NOTICE OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF CLARKDALE

Reasonable accommodations may be requested by contacting the Community Development Department at (928)-639-2507 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Wednesday, March 4, 2020 6:30 pm Clarkdale Memorial Clubhouse Men’s Lounge, 19 N Ninth St.

In accordance with Resolution

#215 of the Town of Clarkdale, and Section 38-431.02, Arizona Revised Statutes, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board of the Town of Clarkdale will hold a REGULAR Meeting Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 6:30 p.m., in the Clarkdale Memorial Clubhouse Men’s Lounge, 19 N Ninth St. Clarkdale, Arizona. All members of the public are invited to attend.

GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

The Town of Clarkdale endorses civil discourse. If you wish to speak at this meeting, please:

• Fill out a “Comment Card” and deliver to a staff person.

• When recognized, step to the podium and state your name and whether you are a Clarkdale resident.

• Direct all comments to the Board Chair. Do not enter into a dialogue with the applicant or other members of the public.

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this notice was duly posted on the Town Hall bulletin board, located at 890 Main Street, Clarkdale, Arizona and on the Town of Clarkdale’s website on February 18th, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.

Mike Gray Project Manager

www.clarkdale.az.gov

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL:

3. PUBLIC COMMENT: The public is invited to provide comments at this time on items that are not on this agenda. Action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, or scheduling the matter for further consideration and decision on a later agenda, as required by the Arizona Open Meeting Law. Each speaker is asked to limit comments to FIVE MINUTES.

4. MINUTES: a. Consideration of the Special Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2020.

5. REPORTS: a. Chairperson and Members Report b. Staff Report

6. NEW BUSINESS:

a. PUBLIC HEARING: Park Hotel/Smelter Town Brewery Signage Consideration and discussion regarding the approval of the design for two (2) proposed signs for the Park Hotel and Smelter Town Brewery, located at 921 Main Street, Clarkdale, Az. Applicant: Craig Backus, Smelter Town LLC.

b. ACTION ITEM: Park Hotel/Smelter Town Brewery Sign Application Discussion and possible action to approve, approve with conditions, deny, or table for further study the application for approval of two (2) proposed signs for the Park Hotel and Smelter Town Brewery, located at 921 Main Street, Clarkdale, AZ. Applicant: Craig Backus, Smelter Town LLC

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

8. ADJOURNMENT:

Design Review Board January 8, 2020

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF CLARKDALE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2020, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE MEN’S LOUNGE OF THE CLARK MEMORIAL CLUBHOUSE, 19 N. NINTH STREET, CLARKDALE, AZ. BOARD MEMBERS:

Chairman Pierce Present

Vice Chair Prud’homme-Bauer Present Board Member Branam Present Board Member Lindner Remote via speaker

phone Board Member Kaempfe Present

STAFF: A Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town of Clarkdale was held on Wednesday, January 8, 2020, at 6:30 p.m. in the Men’s Lounge of the Clark Memorial Clubhouse, 19 N. Ninth Street, Clarkdale, AZ. 1. AGENDA ITEM: CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

2. AGENDA ITEM: ROLL CALL: Project Manager Gray called roll.

3. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC COMMENT:

a. The public is invited to provide comments at this time on items that are not on this agenda. Action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter or scheduling the matter for further consideration and decision on a later agenda, as required by the Arizona Open Meeting Law. Each speaker is asked to limit comments to FIVE minutes.

No public comment.

4. AGENDA ITEM: MINUTES:

Consideration of the Regular Meeting Minutes of December 4, 2019.

Community Development Director Ruth Mayday

Project Manager Mike Gray

Town Manager Tracie Hlavinka Public Works Director Maher Hazine

Design Review Board January 8, 2020

Board Member Lindner requested correction to his comments related to the Dollar General store. He clarified that the intent of his comments revolved not around the placement of a commercial use adjacent to residential but pertained to the orientation of the Dollar General Store so that it ended up facing residences. Staff noted the correction.

Motion to approve the minutes with the above amendment by Vice Chair Prud’homme-Bauer.

Seconded by Board Member Branam.

Chairman Pierce Aye Vice Chair Prud’homme-Bauer Aye

Board Member Branam Aye Board Member Lindner Aye Board Member Kaempfe Aye

The motion carried and was unanimously approved.

5. AGENDA ITEM: REPORTS: Chairperson and Member Report:

None. 6. AGENDA ITEM: REPORTS: Staff Member Report:

Community Development Director Mayday describes a new agenda format and some other changes lending to consistency. She also mentions the up-coming General Plan process and associated public participation, encourages the board members to contact Community Development with any interest in helping to develop the plan.

7. AGENDA ITEM: OLD BUSINESS:

a. DISCUSSION ONLY: Review of Criteria for and purview of Design Review Board. This item was postponed from the meeting held on December 4, 2019.

Community Development Director Mayday presented.

Board Member Kaempfe requested clarification about the term “major” in the context of a major or a minor amendment.

Chairman Pierce suggested this would be a subjective determination made by staff. Community Development Director Mayday confirmed this. Chairman Pierce referenced the theatre building and the formerly bricked-in entry with a roll-up door – he inquired what measures are in place to prevent such a reoccurrence.

