has pulled out, we could word words smmith it to state that in the event that there is a tourism use um that this overflow parking area should be developed. And that concludes my report.

I have the um applicants representative here if you have any questions for them and I'm also al also ready for any questions. Okay, thank you very much. Um are there any questions from the commission for staff regarding this project keeping in mind that the applicant rep is here? Yes, go ahead. Is the um the residential area that you cited is that actually a church right now? I believe one of the buildings is a church, but there are some other buildings along there that uh are zoned for residential use. I see, vice chair.

Sure. Um do we um well, what what is changing? When I went through this, I for some reason it was it wasn't clear to me what they were changing about the building or the uses. Are are the uses changing at all? We don't have a use. They're just asking for design review. Uh the use is commercial um retail rental. They proposing uh as a uh outfitter. So then and we did in the staff letter confirm that there's not ATVs or any you know vehicles like that. It's more kayaks, uh, life vests, other things for outfitting.

Uh, and that was before this tenant backed out. The use would be again for that retail rental purpose. And then also we're looking to, you know, kind of get some feedback uh for the tourism use. If they're to acquire another tenant that has that proposal, uh then they can proceed without having to come back to do a modified design review. Right. So, um these are vacant commercial rentals, correct? And the zoning is what? C1. C1.

Okay. Are they changing anything physically as part of the proposal? So um this is building one here you can see and I'm going to show you the current for building two as well. Uh and then I'll go on to the uh elevations. Uh so this is being walled in for storage use, accessory storage use. And then this will be removed and walled in as well. So you won't see this rollup door anymore. And then for building one, this is going to be a glass storefront. And then on the rear here, uh have a glass double door entry. They'll have provided some um stairs here as well. And then going onto the elevations here. Actually, I think the rendering is better. So, here's building one. Now, you'll see that glass storefront instead of that rollup a door.

Yeah. Uh and then here is the front of building number two. You don't see that rollup door there. They've been moved to the back. So, um, are some of these being used as commercial storage or will is that what they're being marketed as? Uh, at the time that the applicant attended code review and their prospective tenant, uh, the point was to use this as that commercial space, some showroom floor. Uh, and then this is storage because they like to have the kayaks out um on exhibit on this storage incidental to the use. Correct. Accessory storage.

We're not creating a commercial storage facility. No, this is accessory to that retail use. I think that's all I have. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission for staff? All right. Thank you very much, Tina. Um, could the applicant representative come forward, please? State your name for the record. My name is Christopher Moore with Innocide Construction. Right. Thank you very much. Uh if you could give us a brief summary of um your intention for the project just to kind of preempt any questions the commission may have and then I'll open it up.

Um okay. I think Tina uh went over most of it. Um we are uh intending to be able to transfer this project from the state it's in right now um to something a little bit more desirable for um uh storefront use. um a lot of foot traffic in that area. So um the original tenant that um I was brought on to design this or build this to suit um did back out of the use. Um but there but we are still moving forward with it with the general design that we were we were going forth with. Um there's going to be a split section in the um in the building one that is going to have um either a manu I don't want to say manufacturing because it's not really manufacturing like say it was a textile place that did things or whatever. They'd be able to put things together in the back and then there would be a showroom style in the front um with lighting etc and offices to the right with um with the bathroom revamp. We're completely remodeling the interior. Um the um like it was brought up, that is accessory storage only. It's not to be intended for any other use other than um the tenant that's available. Um unless the tenant that wants to move in decides to do something different, then we'll be back in front of you guys. So um but as of right now, we're going to be commercial we're going to be um um uh renting this out or leasing this out as a commercial space, a retail space.

All right. Uh, how likely do you think it is that you'll find a similar tenant to the tenant that backed out? Oh, most places except for them in my experience, I've been here for 21 years. Um, they already kind of well dug in where they're at. So, um, I think they were from up the road and they were just kind of overgrowing their spot. Um, I I would, if it was my in my opinion, I would probably see more stuff like we have in Oldtown. Um or maybe even another uh gathering spot like that was previously to the to the door or to the lot next door. Um but that would be that would be my guess. I I can't really tell you.

All right. Uh do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant representative? You know, I have one on the the back of building one, the three parking spots. Yes, sir. Is there a barrier between the the parking spots and the building? No, sir. not not as indicated on the plan cuz because I think what will happen with that that shared loop through there Mhm. and we know how people park if they stick their nose out way too far Yeah. it's going to make it tough going around. Then you're going to have your service trucks and whatever coming in there. Okay. So something like that where those are identified and you kind of understand what I'm saying how that'll work from that little that little roundabout corner.

