Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

I now call to order the City of Cottonwood Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting Monday, December 15, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. Roll call, please. Commissioner Camela, present. Commissioner Glascott, present. Commissioner Helman, present. Vice Chairman Rothrock here. And Chairwoman Masten, present. Thank you very much. Our first order of business this evening is approving the minutes held from the meeting held Monday, November 17, 2025. Do any of the commissioners present have any corrections or additions to those minutes? Nope.

Do either of the commissioners on Zoom have corrections or additions to the minutes? No. No. Thank you. I move to approve the November 17, 2025 minutes. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. All in favor? I I I I

unanimously carried. Our next order of business areformational reports and updates from our staff. Good evening. Sorry for the delay on that. I just wanted to remind everybody that the January regulator meeting is scheduled for January 26th at 6 p.m. Um, also there is still one seat open for the planning and zoning commission. And lastly, just to have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we are beginning with uh the call to the public this evening. If there is anyone here from the public who would like to address the commission on any planning and zoning related item that's not on the agenda this evening, now is your opportunity to come forward. If you would like to speak, you must fill out one of the forms located in the back by the door. They're on a little brown table. Speakers will be granted three minutes each. If there's anyone who would like to come forward, please come forward now. All right. No one is coming forward, so I am closing the floor to the public and we're moving on. We are beginning or our first agenda item is old business DR-25-018. Uh this is a modification of DR24005, previously approved in May of this past year. A request for modified design review for a 15-unit apartment complex at 1416 East Mingus Avenue. Please take it away, Tina.

Thank you, Madam Chair, uh, Commission. I'm Tina Hayden with Community Development presenting on that modified design review project that we had brought to you last year. So, the request tonight is uh modification changes to the design of the roof and windows of the building. Um I this item here missed the boat of deletion when we copied and paste. So ignore that cup portion. Um tonight we ask that you consider the applicant submitt and the staff report with recommended stipulations. This project is located in our R3 zoning district. Allows for multifamily residential uh permitted for 15 units has 27 parking spaces on.56 acres. uh will note that it is adjacent to the R3 zoning. I did indicate in this staff report that at the time that this project was approved, we did not have any height stipulations when adjacent to um single family residential. And since then, I took another look at the code because we did adopt some height restrictions adjacent to lot lines. And the verbiage indicates that we only uh manage that height when adjacent to R1 single family residential zoning. So because this is similar R3 zoning, height restrictions are not imposed on this project. I have an elevation for you to view and then I do have a series of be, you know, first revision uh second rendition uh for you to take a look at. Um they're really just uh modifying the windows, doors, balconies, and that roof line. And as far as the height, we calculated it. I think it's changing by a matter of inches to at least 1 ft. So it's not exceeding our height maximums.

So the top is the previously approved design. The bottom is the new proposed design. here. Uh you can tell that they're changing the windows, making them smaller. They've enlarged the balcony areas, and then they have that gabled roof with shed roof design uh mashup there for you to see. I'd also like to point out uh that this new design does have some additional plantings. Uh it was stipulated by the commission last time that they do have provide some additional screening for this stairwell and this is what they proposed for that. Some additional renderings. This is the north elevation and the east elevation here. And if the commission desires to approve this modification, staff does recommend six stipulations. I won't go read them verbatim. They're indicated in the staff report. The first one is that the project just adhere to what was approved at the May 20th meeting last year and then what's subsequently approved at tonight's meeting. Uh second stipulation is it still adheres to our code review comment letter. Third stipulation is it aderes to our zoning ordinance uh including you know provisions of the R3 property development standards. Item number four still calling out for alley surface improvements unless there is uh demonstrated fire access that is approved by the fire marshall. Item number five this is where we extend the per uh the approval uh from May of last year. it they get 24 months from tonight if approved to submit building permits and diligently pursue the project. And

then the last one do have here that the applicant is required to install that vegetation or screening for that stairwell. That does conclude my presentation. I had informed the applicant that we would want them present for any questions you may have. At this point I do not see them in our audience. Uh, but I am prepared to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you very much. Do any of the commissioners have questions for city staff regarding this project?

Uh, just one [clears throat] uh which way do the um in what direction are the front porches facing what direction? Thank you for that, Commissioner Roth. Uh right here is Mingus Avenue. So they are facing south. There are on the rear on that north elevation there are also uh porches or patios, balconies that are facing north as well. But this would we would consider the front the street frontage, right?

And so they're facing down directly onto the street. Uh there are windows as you can tell. You know, this is the adjacent single family residential property here. There are windows that are facing out eastward.

Thank you. I want to make sure that we include our Zoom participants. Uh, Commissioner Glascott, do you have any questions for staff about the project? No, I do not. Thanks. Commissioner Helman, any questions? I have a question about this setback. Is it is it from the sidewalk or from the curb?

