Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

test. Test Test

joining us this evening. I would like to call to order the December 1st, 2025 hearing of the city of Hood River Planning Commission. Uh my name is Kate Hoffman. I am presiding as chair of the planning commission this evening. Uh we do have we will be having testimony in a little bit and I know that there are some people online um appearing by Zoom and in order to participate uh by phone as well if there are any I don't think there is anyone by phone but if you're online you will need to make sure you raise your hand uh we're going to try and go through all of you by name like we will do with the signup lists in the other rooms that we have here today but please make sure that your Zoom name reflects your legal name so we can appropriately put your testimony into the record. Okay. Uh we have a planning director updates

and a couple little things to attention before we start. Yeah, just uh another heads up. We do have a remote viewing room um which will allow people to testify that haven't been able to fit in this room. Uh it's at the fire station. We have staff there. Uh there's opportunity to view the meeting live as well as provide testimony. So, uh we've filled this room now. Um and we're asking folks to either participate online or or do go to that that remote location. So, okay.

Thank you. Uh the only other matter that we have um is is a housekeeping matter for you all. Every year in October, uh we we technically are to appoint a planning commission chairperson. Uh Kate was nominated and um is is acting. That was in June, I believe, was the last meeting. Um, so we're actually I'm looking for a motion and from you all to reappoint Kate as uh as acting chair unless someone else is interested in becoming the chairperson uh starting tonight.

I'll make a motion that we appoint Kate Hoffman as the chairperson for the reply commission and I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? I Okay. Thank you very much. Great. That that's all I have other than the the single public hearing for tonight.

Okay. Well done. Uh let us move on to the public hearing section. I am going to begin with a description of the process and a few disclosures. First, the function of the planning commission is to review the record for tonight's hearing, take testimony, and determine whether the application meets or does not meet the applicable approval criteria. It is not our job to be more restrictive or lenient than these approval standards allow, but rather to interpret and apply the approval standards as written. If you have any questions about the applicable approval criteria, they are listed and analyzed in the staff report. Second, we are required to render an impartial decision. This means we cannot have a personal financial stake or bias that would prevent us from making an impartial decision. Before we begin, I will call for the disclosure of bias, exparte contacts, and conflicts of interest from each commissioner. Anyone in the audience will then have the opportunity to question any of us about those disclosures. Once we issue our written decision, it is final unless appealed to the city council. To appeal our decision, you must participate either orally or in writing uh before the record closes. You must raise any issue and present evidence you might wish to preserve for an appeal to the city council or the land use board of appeals. Once we close the record, that will end your ability to raise new issues or present evidence. We will now consider file number 2025-15, site plan approval for the AC Marriott Hotel. Let me describe the order of events for tonight's hearing. First, we will hear the staff report. Then, we will hear from the applicant. We will then take testimony from anybody wanting to testify on the hearing. Once we hear testimony, the applicant will have the final right of rebuttal and the opportunity to answer questions. Finally, after everyone has had a chance to testify, we will close the record, deliberate, and render a decision. Our decision, however, is not final until it

is reduced to writing and officially issued. Here are some rules for presenting testimony in tonight's hearing. Only present testimony when called upon. We will start with our in-person audience, then our remote viewing location, and then our online participants who will need to raise their hand to be called on. Please begin with your name and your mailing address. You please limit your testimony to the applicable approval criteria identified in the staff report. Our decisions are governed quite strictly by those approval criteria and they are the only issues we can take into consideration. If you believe that different criteria apply, please identify those and explain why you think they apply. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by evidence with sufficient specificity to allow us or the parties to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the city council or LUBA based on that issue. Failure by the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow us to respond to the issue will preclude an action for damages in circuit court. To allow everyone an opportunity to speak this evening, we're going to generally limit our testimony to 2 minutes. If someone has already raised the issues that you believe apply to the application and reflect your own comments, please feel free to state that on the records so that we can avoid unnecessarily redundant testimony specifically to create more opportunity for others to participate. This will also preserve your testimony for the record should you state that. Uh I would also like to mention that testimony is not meant to be a question and answer forum. If you do have specific questions for the applicant, please clearly and concisely articulate them so that the applicant may respond during their right of final rebuttal. We also ask that you please limit cheering or other expressions that might prevent or delay testimony from being heard again so that we can try and hear from as many people as possible this evening.

