Developers seek Cottonwoods development agreement changes; homeowners and commissioners press for bigger parks and clearer HOA commitments

Heidi Nettleton, representing Morgan County Cottonwood LLC and several other landowners, presented a proposed amendment to the Cottonwoods PUD development agreement and overlay, saying the group seeks to revise phase boundaries, remove an equestrian-center requirement and clarify densities across adjusted phases six and nine. Nettleton told the commission the applicants had negotiated with the Cottonwoods Master Homeowners Association and revised their proposal to remove townhomes and the previously-proposed 8,000-square-foot lots; she said that change reduced the proposal to 240 dwelling units across the parcels they represent.

Nettleton emphasized that the 240-unit figure equates to roughly 0.55 dwelling units per acre on the combined acreage she listed, and told commissioners the plan would add amenities including approximately 21,000 linear feet of trails, a tot park, and one or two pickleball/tennis courts. “No town homes,” Nettleton said repeatedly while describing concessions her team had made for the HOA.

Cottonwoods MOA attorney Cameron Cutler and multiple residents urged the commission to require firmer guarantees on public open space and to preserve the HOA’s right to incorporate newly platted land. Cutler told commissioners the MOA remains concerned that the amendment could allow the applicant to use remaining project density for phases 6 and 9 without providing commensurate, usable public amenities. He also reiterated that, under the recorded declaration, adding land to the master declaration is controlled by the declarant and may require a 75% member vote in some circumstances — a procedural hurdle the MOA says will complicate any effort to expand membership on equitable terms.

Residents stressed the same theme during public comment, asking the commission to protect native open space and to require larger community parks rather than small, half-acre pocket parks. One resident summarized the neighborhood’s concern: once open land leaves the MOA’s effective control, it is difficult for homeowners to prevent future private changes. Several speakers said they had circulated petitions and collected signatures urging open-space protections.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on several technical points. Staff and elected members probed which parcels the applicants actually control (Nettleton enumerated parcels she represents and clarified that some nearby parcels remain outside the application), how the proposed deed restrictions and trail easements would be recorded, and whether the proposed trails should be defined and built as paved, 6-foot-wide trails or as narrower dirt paths. Staff also flagged a key drafting issue: the applicants’ proposed DA language would change a current requirement that certain owners “shall join” the master HOA to language saying they “may join,” a change commissioners and the MOA identified as a major sticking point.

The meeting included an extended, technical exchange on density calculations. The original Cottonwoods overlay and subsequent documents have several published numbers (760, 877, 1,027) tied to different baseline and bonus calculations. Nettleton walked the commission through the bonus-density table in the overlay report, explained reductions for the removal of private recreational amenities (the prior golf course/equestrian bonuses), and said her group intentionally de-emphasized some categories so the numeric total would not increase above a previously discussed threshold. County staff and Deputy County Attorney Janet Christopherson asked clarifying questions and noted discrepancies in published ordinance math that staff will need to reconcile.

After more than an hour of presentation and public comment, the applicants asked for additional time to finalize documents, and county legal and planning staff asked for time to complete their review. The commission voted to postpone the Cottonwoods development-agreement public hearing to July 7 to allow negotiation on HOA language, confirm how trail and park obligations will be recorded, and reconcile density calculations.

What to watch next: the county attorney and planning staff will review final DA language, deed restrictions and the precise definition of “trails” versus sidewalks. The July 7 public hearing will be the next formal opportunity for the commission to act on the amendment request.