Thank you for that, Commissioner Helman. The setbacks are measured from the property line. However, on the the frontage, I'll switch back. We do allow for the landscape yards to be to start uh from the interior edge of the sidewalk. U in this case I believe based on their site plan that the landscape yard and the property line align with the edges the sidewalk.

Are there any other questions from the commissioner? I do have a couple questions. My first is um really about the intent for this project. I think that this project could serve an important need. We need more workforce and especially more affordable housing in the community. Um, and one of the things that the applicant does in their letter of intent is they mention that this is specifically intended to be workforce housing. And um, usually when people are talking about workforce housing, they're talking about affordability. And I wish that they were here because I would ask them, how are they defining those terms? Do you have any does staff have any um inkling into that?

Thank you, Chair Masten. Uh I will say that in discussing this project, I want to say early February of last year when they came to code review, we did inform them that we had a definition for affordable housing and asked them, "Does your project uh fit into that definition?" Uh they said no it does not. We do want to do more market rate. Uh but we can you know as staff we do understand that market rate can be affordable just not to people with lower incomes. Uh that's too bad. My other question is um about the screening. So, I just want to be sure before I go down this road, and I'm trying to remember from May, we asked for some kind of a screen on that stairwell. Which is that stairwell facing which property edge is that,

madam? Verify for me. This is the west elevation right here facing 14th Street. Okay. And so, Mingus is off over to the right here.

Yeah. One of the reasons why I specifically asked for vegetation there that there are a number of benefits to having a little bit of screening of that stairwell, but one of them is safety. Um if there is ever um an accident where anything comes off the roadway, it would be a very good thing to have more between the apartments which are fairly close to the edge of the property line um than just a relatively dimminionative staircase. I also am a little bit worried about the elements on those stairs since there's not any kind of significant overhang. Um, and again, if the applicant were here, I would ask them if they would do something about that, but because they are not, I feel a little bit I feel like my hands are tied a bit. Um, would it be within the purview of the commission to request um a more significant screen at this time? Is there a way that we could do that? Thank you for that question, Madam Chair. Uh I would actually look to our legal council uh to answer that question. Is he on Zoom?

I'm trusting. Uh I am chair and and Tina, I'm here. This is Mike Goodman. Um so reiterate please again the reason for the the desire for the change screen is something I or I'll reposition that statement. Um is the desire for the screen changing screening to be changed um dependent on the proposed changes that they've brought forth tonight?

Yes. because the only change they've added for screening is a single tree. And a tree can fail, it can die, um it can be very small. Um I would like to see something more significant in between the the stairwell and the street. And uh Tina, if you may, how [clears throat] how appropriate was that screening under the prior plan? Not can you repeat that question or reiterate it? Sorry.

Yeah. Um that the report says that the screenings acceptable from the previously approved plans, but is it the same screening here in this picture that I'm looking at? No. U so the top is the previous design. Uh on the bottom they're now implementing that new tree. Then yeah, I'm looking to the staff report to see it just says in the staff report I think I see that the previously approved screening is considered adequate and the applicant does not indicate any changes.

Oh, that screening is uh for adjacent to residential um properties. I'd refer you to the landscape plan which indicates that the applicant is just proposing that to satisfy that stipulation from the previous approval.

Gotcha. Well, [clears throat] does the commission feel that that is appropriate or adequate screening is I guess the question for you uh chair and whether you want to require any more would would depend on whether that's adequate screening. I would I would like there to be more, but I am open to feedback from my fellow commissioners. In some ways, I think a low wall would be the best thing. Um, but I would I wish the applicant were here because I would be open to their ideas as well. Um, do any of my fellow commissioners have any feedback on this? And as always, you are free to disagree with me. So, even if they put a couple more boulders in there.

Mhm. I don't know how I recall I recall last time we just said something like a tree or something just a screen from the street would be acceptable if I recall. Yeah, I kind of regret that as I look at it. It just doesn't feel adequate. And I know that when you look at renderings, renderings show a fully mature tree, but it wouldn't be for years. Yeah. But I don't hate Commissioner Camila's idea of just a couple more boulders. How far is that from the corner? It's very close. Yeah. So, someone comes. So, if they Yeah. You know, if you put a couple boulders in there, you see that a lot where,

you know, that's if they're big enough, they're going to they're going to stop a car or something. Yeah. Uh that'd be nice cuz tree may or may not go and tree uses water or couple of boulders don't do that. Uh the what we're seeing here, what street is that facing? 14th 14th Street. 14th Street, correct? Yeah. Well, not as bad as it would be if it was facing Mingus Avenue. Yeah. So, here's Mingus. There's that stairwell in question, that new tree added there as opposed to that.