We greatly appreciate everyone who has taken the time to submit testimony and to come discuss this project and express their feelings for the evening. I personally would like to take a moment to express gratitude and for the opportunity for all of us as neighbors and volunteers and city staff to work together to try and figure out what it is we think is best for our community. So that's the end of the procedural introduction. Uh are there any procedural questions from anyone online? We're going to have to give a little time for each of these questions just to make sure. Okay. Uh, no procedural questions. If anyone has any questions about the process as we go forward, please feel free to ask them during the public testimony section of the hearing. We will now consider file number 2025-15, an application by line 29 architecture for a site plan approval for a hotel at 419 State Street. A quorum of the planning commission is present, and I will ask all commissioners to disclose any exparte contacts, conflicts of interest, or bias in this matter. I'm going to go ahead and just start down from this end with Commissioner Irving.

Hello. Um, I need to recuse myself for the evening. I have a residential real estate relationship with one of the applicants for a property search. So, I'm going to recuse myself as I don't think that would be uh in the best interest to be up here. Commissioner Lionel. Yes. I'm a member of Riverside Church and also on their building committee. Um I personally have had no exparte communication or any other conflicts of interest related to this matter.

Uh no exparte communication, no bias or conflict of interest. Um no exparte uh communication bias or conflict of interest.

No exparte uh communication or bias of interest. No. Uh now does anyone in the audience or here in the commission question any commissioner on any disclosure exparte conflict bias or conflict of interest or otherwise challenge the participation of any member of this commission. I'll wait again for anybody that might be online or anywhere else to raise any hands. No hands. Okay. All right. Yes. Sure. Do do you want to step up to the Yeah. If you touch the little hockey puck looking thing, it'll turn green.

So, we had an a series I'm sorry, Chris Rob. Um, we had a series of emails saying that the planning commission would not make a decision tonight, but that um you would end up having another hearing on January 5th at which you would make a decision. If you're hearing tonight, then I need to slip out and submit some testimony by, you know, by the time you're done tonight. So, which is it? Are you are you actually deciding tonight?

Um, well, Dustin, I don't know how to address this. I think that the issue is that we aren't certain that we we are very interested in having as many people testify to us about this particular project as possible and we want to give as much time to collect as much information as possible as well and answer questions and we're not really sure at this moment in time how much time we will have for all of that. Yeah, I think uh in my recommendation process-wise uh in order to allow everyone to speak and really to not deliberate, the recommendation will be to leave the the record open uh for 7 days allowing for continuation. We'll get to that at the end of the night. Um I I presume that is going to be an acceptable outcome. But given the number of people who wanted to testify, allowing the record to be remain open, allowing people to provide uh arguments on matters within the record for another seven days and then a final 7-day rebuttal for the applicant to produce its its rebuttal is going to be the recommendation. Uh we can get to the point where any applicant or parties have any objection to that process. But um we will cross that bridge when hopefully we arrive to it tonight. But that is my that's my anticipated recommendation to you all. all pursuing us but we thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So, if we have no further process questions, then I believe we're up to the staff report. Correct? Yeah. I think you uh time for you to open up you you will now open up the hearing. Oh, yeah. Sorry, I skipped a line. Sorry. I'm new here with this. Um so if anyone we already did that we will now consider we already did that planning commission we already did that it says now we'll have this report please hearing is we'll call it open

it is open yes hearing is open

thank you chair um as as compiled again this is a a request 202515 a site plan approval for 135 units hotel um this application was submitted by line 29 architecture uh and is subject to a number of um code criteria outlined in my staff report originally produced in August 11th later uh provided supplement um to that in November 5th uh after a continuation and a and a revertisement was produced. I'm going to quickly go through this. Uh you have it in writing so I'm not going to fill airspace reading it to you. Um you've had an opportunity you've had it actually for multiple months uh last uh for the last week the last six pages you've been been provided all comments um submitted to date um in advance of the hearing both in advance of the August hearing later the continuation through December 1st. Um we expect more comments to come in. We will then provide those to you uh in writing those that we receive here and you'll have an opportunity to review that on the record. So, uh, a quick history. Um, again, this this application is subject to a number of conditions within the Hood River Municipal Code. Again, it is a commercial use. Uh, it is a permitted use, uh, subject to compliance with an a number of sections. Um, it is not a zone change. It is not a conditional use approval. Therefore, it is not to be implemented or it, uh, the comp plan does not become criteria. Uh I have the authority to approve this as an administrative um ask without hearing. Uh but given the the interest and gravity, we recommended that the applicant uh produce this application as a quas judicial review and directed it to be heard before the planning commission uh to be evaluated really in