Oh no, absolutely. Yeah. Um, so consider a um a wall. Maybe not even a wall. Maybe if it's just the parking blocks or something they pull into and they could stop and obviously not run into the back of your building, which spot left. I don't know what I'm do here. Oh, there we go. We're going to the site plan. Yeah. Going to the one that one these ones right here. You talking about the ones in the purple where the loop goes around? Yes. Okay. And you're you're saying that we probably need to put a parking barrier between building one and those three. Um I I I would say put something there so they know how far to pull in and they're not, you know, give you access to your building in the back still.

Okay. Okay. So just like stoppers. Yeah. Like the parking, you know, concrete stoppers. Concrete. Yeah. Chingas. Everybody knows where Chingasa is. Is there striping there? There is. I do not believe there is at the moment. Are you planning on putting striping? Um, all proposed areas are planned to be striped. Okay, good.

What's the um line that's goes out at an angle as you drive in as and goes around the corner. There's something that looks like a safety pin or that is a um it's like a a curb for the parking spaces that are def actually I don't even think that curb exists. I think it's just a paint painted line to be honest. I think it's just a place where they define the end of their parking spots that are right there. It's not raised. I don't believe so. Let me go back here. Oops. It might very well be. I'm not familiar with that property. So,

that is however uh Commissioner Rothrock their adjacent property. So, they can't directly modify that. Yeah, I wouldn't be able to touch that at all. So, Oh, that's it is it is raised. It is raised because there's a driveway that goes directly around the If you look at the bottom left picture, that's kind of a a blurred out version of the um Google Maps that he used. It is raised right there. Any further questions, Commission? Thank you very much for attending. We'll let you know if we have any more questions.

All right. At this point, uh, I'm opening the floor to the public to speak regarding this project. Is there anyone interested in commenting on this proposed project here this evening? No one is coming forward, so I'm going to close the floor to the public. Uh, now the commissioners have an opportunity to share their thoughts on this project. Uh, we will start with Commissioner Camila. I think the the glass storefronts are outstanding. That's that I mean if you look at that building now it's kind of like yeah it's there but that that kind of gives it some character and it it makes it look a lot nicer. So that would be my comment on that. So thank you for putting that in there. Commissioner Rothrock.

Well I think it's going to look a lot nicer than it does now and I hope you get some good tenants. Uh Commissioner Glascott. Yeah, I think it's going to be a good uh use and make it more attractive to future tenants and um like Mr. Rothrock says, I hope you get some good tenants. All right. And vice chair, I I think it's a fine proposal. Um okay with the uses even though some of them are dormant at the moment. Um I don't know what else I would bring to it other than maybe a couple of shade trees out front.

All right. Uh I think that this um is a positive improvement. I agree about the glass front. Um I do have a slight concern about the parking and I think that we should um indicate the uh concrete stompers in the language. Typically that job of modifying the stipulations goes to the vice chair. Um, but uh I could take a pass at it if you would like. Um, I definitely do not. Hang on. Give me just a second. See that?

Uh, can I very quickly ask staff if they think that that should be a number seven or if I can sneak that in with? Yeah, it should probably be number seven. Yes. Hi. You were asking staff. Yes. Yes. I was looking that way, but you are there. Yes. Uh in the suggested motion, we do indicate um a template for stipulation 7. Um that one could be word smith to address the bullards. Okay. Instead of the increased parking stipulation number seven, that

bullards be added. How would I indicate which spots? uh for the to the north of building one. To the north of building one. Okay. Um I'm going to go ahead and make the motion. I move to approve DR-25-00008 for the proposed building and site improvements for commercial and tourism use subject to the stipulations indicated in the staff report with an added stipulation number seven that Bullards be added to the parking to the north of building one. Do I get a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor? I

I unanimously carried. Uh we are now moving on to the call to the public. If there's anyone from the public that would like to address the commission regarding any planning and zoning related item that is not on the agenda already this evening, it is now your opportunity to speak. No one's coming forward, so I'm closing the floor. We have one discussion item this evening. It's a discussion of the Arizona legislative updates planning staff will present on the applicable legislative updates for 2025 and provide information on successive zoning ordinance updates. Say that five times fast. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commission. I hope you enjoyed that design review.