Uh so, 14th Street's right over here. Yeah. It's that it's a it's a landscape plan change. This is a question for council. Can we uh specify that the applicant include I don't want to be so specific as to say boulders but some kind of barrier um at that corner. All right. All right. I had to get my computer to unmute. Um, so it sounds like the concern is safety.

Mhm. There. Yes. And I I know that our our current screening is regarding being able to see it.

Um, but this is a question I have for Tina. Then is that is our is our screening entirely based on the aesthetics or being able to actually screen things from view or do we have screening for safety? Uh when we're referring to screening, that's typically to block uh higher intensity uses. That's why for any multifamily residential, we require screening on the north and east lot lines when adjacent to single family residential. Uh in this case, we're using the term screening, but really wanting to implement safety blocks from vehicle access. Tina, if there's a better word, I I just don't know what it is. I don't want to specify a fence. I don't think it needs to be a fence. So I don't So we're just right now we're word smithing a stipulation. Is that okay?

That's what we're doing. Uh so we can brainstorm here. How about hang on. Can you put the stipulations back up? It always helps me to see the language. Okay. So, I have I'll leave it here because we have item six and I'm guessing we want to modify this or are we creating a whole new stipulation seven? Let's unless the commission doesn't like I actually kind of like both but others may not like it cuz I think having multiple things is good. Um I would add a seven. Okay. The applicants,

we can say safety measures is to prevent vehicle access. Some type of obstacle to prevent impingement on the structure. Yeah. Barrier. A barrier. Well, it could even just be Excuse me, chair. It could even just be landscape elements. Right. There you go. Okay. Okay. What's the big concern? You're thinking cars are going to jump the curb. Yeah, it's right at the corner. Like it's right at the corner. Yeah, it's pretty close, too. I'm looking at it.

So, what about those things, you know, at your local gas station? Those pipes or whatever those posts. Bowlards. Bowlards. A few bullards. Few bullards. They could I I am open to them. I don't want to be too prescriptive. I think a bullard bullards could work. I also think bold like just landscape elements could work. Um, so, uh, Commissioner Glascott, I am open to specifying bullards, but I also think that we as a commission could be a little more open-ended for them, especially because they're not present. Yeah, I like the I like the landscape option better because it just gives them more choices and it'll be more u appealing than the bullards.

Exactly. two. So what I have so far is the applicant is required to implement barrier or landscape elements to protect or

pedestrians protect the what if I just put the corner at 14th and manga Yes, we're workshopping. So you it's free speech among the commission if you want to just jump in. I like to deter deter vehicle encroachment

to the structure or something to protect to okay to deter vehicle encroachment and okay here is what I have number seven the applicant is required to implement a barrier or either a barrier or landscape elements to deter vehicle encroachment at the corner of 14th and Mingus. Does the commission approve of this stipulation? Question. Do we need six then at all?

We don't necessar the tree was to avoid for people walking up the stairs. Yeah, I think it's good to leave it. I think and also It's it's serving a secondary purpose. Okay. Yeah. Chair, if I may, if we could change uh implement to install. Yes. Thank you very much. And um chair, can we also add language to be approved by community development director or planning staff just so they don't have to come back to the commission for that change? Absolutely.

Yeah, good call. Is planning staff? That sounds more umbrella. Is that better? I'm looking up to our attorney. Planning staff or community development director or designate? I prefer the option of the community development director or designate so that at least it's a specific person. Thank you. Okay. So, community development director designate you.

All right, let me read read it one more time and see what the commission thinks. The applicant is required to install a barrier or landscape elements to deter vehicle encroachment at the corner of 14th and Mingus to be approved by the community development director designate or designate or designate. I approve. Okay. Uh at this point, because this is more complex, typically the vice chair makes the motions, but this one's gotten a little squirly. I will go ahead and make the motion. Thanks.

Um, do the commissioners have any further comments before we get to that point. Oh, and I almost forgot. Is there anyone here from the public who would like to speak regarding this proposed project? No one is coming forward regarding this project. So, I move to approve DR-25-018 to allow building modifications to the previously approved project DR-24-005 subject to the updated stipulations indicated in the staff report and the new stipulation 7. The applicant is required to install a barrier or landscape elements to deter vehicle encroachment at the corner of 14th and Mingus to be approved by the community development director or designate. Do I have a second?