Design Review Board January 8, 2020

Community Development Director Mayday stated what’s in place currently is vague, but that this will be addressed in the focus areas of the General Plan, and that there will be more on this later in the presentation as well as in up-coming meetings. Adoption into the General Plan will give the measures “teeth”. Vice Chair Prud’homme-Bauer requested clarification on the process of appeal of a decision by the DRB – she noted her understanding that a hypothetical appeal could not be heard by Town Council, that instead, it needed to go to the Superior Court. Community Development Director Mayday states the way our code is currently written, an appeal would go back to Town Council. Vice Chair Prud’homme-Bauer requested clarification of the influence DRB can have over sign content. Citing Reed vs. Town of Gilbert, Community Development Director Mayday opined that making such recommendations on behalf of a Town entity is legally not recommended. Town Manager Hlavinka offered a case in point wherein a municipality was tempted to limit a homeowner’s offensive sign. The legal counsel for the municipality advised them to stay well away from such a fight, asserting the homeowner’s First Amendment right of free speech. Board Member Kaempfe brought up the hypothetical situation of approaching the applicant post-meeting and making the recommendation as a fellow citizen. Even so, stated Town Manager Hlavinka, this could be risky due to the possibility such a recommendation would be perceived as coming from the public body. More discussion ensued around legal risk making sign content suggestions. Chairman Pierce summarized his understanding that the DRB’s responsibilities under Sections 11 and 4. He noted that sign colors, materials and visual compatibility fall under the DRB’s purview, however, “at what point is a color not free speech?” Community Development Director Mayday agreed and went on to make the point that this is how our current version of the code is laid out, and that correcting our code will be a process, but the item at hand tonight is to put the process of site plan review under expert staff’s purview and relieving the DRB of the associated legal responsibility. Chairman Pierce wants to know how the board can focus on design standards if it has no ability to make suggestions to an applicant. He observes this leaves little for the DRB to do besides approve something that already meets code requirements. Community Development Director Mayday states the way our code is currently written is at risk of being found arbitrary and capricious, and she stated there is no way to enforce it.

8. AGENDA ITEM: NEW BUSINESS:

1. a. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 11,

DESIGN REVIEW AND SITE PLAN REVIEW, CHAPTER 4, GENERAL PROVISIONS; SUBSECTIONS 4-0120 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING AND 4-080 FENCE HEIGHT, CHAPTER 8, OUTDOOR LIGHTING, CHAPTER 9, LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS.

Community Development Director Mayday presented a summary of text proposed amendments.

Design Review Board January 8, 2020

Board Member Branam observes the component of scale being moved to the purview of site plan review. She points out the ability of any board member to identify a massive building downtown as being inappropriate from a scale standpoint and states the purpose of DRB is unclear. Chairman Pierce agrees. Community Development Director Mayday details the differences between site plan review and design review. She reiterates the criteria that fall under site plan review (like the fact that zoning code already limits the example of the massive building from being constructed downtown) and design review, which considers architectural features, textures and scale of doors, windows, etc. Town Manager Hlavinka clarifies the issue that scale applies differently, but it still applies to both design and site plan review. More discussion follows to the effect that site plan review carries inherent legal liabilities that should be shouldered by expert staff, while the design review board impacts the visual aesthetics of architecture in various focus areas. It is further confirmed that the DRB will help to determine criteria for the various focus areas in the General Plan. Chairman Pierce asks about the process of determining these criteria. Community Development Director Mayday stated the process will be developed in Design Review Board meetings. Chairman Pierce observed the standards are more important than the individual projects that come before the board. Board Member Branam requests a timeline on development of the standards. Community Development Director Mayday projects work on the General Plan should start in April pending Council approval of the public participation plan. Board Member Lindner inquires if this item is up for action or if just for discussion. The item is confirmed for discussion only.

9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

a. Development of Design Review Criteria. b. Community Development Department has received an application for a proposed multi-family

development. Staff anticipates this will be presented at the next regular meeting of the DRB, scheduled for February 5, 2020.

10. ADJOURNMENT:

Board Member Kaempfe moved to adjourn. Board Member Branam seconded the motion.

Chairman Pierce Aye Vice Chair Prud’homme-Bauer Aye

Board Member Branam Aye Board Member Lindner Aye Board Member Kaempfe Aye

Design Review Board January 8, 2020

The meeting adjourned at 7:57 PM. APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY: _____________________________ ____________________________ Chairman Project Manager Michael Pierce Mike Gray

1 DRB – 092600 Park Hotel / Smelter Town Brewery

Staff Report Agenda Item: DRB-092600 Park Hotel/Smelter Town Brewery

a. PUBLIC HEARING: Park Hotel/Smelter Town Brewery Signage Consideration and discussion regarding the approval of the design for two (2) proposed signs for the Park Hotel and Smelter Town Brewery, located at 921 Main Street, Clarkdale, Az. Applicant: Craig Backus, Smelter Town LLC.

b. ACTION ITEM: Park Hotel/Smelter Town Brewery Sign Application Discussion and possible action to approve, approve with conditions, deny, or table for further study the application for approval of two (2) proposed signs for the Park Hotel and Smelter Town Brewery, located at 921 Main Street, Clarkdale, AZ. Applicant: Craig Backus, Smelter Town LLC.