It was the last one ever

because your days are limited. We're here to uh discuss the 2025 legislative update uh bills that were passed at the state level that will affect us coming up sooner than later whether we like it or not. The first one um won't really affect this commission uh too much. House Bill 2231 talks about open open meeting law with regard to committees and subcommittees. So if this commission had a subcommittee to discuss something um this would apply potentially to that. So not one that is super critical for this commission but we wanted to throw it on there anyways. This next House bill is the most effective to this commission. Um, House Bill 2447, self-certification and administrative review. The short and sweet part of it is staff is going to be required to do design review and preliminary plats and final plats. They will no longer come in front of you or city council. Wow. Um, yeah. The law goes into effect January 1st of 2026. So coming up, we're going to look at bringing rough drafts to the commission next month, not to take action on, just to discuss. Um probably bring it to you in November to take action on, recommend to council. We'll take it to council in December. So it doesn't

adding staff for that as well.

Not at this time. That's not that's not been discussed. We're we're going to have to see how it goes. Uh some of these, you know, already get done at the staff level, like land divisions, lot land adjustment, lot combos, those kinds of things. Um there is one section of the subdivision ordinance that allows staff to approve the preliminary plat if it's under 10 uh parcels. Now, that doesn't matter. So, if you remember earlier this year, we talked about changes to the subdivision ordinance. we kind of put that on hold because of this bill that was being proposed at that time. It hadn't gone through yet, but now it has. So, um, site plans, which you see for design review, um, is going to be done solely at the staff level. Uh, they're saying that we can't have these at a public hearing. Um, the the wording in the law states public hearing. You know, it could be said, well, is there public hearing versus a public meeting? Our design reviews are public meetings, but the intent is any public meeting. So, their language in their public hearing versus public meeting is irrelevant. I trust me, I tried to argue that with our attorney over here and he is here to answer any questions that you may have. I can answer any questions you may have on these. Um, so yeah, this is this is a big one. Uh it's going to now limit the commission to conditional use permits, uh reszones, those sorts of things. Um and again, even even the plats won't go to city council. They'll just go to staff level. It also allows the city to adopt an ordinance for self-certification for eligible professionals to certify and be responsible for code compliance on eligible projects. That one wouldn't necessarily affect this commission aside from the other stuff. That's more with

our building department and their plan reviews and adhering to building codes um zoning codes as well. But it's mostly geared towards the building codes. This one, like you said, is effective January 1st of 26. So, we're going to look at getting that again to you guys for action in November, city council in December. Next is Senate Bill 1353. Some of it doesn't really apply to us. It's populations over uh 30,000. The thing about these population based ones is we expect them to be somewhat trials. They'll put them for the higher population areas. If they're working out, they may expand it and not put a population limit on it. Uh this basically allows third party plan review for single family. if a municipality does not respond within 15 working days of submittal of a permit. So if uh we were that busy and we couldn't respond in in 15 days with corrections or whatever, then they'd be eligible for that. But again, that doesn't affect us because we're not over 30,000 people. Uh modifies deadlines that apply to all municipalities regarding the review of various applications. Certain we have to at least say, okay, we've got it. we've done an initial review. Here's our comments back to you. Um, we can't deny a residential license application um, under certain conditions. Uh, so they're they're kind of making it a little bit more stringent, putting time frames on it, all that fun stuff for us.

Um, what what is that? Is that a building permit?

Yes, essentially it's a building permit. Yeah. Um, we also can't come back to somebody and say, not not that we are in the habit of doing it. Um, but I think anybody out there sometimes it happens. If somebody has an approved permit and we realize later that we missed something, we can't come back and say, "Oh, sorry, we missed this. You have to fix it." unless um it was unknown prior to the permit submitt made at the request of the applicant um or if it was kind of a a more stringent life safety code requirement. Those are when we could still go back and do that. But if we said, "Oh, you missed putting a tree over here. We need you to go back and do it. We didn't catch it. We can't do it." Senate Bill 1529, Municipal Housing Pre-approved Design. So, we're going to be required to provide at least 12 pre-approved housing designs, three single family residential with a range of square footage, three accessory dwelling units with a range of square footage. That law is effective. We have to have that in place by July 1st of 2026. by July January 1st of 2027. It's including duplexes and triplexes. Basically, somebody can come in, we have the plans pre-approved, everything's ready to go. They come in, want to