Second. Thank you, vice chair. All those in favor? I I unanimously carried. We now have our item of new business for the evening. This is CUP-25-010 request for a conditional use permit to exceed the allowed maximum quantity and area of signs.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tina Hayden with Community Development presenting on this conditional use permit. Uh their request tonight uh is to approve a conditional use permit to for increased quantity and sign area. We ask that you consider the applicant submitt staff report with recommended stipulations and staff recommended findings. This is essentially the breakdown of what they're requesting of what is allowed per code is a quantity of two signs with a maximum 200 square ft. They are proposing four add or additional signs uh with a max quantity of 350.5 square ft. Uh that would be so they would have a total of six signs with 350 square ft. The difference is four signs extra and 150 extra square ft. Some details here. It is light commercial C1 zoning uh and it is within a larger shopping uh center here. We've got Safeway uh some other various uh commercial uses there. Uh property is about 11 acres. Uh they're asking for six signs. Four would be placed on the building. Two would be placed on individual monument signs. One in this general area and then one on the main street frontage. So, here is a site plan of where they're proposing to place their signage on the monument signs. There are um panels on either side and so that is factored in typically when we are approving sign plans. We per monument we only count it as one sign. Uh so that's why we're not

saying they're coming here for eight signs. Uh because we only count per monument one sign. So there are the monument signs here. Uh one sign on the parapet, two signs affixed to the walls closer to eye level, and then another sign that is hanging with a 7 foot height clearance. And here you can see uh the main sign over here on the parapets as I described. Two wall signs here, hanging sign here. Uh this does demonstrate that 7 foot height clearance for that hanging sign. In order for the commission to approve a conditional use permit, uh they must make three findings. The first one is general findings that the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare. Uh applicant is asking for s four signs to be affixed to the building. Two signs to be affixed on existing monument signs. Staff does not expect any detriment to surrounding property or occupants. Regarding compatibility with surrounding uses, uh this shall be compatible with surrounding uses in the vicinity. all the surrounding properties are subject to the same zoning ordinance and that they could also purs um I can't think of the word pursue a conditional use permit for additional signage. Uh the additional signage and square footage is not expected to increase the intensity of activity. In fact, it's intended to assist with wayfinding and circulating through the parking lot. And lastly, traffic and circulation. the existing monument signs have been in place. There doesn't seem to be any perceived impacts to, you know, adjacent traffic and circulation. Uh

aside, you know, there's no additional signage actually being proposed on those frontages. And then staff again doesn't expect any impacts to traffic in circulation. uh with the stipulations in talking with the applicant, they did indicate that they may not be able to pursue this sign permit until October of next year. Uh and so typically a conditional use permit is only good for 6 months from the date of approval. So, I would request that the commission work to modify stipulation 4 to work in some kind of extension and or add a stipulation five uh for that extension that would run in concurrence with the building permit. We've done it for uh recently the Circle K project that has yet to submit building permits or broken ground. They have a stipulation that runs concurrently with the building permit. Um, but these are the four stipulations that we would recommend. The first is that the project's developed with developed in conformance with what's approved tonight. Second, that it conforms to the code review board comment letter. Thirdly, that it conforms to our zoning ordinance. And lastly, that it conforms to that time frame or be subject to revocation per section 302. That concludes my presentation. I'm ready for any questions you have and I do have the applicants here for this if they have if you have any questions for them.

Great. Thank you so much, Tina. Does anyone on the commission have any questions for Tina regarding this project before we have the applicant answer questions? When's how long is a building permit? Sorry, that click. Oh, how long is a building permit good for? Typically, it is good for 6 months uh from the date of issuance. However, uh any request for inspections uh extends that another 6 months and then the building official has the opportunity to decide if they're diligently pursuing the project that they can extend it. Okay. Thank you. Question. Yes. Please go ahead, Vice Chair.

Um what's the height of the sign there at the back of the building or facing Cottonwood Street? Yeah. Two feet. Uh give me a moment while I look at this. I believe the top of Parropet is 28 feet 10 in uh with roughly 2 feet from the top of the parapet to the top of the Ross sign. Uh I can also have the applicant further break this down. Uh I'm sure they have more knowledge on every single dimension here.

Sure. Uh, Commissioner Helman, did you have any questions for staff about this project? No, I don't. Thank you. Commissioner Glascott, any questions for Tina? No, no, none either. All right. Thank you very much, Tina. At this time, if the applicant would come forward so that the commission can ask any questions. When you come forward, please introduce yourself into the microphone for the record and then give us a very brief uh summary of um the reason you're asking for the conditional use permit.

Hi, my name is Brian Wen. I'm with Northern Arizona Signs and um I'm here representing our company in Federal Heath for Ross. Um they're asking, excuse [clears throat] me, uh basically to increase the square footage of the signage, uh to have better visibility to get that way and get the customers in. Um you know, and just use up all of their sign area there to get that in. Um and then also the additional signs there on the side, I think, um are for foot traffic. Uh those breezeway signs underneath it. You know, I don't I think that it has that under canopy when you're walking across. I'm not perfectly familiar with this location, but um that's the main reason that that my customers asking for that increased size. [clears throat]

Thank you very much. Uh do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant? Yeah. Uh why does it need to be 22 feet high? It's facing Cottonwood Street and all it's across that street is homes. People's homes are going to have this ginormous sign. uh flooding into their house at night.