Staff Contact: Mike Gray, Project Manager Meeting Date: March 4, 2020 Presented to: Design Review Board Background: Craig and Becky Backus have submitted an application for Design Review of two (2) business signs for the Park Hotel/Smelter Town Brewery, located at 921 Main St., APN #400-03-158A. The property is zoned (CB) Central Business. This is a brand-new hotel with a brewery scheduled

Vicinity

2 DRB – 092600 Park Hotel / Smelter Town Brewery

Staff Report to open in the spring and summer (respectively) of 2020. The applicants have a current Town of

Clarkdale business license. The proposed signs are numbered and shown above in Fig. 2 Proposed Signage.

1. 1’ H x 6.5’ L - “Brewery” at the North

entrance of the building, facing Main Street. (1 x 6.5 x two sides = 13 sf total)

2. 8.5’ H x 2’ W “Hotel” oriented vertically on the corner of the building facing

the intersection of Tenth and Main Street. (8.5 x 2 x two sides = 17 sf)

Sign materials are described as: “Black/bronze metal frames, letters and logos. Tan/khaki

background and logos cut out”. The applicant describes sign illumination thus:

Sign #1. LED strips from above.

Fig. 2 Proposed Signage

3 DRB – 092600 Park Hotel / Smelter Town Brewery

Staff Report Sign #2. Down lighting from above (black metal gooseneck fixtures).

Lumens and lighting temperature (or color) are not described in the application. Section 7-030 Sign Illumination

A. Outdoor floodlighting by flood light projections above the horizontal is prohibited except for lamps specifically exempted under Section 8-070 K and R and properly adjusted motion sensing security lighting fixtures as defined in Section 8-130 A14.

B. All light fixtures which are required to be shielded shall be installed in such a manner that the shielding complies with the definition of fully shielded fixtures.

C. All light fixtures, including security lighting, except street lamps, shall be aimed or shielded so that the direct illumination shall be confined to the property boundaries of the source. Particular care is to be taken to assure that the direct illuminations do not fall onto or across any public or private street or road. Motion sensing lighting fixtures shall be properly adjusted, according to the manufacturer’s instructions, to turn off when detected motion ceases.

Sign number two (2) may or may not comply as proposed. The application states lighting for sign number two will be downward facing gooseneck type fixtures. The Applicant will need to demonstrate that the lighting elements are not visible from beyond the property boundary.

Some possible solutions are:

• Position the lighting on the outer edges of the sign, aiming toward the building • Use of shielding or louvres to limit lighting to the sign surface • Backlighting the lettering • Perimeter lighting behind frame

N. Lighting used for all externally illuminated signs shall conform to all restrictions of this Ordinance, shall be fully shielded, and shall be turned off at 10:00 p.m. or at the close of business, whichever is later.

This is a standard requirement.

4 DRB – 092600 Park Hotel / Smelter Town Brewery

Staff Report Section 7-080 Permitted Signs

I. Projecting: 1. Maximum height equals top of wall.

The application complies. The top of the sign is well below the top of the wall.

2. No signage shall extend over public property except in the Central Business district and in no case shall the bottom of the sign be nearer than 9 vertical feet to grade, nor shall the leading edge of the sign be nearer than 2 linear feet to the curb.

The application complies. 3. Maximum number equals one per business.

The application complies. 4. An agreement indemnifying the Town of Clarkdale from any liability is required if the sign projects over public right-of-way.

Applicant shall provide. 5. See Section 7-090 of this Code for maximum sign square footage.

The application complies.

6. Height shall not exceed top of wall. (Redundant text in existing code)

The application complies.

Section 7-090 Maximum Sign Square Footage for Commercial Uses

The maximum allowable combined signage size is calculated as 1.5 square feet per 1 linear foot of street frontage.

The application complies. The applicant’s street frontage is 150 linear feet (lf). The maximum allowed signage for the applicant is 225 sf. The application proposes less than 55 sf of signage.

5 DRB – 092600 Park Hotel / Smelter Town Brewery

Staff Report

Staff Detailed Recommendations: Staff has discussed lighting with the applicant, who understands the code, and agrees the lighting will comply to T.O.C. 8-7 Lighting Requirements. Staff recommends approval of DRB-092600 Park Hotel/Smelter Town Brewery with the following stipulations of approval:

• Illumination must comply to 7-030 A,B & C, and to 8-7. • Applicant must provide indemnification agreement - 7-080 4.

Possible Motions:

• I move to approve application DRB-092600 with the stipulations proposed by staff.

• I move to approve application DRB-092600 with the following changes/additions:

• I move to postpone action on DRB-092600 until a specific date and direct staff and/or the applicant to provide the following:

• I move to deny the application for DRB-092600 based on the following specific reasons:

Attachments:

1. Application, including letter of intent, site plan (vicinity), elevation view with sign locations, illustrations of signs.