submit for a permit off that plan. Everything's ready to go. We issue that permit. Save them time, money, everything. So, um there's already places that have something similar like Yavapai County has their home of my own program. That's basically it. Um now with that and and this is be educational push that we we let people know is they can't make changes on those any design changes. They can't. this is what you get because design changes would require going back to the architect and having them redraw it, restamp it at their cost of the applicant. So again, July 1st to 26 for the ADUs and the single family residential ADUs are 200 to 1,000 square foot. We have to have one design for each square footage. And then same thing with single family residential 800 to 2,000 square feet. And then uh duplexes 800 to 2,000 square feet and triplexes 1,200 to 3,000 ft². So combine all this with um the requirement the staff has to do design review. Uh these duplexes, triplexes, that kind of stuff you're not going to see unless they're associated with the reszone. reason we'll obviously still bring back to you.

And that's it for now. Do you mind going back on the presentation to the um one about uh design and plat reviews? Okay. So, this is a question for council. Um, so on HB2447, um, it reads to me, and I'm not a lawyer, but it says requires that the city adopt an ordinance to authorize to authorize administrative personnel to review and appe approve. That doesn't seem like it's require. It's authorized. Does that require the city to switch to that?

It's almost uh, chair, thank you. That's almost like a philosophical question, right? because uh what the city has to do is the city has to create city law that says staff has this power. So state law doesn't require so so you get to that point where staff now has the power. State law doesn't say you know staff you're required to approve this but they don't really say that with anything right they they never say that you're required to well shouldn't say never. Sometimes they do, right? But for the most part, they they outline the criteria, the standards, what's allowed, and then the decision maker makes the decision. What we couldn't do is we couldn't put something in our law that says staff has this power but shouldn't use it. Right.

But at the same time, it's difficult for them to say staff must execute this every single time. Right. So, you're pointing out, I think, a very interesting point about the way it's written, but if you try to think practically, like what can the city do with the fact that they said you have to authorize staff, the answer is not much, right? Because you can't change your authority, right? You have to give him and her and the whole department real authority to do it. You can't you can't say you can do it, but but don't. Mhm. Uh this is a discussion so you don't have to wait to be called upon.

Um it appears to me all these are kind of in line with each other to expedite building and whatnot essentially. Yes. So more efficiency. Yes. That's that's the goal. More efficient for the builders but not for city staff from what I'm possibly. Yeah. Looks like a lot more work for going to be a lot of guys.

And and this one this one isn't necessarily a brand new uh law because the wording before and and John can correct me if I'm wrong, but the wording before said that a city may allow or allows a city to adopt an ordinance to allow this. Now, they're saying it requires a city to adopt an ordinance to do this

because as as as you know, as the commission knows, we've brought to you a few changes to to the ordinance allowing staff to already do some minor um design review if it met certain requirements. And and we were hoping to expand that a little bit more under certain circumstances, but now with this, obviously, the state is saying everything And chair, I will not correct what what Scott said because that's exactly right. It used to say you may, now it says you shall. And I think that also kind of goes to your point is, you know, what's the intent here? I think the intent is, you know, we weren't clear enough with you cities and towns. We want you to do it this way

administratively. That that's the message that they're the state is trying to say. Why don't they just say that instead of making us pass a law? wanted to just say this bulleted list of stuff is now administrative. That's a great question. It's a more obvious subversion of local land use authority. Yeah, it's a it's a great question. I don't have the answer to. They could absolutely have written this as cities and towns shall or or this is the rule in cities and towns. They could have said that, but that's the list of stuff they're saying is going to be administrative. Right. Right. So, what's left? which is, you know, the design review that we bring to you now is pretty much right the site plans and the development plans, what it's going to be, what it's going to look like. So, what's left?

Um, conditional use permits, reszones, use permits and reszones, general plan amendments, text amendments.

So, there there's a possibility that that the and I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, but there's a possibility that the commission doesn't meet every single month. that that is a good thing. My my concern with this, since this is a discussion, I'm going to speak very freely. In general, I am a very large proponent of efficiency, especially when it comes to housing. However, some of these things could be quite large. And if things are being approved administratively, that means for all intents and purposes, they're being approved in the dark because that removes the public hearing portion of design review and plat approval. So when big projects come in like big development projects, that means that now and we can't do anything about it. the neighbors and the people who would typically be notified and come forward and have an opportunity to speak, they have now lost that opportunity and it's just a little bit complex I think in terms of transparency for the residents. I do see possibly a pathway to sort of preserving some residential authority, which is through text amendments, which we still have. Um maybe making some more stringent objective amendments and then when things want to go beyond that, what happens? We do a cup. A

sir, sorry, you just were elected. Um, I don't know how my fellow commissioners feel about that, but I think that in some cases that could be wise. We don't have to ruin the efficiency, but just like go ahead. Is there a possibility here that somebody could want to put up a house that just doesn't fit the neighborhood and the neighborhood doesn't get to say anything about it? That is literally what will happen. That's the way it is now. Yeah. Yeah, we can't we can't dictate that on single family right now anyways. Single family residential. Yeah. And I mean to be get what I mean.