Yeah. I So I believe that the renderings were created based off of the sign area that's provided in that shopping complex. Um so there is some room looking at this rendering that you could probably reduce it uh or or bring it down closer. But there is usually stipulations in the sign code. And I'm not sure 100% what those are. I'm not familiar with Cottonwood sign code. Um, but generally, uh, when we install signs, we we particularly like to have them at that higher elevation for that visibility. I mean, that's a pretty standard practice. And I I would assume um that that this sign in these renderings are along the lines with the other signs that are in the complex.

I don't think so. Quick question. Safeway. I mean, I'm pretty sure Safeway signs pretty high up there. I apologize for not catching this in the plans, but are these lit or unlit? They are illuminated. They are illuminated and they are um falling, I assume, under our our dark sky rules. Correct. Yeah, they would be they would all be into compliance for for the lighting codes. All right. Are there questions uh on Zoom from the commissioners on Zoom for the applicant? No, no, I don't have any. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, thank you very much. The commission is going to discuss.

Thank you. Have a great night. Thank you, commissioners. Did you have any thoughts that you wanted to share regarding this? I think you answered the the light. If it meets the light codes, then I'm I'm good with that. That was my concern. I figured it would and I looked through here. So, uh, if it meets the dark sky community, then, you know, I don't think it'll have that big of an effect on on the neighborhood. I have a quick question for staff. Um, when you were putting together this packet, did you happen to compare the square footage with the immediate neighbor uh, Safeway?

Uh, thank you for that, Chairwoman Masten. Unfortunately, we did not do a comp comparable comparison study with nearby properties. Thank you. Just wanted to ask. Is there anyone here from the public who would like to speak regarding this proposed project? All right. No one is coming forward at this time. So, I'm going to close the floor to the public. Now is the commissioner's last opportunity to discuss this project prior to voting or ask further last minute questions. Any uh comments or questions from the commission? Uh Commissioner Helman? No comments. Thank you. Commissioner Glascott.

No, I just think it'll be a good addition to that shopping center. Commissioner uh Camila. Uh it's, you know, it'd be nice. It's going to be nice to get something right back in there. Uh I think the only I'd like to see that we put in uh you know I know they you can't get up till October is if we could extend that so we don't have to go through this again uh for not only for us I mean we're going to be here but for the applicant to have to redo that. So if we can word somehow we could extend that time frame concurrent with the permit however that would work if we've done that if the city's done that in the past. Uh, vice chair,

I I have a lot of heartburn with a big sign like that on a street that's um not as heavily traveled as Main Street where you might not have a chance to see it as you're going down the street, but here you got plenty of time to see it. This is Ross Dress for West and uh and also the folks who live across the street. just I don't think it's necessary to um have our signage in in cottonwood continually growing larger and larger and that seems to be the trend unfortunately in my opinion personally I would probably agree with that vice chair and the only reason that I feel it may not be needed is just because of the size of the parking lot and how far back the buildings are from the edge. Knowing that corridor where there's homes on one side that have a a normal distance to the street and then on the other side where there's the shopping center, there's that big lot and then you have the stores that are tucked pretty far into it. And on the edge of that lot, there are a number of um different I was going to say vegetations, but that's not grammatically correct. uh there are trees and bushes and there's there is to bring up something we were just talking about a lot screening in the traditional sense.

So for that reason I feel that this signage is appropriate because it is quite far back from the road. But I understand and I hear what you're saying and I do think as a commission it's really good to have somebody who is um watching out for trends like that that may affect residences. Um if that uh is everything that the commission wants to say on the record um we can now go to a vote. I do agree that we should adjust um stipulation number four. Typically that um role goes to the vice chair if you're comfortable with it. I know this is your first meeting in your official capacity.

Oh, number four. Mhm. Uh Tina, could you put stipulation number four on the screen for us? It's there at the bottom. Permanent sign that one.

Yes. So what we would probably put is something along the lines of a permanent sign permit of application must be submitted and diligently pursued within 6 months of this approval or run concurrent with the building permit. You want to put and or because if they Yeah. If they get it done quicker. So then Yes. And or Commissioner Camiller is Commissioner Camila is right. Okay.

And then you would put the last sentence after that. So if this condition is not met then case cup and so the way you say it is I would like to make a motion and then you make the motion as normal or as it's specified and then you say with the modification of stipulation number four and then you read it into the record. So, I uh hang on. I always put it my script. Thank you everyone for your patience. We are doing a little bit of administrative work. Yeah. Thanks. It's right here. Oh, there it is. So, you would say this with the modification of stipulation number four and then read what we just talked about. See this one here?