more of a public setting. So as we as we look at the code criteria, a lot of them again are are this is technically a limited land use decision. Uh it is not a conditional use. It is not a zone change. So um that influences the way some of the code is written. It influences the code that are uh that are now applicable to this to this application. Some of those include 1703, 170 which is the use criteria, 1704 which is the supplemental uh regulations that have to do really most with uh fencing height on this application. Uh 1709 which is the manner in which the application is heard. Again, it is being heard before the planning commission as a quasi judicial request 17 uh 16 which is the site plan approval criteria which are outlined and listed 1717 which is the landscaping standards 1720 which is access and circulation. So those are the make up the 40 pages uh that you have in your staff report and really which uh are the criteria which we as staff evaluate um and provide to you. Planning Commission is the decision body on this matter unless appealed to city council. Um your decision is not final and until it is reduced to writing. Um which is to be u tendered after we conclude the public hearing, close the record, you deliberate and eventually render a decision based upon your review, analysis of the code and how it applies to this application. So within the the application and pages you have the applicant here they will produce their their own arguments and present the case to you and their how they believe their application meets the criteria. Um and with that I'll I'll kind of let it to to rest. You have an application review before you a conditioned uh

approval pending uh recommendation for approval pending resolution of technical issues. Thank you, Dustin.

And one final matter, as mentioned before, uh in that recommendation, we do have a recommendation that uh the commission hear the matter tonight, leave the record open for 7 days, which would be December 8th. Allow arguments for another seven days, which would be December 15th. Then allow the applicant 7 days for final rebuttal. Applicant has the burden of proof in this matter, so they're allowed the last word on it. Uh that those seven days, you would end up with a written rebuttal. And then applicant would be asked to reappear and have the opportunity to um to provide his final rebuttal to you in person on January 5th, which I believe is the next regularly scheduled planning commission after the the holiday break. I'm here for any questions that you have.

Okay. Um I believe up next we have applicants testimony. Thank you.

Hello. Um, my name is Robert Gillum. I'm one of the project partners and I've lived in Hood River on the west side of Sherman Avenue for the last 20 years and I'm very proud to call it my home. Today I'm here to share with everyone information on the Sorry, I'll try and speak louder. Today I'm here to share with everyone. Is that better? Okay. There you go. Yeah. Okay, I'll try again. So, hello. I'm Robert Gillum. Better.

Is there a better mic? Dustin. Yeah. What? They don't care. Face them a little bit too.

Hello, I'm Robert Gillum. I'm one of the project partners and I've lived in Hood River on the west side of Sherman Avenue for the last 20 years and I'm very proud to call it my home. Today I'm here to share with everyone information on the proposed new hotel planned for the old Hood River news site. This project has sparked community conversations which are always great to have and I'd like to take this opportunity to address and clear up some misconceptions. First, I would like to start with the Smith family history of the site and how we have got here. The Smith family owned the former Hood River News from the mid 1960s up until 2020 when a former staff member took over ownership of the business. The current State Street site was purchased in 1995. In terms of site redevelopment history, two attempts at bringing an organic grocery store to the site have failed. The first due to traffic circulation challenges with large delivery trucks and the second due to the cost of repurposing the current building being too expensive for the proposed operator. Additionally, residential options have been evaluated, both condos and rental apartments with the only vile option viable option identified being a very highdensity rental apartment concept with limited on-site parking. The Smith family want the site development to benefit downtown Hood River. And based on a detailed market study undertaken, the development team believe a premium hotel will do just that. One of the many benefits here being that it will encourage Hood River visitors to visit the and spend their visitor dollars in the downtown area versus just the waterfront area. The Smith family will continue to have ownership in the site post its development.