Yeah, I get what you mean, Bob. But like I think single family residential is less the less the concern. Yeah. I hope you'll still have to when you're doing it, you're still going to have to post stuff like you have in the past to let the neighborhood know. You're not going to have to do that again.

Well, we don't post for design review. We we do for conditional use permit, which we'll still do. That won't change. Reszones will do. That won't change. Uh the platting, that's one we'll have to discuss because historically we would send notices on on plats because we would take him to a public hearing. So for example, that bigcot one out off 89. Uhhuh. That would have gotten many public input at all. Yeah. Well, the re the reason would, but when the plat's come, no. that big one that backed out.

89ine. Yeah. Oh, they backed out. I think so. They got their approval earlier this year. Last year, I believe. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. But still, less transparency. Maybe it's a different

just you know um from somebody who's had done this for a long time I don't understand how you divorce the zoning action from the development plan or the preliminary plat because they're all generally submitted in tandem with one another. The action is generally based on the development plan. So I'll be curious to see how that plays out. So that is a discussion that we've had and and it's been the way we've done everything here is with the reszone. There's been very few rare times that we've done a reszone without a project associated with it. It's only under certain circumstances, but somebody wants to come in and do a reszone with a housing project. Uh we still want to see what that's going to be, what it's going to look like. It may not be every detail down to uh site plan with everything measured out and parking stalls measured out and all that stuff that you see. It may be more conceptual in nature, but there will be something associated with that reszone for you to look at.

Well, the action on the zoning change, isn't that generally contingent on a development plan? Yes. Don't you generally cite it? I mean, the the review date, the whole bit. Yes, it is. We we do ask for that, but there's been countless cases where that that development plan can be more conceptual in nature if they haven't finalized everything they're doing. And then usually that would come back as a design review.

They would go through the reszone conceptually, but then come back for a full design review. In response to this legislative change, could we require that um plats that come forward then for reasonzoning be more finalized? Like can we set standards in place so that things aren't so conceptual and abstract? Because we've had people come in and like bring things that are literally for other places as examples. Yeah. And then, madam chair, commission, we've never had a a hard requirement that a plat itself include development plans.

Uh because a lot of times a lot of projects will come through with their with their design portion of it for their reszone and then come back and do the platting later. Uh so we never required plats to be ready at that stage. Um, I'm going to turn that answer though over to to Mr. Gaylord to find out if we can in fact tie a design review per se to a plat. I don't know that we can.

I don't know that we can either. And that's something that I think we'd want to look at very carefully uh first for, you know, anything in existing law that could be an issue. But but I also think um baiting the bear, right, might be kind of an issue. I mean, I don't think that's the intent. I think if if we not just Cottonwood, but you know, cities and towns, if a bunch of us were to go ahead and pass rules like that, uh I think the legislature would probably come back and just amend this pretty pretty quickly. I I think I don't think that's what they want us to do. A different qu. to your question of could we would look at it um and then get you a better answer. Um if your question is you the commission aren't comfortable approving this reszone because you just don't know but you know enough about the plan and the application that's different right on a on a case-byase basis you're just not comfortable with these things because they're not coming to you with enough information. That's that's a different question I think than you know could we redo the code to say we need a final

final plat before we do a reszone.

I mean I definitely when I look at these it feels like the intent is efficiency for a very specific kind of building which is housing. Like I feel like this is in response to a housing crisis, but there are obviously other land uses that could take advantage of these and I don't know, I just feel like we should know what those are when they're approved. Yeah, certainly housing is part of this, but uh remember that you know you are talking I think here and then is it 15 uh 53 I think they're they're different bills um

1353 not 13 yeah that's one the one I'm talking about sorry is 1529 is the one that you know so so there's you've got multiple bills they're overlapping a little bit

1529 is definitely aimed at housing Right. And and I think the changes we're talking about, they're largely aimed at housing, but they're aimed at uh like large multifamily housing is how they're doing it. And I think I think whereas you've got 1529, I think you'd be right to say this isn't intended to be a sweeping change about commercial development, I don't know if it would be entirely true to say that the other uh bills are not necessarily supposed to impact commercial. I think they're supposed to be generally improving our efficiency, aka speeding us up on development review.