Yes. Yeah. All right. I'll take a crack at it. Okay, we are ready to hear a motion. I move to approve CUP 25-0 to allow the proposal proposed sign package based on the findings and subject to the stipulations indicated in the staff report. Um, a permanent with the modification of stipulation number four. I don't see that. Oh, you have to add it with the modification of stipulation number four. Then they

a permanent sign permit application must be submitted and diligently pursued within 6 months of this approval or andor andor I didn't get to write all that out. uh and or run concurrent with the permit. Okay. And or run concurrent with the permit. If this condition is not met, then case number C cup-25-010 will be subject to to section 302-G revocation. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Do we have a second?

I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Camila. All those in favor I I I unanimously carried. I Oh, did you not go? Oh, all those against. I apologize. I apologize. I I'm not in favor. I'd like to see I not unanimously carried. I miscounted.

Uh vice chair voted nay. Next up, we have one discussion item. This evening we are discussing discussing potential changes to the city of Cottonwood zoning ordinance regarding design review. Oh, is that correct? Design review guidelines. Yes, it is. Uh just as a reminder, discussions are open. You can if you are if you are a commissioner, you can speak um at will. It's uh more casual and we will not be voting.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Commission. and I have a brief presentation. We recently went to city council last week for a work session uh and brought this presentation to them uh regarding the changes that house bill 242047 is requiring that we adopt an ordinance to authorize administrative review of projects based on objective standards. Uh so we have you know informed the commission about house bill 2447 and let them know that this menu of reviews is now required to be done administratively. We are working to do a text amendment. The League of Arizona Cities and Towns does advise that we establish objective design guidelines to aid in making those determinations. Uh and really we went to council and just wanted to update them. uh receive feedback and answer questions. Staff also said that our intent is to develop guidelines that take the middle of ground approach, not too rigid, not too flexible. Council did also agree that that is what they would like to see. This is the anticipated timeline that we gave council. Uh we had the work session last week. We're here to discuss. We were told that the ordinance um becomes effective at the end of this year. There wasn't a actual time stipulation of when we need to enact these um ordinances or design guidelines. And so our legal is saying that as long as we're acting in good faith, we should be compliant with state legislature. And so this is our anticipated timeline that we would turn around a design guidelines document for you guys to make a recommendation on January 26th, bring

that to council in February, have it in effect in March. However, we understand that this can be a, you know, a big document to digest and so we have another timeline proposal for you and that we bring it to the commission in January and February for round one and round two uh and then bring that to council in March and have it in effect in April. And so that is one item that you know if you guys feel comfortable with just one public hearing, let us know. Or if you feel more comfortable having more time to read through the document and, you know, kind of help fine-tune it, make sure all the te's are crossed and the eyes are dotted. And really what we a lot of this is just what we sent to council. Uh we wanted to create some objective standard types to use in this document. Some yes, no, meets does not meets options, counts and measures and lists. Uh so one of those would be does it have this item? Yes or no. It's easy enough for staff to make a determination. Uh is it exceeding the allowed heights? Yes or no. It's easy for staff on that determination. And this last one of the list allows for some flexibility with design and that we say, you know, the project shall incorporate at least three of these elements. You can cherrypick what you want from this list.

Mhm. So I do have some examples. Uh on the left here is what we currently have. They're very vague guidelines. Uh and then on the right the league has uh promoted uh Concord California is having some good guidelines to look at. So this one regarding architectural details we're just saying that currently we say it just shall be compatible. It's very subjective.

City of Concord has that list says that there should be a minimum four approaches and has that listed out because really you know this is compatible. You have about five storefronts there. They're very compatible with each other, but this is also compatible design, but you have some breakup and you can kind of differentiate, you know, some different storefronts there.

Uh, regarding proportion, uh, this is not just uh, in relationship to the width and height of the building, but also to the other components such as windows and doors. the league's example here. First they want to indicate that um all you know building facade shall have entrances that face the street but then they also go into that the lower floor of any mixed use shall have a 75% openish look. Uh and then again they give us that list option to help uh individualize the units there. Uh, regarding fences, currently our code just says they shall not exceed six feet in height and they shall be made of uh, wood, chain link or masonry materials. Here the league has an example, another list item allowing for some variation that um, we either have, you know, a change in the plane, we have some grill work, uh, pillisters to help break up that monotony. and staff is currently working on the design guidelines. So this is a proposed strike through of what we could do uh in order to you know regarding access uh first listing and referencing the general plan and the categories in there regarding um street you frontages uh and just indicating that we can approve access points uh based on whether pedestrian and bicycle safety is called out or vehicle access is prioritized. Second, we're indicating uh either a parking study requirement uh or parking manual, some additional materials for staff to reference uh when determining