Well, I've bogarted this conversation, so you guys are going to have to speak up. I'll say from the staff side, um, you know, I hope one of the one of the downsides I I see that could potentially happen, hopefully not, is um there's projects that come through where we just can't get what we need from the developer um to meet the code. uh as you know sometimes we just will bring it then to the commission to make decisions on that and we wouldn't be able to do that anymore. So in that sense if it happens and we still have to go back and forth with the applicant might actually slow it down

rather than being able to bring them in front of you to make some decisions. Hopefully that's not the case but that's one of my concerns. I just see we'll put extra workload on your staff. No question. Yeah. 15 days. First team. Yeah. She doesn't need to sleep. Chair and uh and commission. You know, a spot of bright news. If we go back to the um to the pre-approved design plans. Yeah, that's that's interesting.

Yeah. So, uh one thing you might have noticed right here is that we need to create some ADU design plans for 200 square feet, but um that is for uh districts in which we allow ADUs,

right? Um, and so what they actually did, and this is a big win by the league, I think, is the ADU statute from last term has been adjusted to make it more clear that the ADUs everywhere provisions do not apply in Cottonwood, which is which was Cottonwood's uh reading of it already, right? But it was it was ambiguous before. And so the legislature went and That's right. And so the legislature went ahead and made an amendment there to clarify and confirm, I think, the way we had read it. So that's a positive.

Yeah. I mean, I don't think that this commission is anti-development, but I think that we're all aware of our role in sort of liaisoning between the public and the um planning, but staff is great and I'm sure that you guys will rise to the challenge of having no time and no additional staff. Um, but I was serious about not necessarily text amendments to make things more difficult to pass, but just I think clarity. Um, especially like you brought up that point, Scott, about, you know, there's things that you would in the past have worked back and forth with a a potential development with, and maybe maybe there's ways to work options into the law so that people can choose like choose door number one or door number two and then is that like a thing that we can work into our code? It's a thing that we can look at. Sure. Certainly.

I'm just trying to think of ways that like like what we have with um the historic Oldtown, you know, people can choose one set of code that that they can follow or they can choose the regular city code. And that additional flexibility, I assume, means less back and forth because they can choose which direction they want to go. Chair, that is an interesting example that you are bringing up. Um, because I do think, correct me if I'm mixing up the bills, Scott, but I think it is No, it's not 1529, it's 2447 that doesn't apply within historic districts.

Uh, yeah, I believe I don't think we put it on here, but I believe that is true.

Oh, yeah. But um to answer your question, chair, I think we have limited ability to do that. But I think uh part of the purpose of tonight is for staff to hear what your reactions are and what you'd like to see. And so as we work to adjust these uh by the respective deadlines, we can try to look for opportunities to do so in the way that you're thinking. And as I mentioned, we'll uh we'll bring some rough draft amendments to you next month to further that discussion on more specifics within the design review section. Anything else that we need to change, subdivision ordinance, uh so we can kind of further dive into that, look at some of your com comments, Madam Chair. um obviously work with legal counsel to make sure we're on the right track and then go back after that meeting and bring something more solid to you for action in November.

Okay. So, you will have that opportunity to provide input on what these changes look like. Um you know, what we could potentially do, what we can't do before you actually make a recommendation to council on it. Well, thank you very much. question right there. Uh, last chance for my commissioners to interject. Well, I'm just curious, you know, now that all this stuff's going to be administrative, you suppose there would be a push to uh for any written kind of, you know, commercial and residential design standards. Is that blowing around out there? I'm just curious. More stringent design standards. Written written design standards. Yeah, I know we don't have very much architectural standards.

Yeah. And that's that's something I think Madam Chair was kind of hinting at and that's what we can look at next month and and go into those specifics on what we want to see for that. I appreciate you clarifying it for the record actually like a lot. All right. Um thank you very much Mr. Director. Um thank you very much legal counsel and staff. Um I think that we're good on this. Uh, and I'm going to move on to see if there are any suggested topics for future meetings from the commissioners present. Right. I'm not seeing any suggested topics. I make a motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? All those in favor? I. And we're out

topics for future. Yeah. We used to do that. [Music]