those unlisted uses. And then lastly, trying to factor in affordable housing, allowing for parking reductions if the applicant is proposing uh x percentage of affordable housing units to the city here. Some considerations that we want to make. We want to make sure that our design standards are clear, measurable, predictable, and easily applicable for stakeholders. Uh we do not want to have monotonous cookie cutter development. We want to allow for minor variances, deviations, that individuality. Uh we do intend to provide graphics to make it easy to use. We also want to adhere to our general plan. Uh some items that they call out specifically for the neighborhood commercial is that we have low visibility parking lots and drive-throughs. That we're promoting that pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Uh calling out for landscaping along corridors and preserving our key natural resources. And this last slide uh this is that rigid cookie cutter development that we could have if we had very you know rigid standards. This is that very flexible. You know, you've got design maverick, design anarchy here. We want to, you know, abstain from that. And this one, you can see that there's compatibility in color, uh, massing, uh, scale, and design elements, but they're each individual units. And that is what we're intending to achieve with our design guidelines. Now that does uh end my presentation. This is a discussion.

Uh if you have any questions for me, please call me up. Why do you hate brutalism? I don't necessarily hate it. Teasing.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Uh again, just to reiterate, free free talk. Um talk over me. I know that this is a little bit tougher when we have uh commissioners on Zoom, but I would encourage the commissioners on Zoom to just start talking whenever you want and we will try to respect that here in the room because it's easier for us than it is for you. Thoughts on this presentation, how these design guidelines are going? I would say do round one and round two. Yeah,

because this is a lot to digest and you know the public already a lot of people are totally against this because they lose they feel that they're losing their voice uh because things are just going to go right to staff and and and all in you know everywhere in Arizona. So I think we gave everybody the opportunity to to digest this and work on it. I would say two would be good and then shoot for that April date of you know that if that works legally Tina the league that you were referring to where you had the um what we're what we got going now and what that was the league of cities

ah it's Arizona that's what uh I didn't see up there it's the league of Arizona cities and towns the city frequently um works with them and they work with the city. They they help represent municipalities, especially smaller municipalities if you're unfamiliar with them.

I I also agree about doing two hearings. I think that this is such an important change that we need to have lots of opportunity for people to speak in the public. And I I can't tell you how many times I've seen a comment on a newspaper story on a planning change where somebody is saying, "Well, nobody knew about this." Um because they hadn't had a chance to to see the newspaper story yet. So maybe with the initial hearing um people will hear about it and then the second hearing will be an opportunity for those people that missed it the first time.

Uh for what it's worth. Oops. Go ahead. going to what you just said there that leads if usually when it's in the paper it's too late. Mhm. So is there going to be some semblance of notification to the public since this is going to be in the hands of staff more so than going before a commission like ourselves?

Thank you for that. Commissioner Glascott John were you going to respond? Um, thank you Tina. You can probably respond as well as I can. I guess my my answer is I don't think so. Um, if your if your question is, you know, will there be public notice of what of the fact that staff is going to be making an administrative decision comparable to the notice that the public gets now when it comes before the commission? Is that the question? Yeah, somewhat because the, you know, public likes to involve themselves sometimes and it seems like uh one of the other commissioners was also saying that the reason wanting to have two meetings is so they can voice their opinions or concerns.

Sure. Of not of losing their ability to become involved. Yeah. Um, I I think the city's position of course is has always been that public input is good and it should be done at a public meeting. And I think that's why we've had the process that we've had for design review for so long. Uh, but the intent of the bill is, you know, not only that it be done administratively, but the specific text of the bill requires it to be done administratively without a public hearing. And so the the bill is in is intentionally requiring cities to reduce that public notice public uh process uh for the purpose I think of speeding things up.

And just as a reminder for anyone listening who may have uh be new to this, this is legislation at the state level that the city is responding to. So we are coming into compliance to state level legislation. And this is not um this is not something that the city is doing independently, but these two hearings are an opportunity for people to voice their opinions. And I certainly hope that we get a lot of attendance and people take it seriously and read some of these changes because um as much as this can be frustrating what can feel like a new um change in the transparency level because things are going to be approved by staff. Um, putting so much of what used to be design review into the code is actually incredibly transparent because anyone can look up the code and we have the opportunity to do this in a way that makes it fair for everyone if people speak out and um share their ideas and opinions. Yeah, there's possibly um a lot of benefit in this especially if we can make use of what the league has already uh put down for us.

Yeah, the suggested guidelines from the league um they are in the agenda packet. If anyone is watching this online, you can download the agenda packet on the city of Cottonwood website. It is public. you can access it yourself. Um, and you can take a look at um, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns guidance for developing objective design standards and uh, it can help inform you as well. They have good ideas in here. Uh, I I think that the council's feedback is good. Um, is there anything else from council that we should be aware of on the commission? Thank you for that, Madam Chair. Uh they had asked if staff had any requests for direction to the commission. Uh I drew a blank on anything to say. Uh I think we're in a good spot, you know, knowing that we want to do that middle ground and we're going to look to other jurisdictions and what the lead recommends so that we're doing a little bit of copying and pasting for our design guidelines with some cottonwood fine-tuning at the end. Okay. I think my one suggestion if I had to give one is when you look at this maybe be thinking about and this just ties back to our general plan but be thinking about the different regions we have within Cottonwood um and especially the historic district in Oldtown and I know that we already have some special uh treatment there but I think it would make sense to uh codify that further. Thank you for that, Madam Chair. Uh, in with you saying that, absolutely forgot that I intended to include a slide of the outline that we already have come up with because we I'd say we have a 10%. Yeah.

Yeah. We have a 10% draft at the moment with our outline. We do call out for the arts, entertainment, and culture district, uh, historic preservation district, as well as, um, you know, residential, commercial, and industrial. So, uh, you'll definitely see that outline when we come back to you in January. Uh, I do apologize. I fully intended to have that available to you in this presentation. Can we get that outline a little bit earlier than will it be included in the in the packet because we don't get that till like Friday or Thursday. Can we get that outline earlier?

Thank you for that, Commissioner Camela. Uh that was a question that council had asked at the work session u about when we intended to have the item out. While the packet schedule uh is a little stringent with reviews, what we can do is look to have something posted like a 80 90% draft posted online prior to that. Uh so I think we're looking mid January uh to have that because the meeting's at the 26, you know, towards the end. So, we'll look to get, you know, a 80 90% draft out online for you guys to review. Yeah, that would be wonderful. Thank you. Cuz it's a lot to digest. So,

that would also be great for the public because that gives them the opportunity that we have as well. I feel like we're in a little bit of a liinal space here. I'm ready to Ava and I are ready to take it and [clears throat] run with it. And when I say 80 to 90, I I mean percentages, if I didn't specify that, chair. Yes.

If if I may, just uh two points. Um one uh raised by uh director CRO here is that we probably we want to make sure you know there will be a little bit of design review left uh to be done by the commission and the public process which will be our historic properties and historic districts. uh the well and actually I suppose I should say that's a decision up to you. I think staff is recommending that we keep those uh as part of the public hearing process. Um but that that's that's one thing that you will have the opportunity to weigh in on if you believe that that should also be administrative. That's something that could be done. But under this statute, we're not required to stop having public hearings for historic properties and historic districts.

So that's something for you to mole about and tell, you know, as we work through this process. But I think at the staff level, we're kind of assuming that you might want to keep that in the public process. So that's what and that's what we're recommending. Uh the other item is just from a sort of a the st the perspective of a professional drafter, I guess, on model ordinances. I want to kind of I think emphasize what has been said already is the model ordinances are always drafted to be sort of the lowest common denominator, right? There are 92 members of the Arizona League of Cities and Towns. Um and and the model ordinance is supposed to be something that's useful for everyone. So when it's drafted, it's intended to be customized. And I think among all the model ordinances, this is one if you asked any member of the model ordinance drafting committee, they would tell you they expect to see a lot of customization. And so I think you know what Miss Hayden was describing is she was describing you know sure copy paste get an idea of the scope of the ordinance some examples of maybe different methods that you could do of crafting an objective design whe standard whether it's yes no whether it's multiple choice those kinds of things uh but what are the standards I think the expectation is that the the meat of the standards will be different here than it would be in Flagstaff or Glendale. or wherever you might. So, a lot of uh modification is expected. It's an opportunity for you to have real good input. So, I just wanted to bring that up to kind of, you know, set expectations. You know, I don't think you should expect to get the league model ordinance,

you know, with Cottonwood written on the top. I think I think what I was commenting about was just the specificity in the um in her slides in particular where where actually some of the league suggestions were more specific than some of Cottonwood's existing ordinance. And I think that one of the most lovely things about Cottonwood is how it the municipality has gone out of its way to make development easy. Um, but I think that as we stop having as public of a process, it's not that we're going to make development difficult, we just need to be more specific so that expectations are clear. Um, but I love hearing that about the historic districts. I um had not internalized that and I think that the public will love that as well because there is a lot of concern about the preservation of historic districts and buildings in Cottonwood. Any further discussion from the commission?

No. If there's no further discussion, I am going to make a motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor? I I I slowed down that time to be sure. [laughter] Sorry about that. [snorts] I thought you might have intuited where I was. [music]

[music]