Secondly, I'd like to explain the reasoning for a premium hotel. Firstly, visitor numbers to Hood River are grant annually. A detailed market study supports one which recommends a premium hotel that it believes is currently underserved in the local market. It will bring a raft of economic benefits, tourist taxis, jobs, more all year round visitors that benefit other local businesses, particularly in the immediate downtown area. The hotel amenities will be available for guests and locals alike. It will help alleviate the pressure on the limited residential housing inventory. hopefully allowing such inventory to be available for muchneeded longerterm rentals that locals so badly need. Unlike many other of the larger hotels around town that do require cast guests to get back into their cars and drive to the downtown area, our guests will be able to park their car during their stay and walk to and enjoy other local businesses. It's compliant with all current municipal codes and requires no variances. Why did we choose the Marriott AC Retreat brand? Firstly, I would note that Marriott are just a marketing partner and will have no in ownership interest in the hotel. The AC retreat brand is a new premium brand in the Marriott portfolio with only a small number currently under development. It's a European inspired contemporary boutique hotel concept that we believe fits a premium resort style hotel that our market study envisages and supports. It has multiple curated premium amenities such as restaurant, bar, spa, sports equipment storage, event meeting facilities for social and business events, wine tasting room promoting local wineries, locally curated art that both guests and locals alike can utilize and enjoy.

It will also come with lots of marketing support which is definitely needed in the snow slower offseason months. His customer loyalty program in particular will help maintain a good flow of business even during the offseason months benefiting the project and other local businesses alike. Marriott ACS are normally three maybe four-star hotels with a star rating varying by specific location and in this case it is the development team's intent to create something that is definitely four plus stars. Before I turn it over to my partners, I want to firstly thank the local community for their extensive public outreach. The issues and questions they have raised have helped us optimize our pro project to ensure it is compliant with municipal code. But most importantly to deliver a project that is sensitive to the needs of the community both from a local and a visitor perspective. I would note here that we had originally designed two buildings to be located on the on the site supported by subterranean parking. However, after the initial public outreach, we have now reduced that to one building with landscape atgrade parking. Our lot is one of the largest downtown lots totaling approximately 1.5 acres in size. However, it will have a very low ratio of buildable area to non-buildable area when compared to other lots downtown. We've increased the level of sight landscaping above the minimum needed. We've reviewed our selection and final choice of building materials to ensure they are fully compatible with the other downtown buildings, its vibe and culture. And I also want to reiterate that the Smith family and our entire team are committed to developing a project that will enhance this community. The city has municipal codes in place to protect Hudther's aesthetic and livability and we have the utmost

respect for these codes and their intent. We have worked diligently within them to create a project in full compliance with no need to petition for any variances. Thank you. At this point, I'd like to pass it over to Jonathan and Eric Cares. Thanks, Robert. Thanks, commissioners. Uh, my name is Eric Hansen. I'm with Line 29 Architecture, and I just want to say we're so excited to be part of the design team that's working to redevelop this very important site in Hood River. Um, we've been working with city staff since March on this specific proposal. And part of our work with city staff has been trying to determine building height and how it's measured on this important site, including a director's interpretation of how building height is both determined and measured. And the reason it's been important for us as the design team is that we have a site that we're talking about here that has more than 60 feet of grade change from one corner to another. So th this issue of height and how it's measured becomes very important on these on these steep sites. Um, as we submitted our latest application materials to staff, it was pointed out that we have two segments that they determined to be over the height limit. Segments two and three that were highlighted up here in his staff report. And you can see that we've divided the building down. We'll get into this a little bit more further in our presentation, but just briefly, the building has been divided into five segments that terrace and step down the site in order to work with the steep

slopes and comply with height restrictions throughout the site. So, each building segment has been evaluated based on a reference datim that we've worked with the staff to help identify. So the segments two and three you can see there were have been revised after the latest staff report that was just published this last week. So we worked with the developers uh as the design team to revise the building lower the building height by modifying the floor to floor heights and we've pushed the entire building down by 2 feet to bring those two segments back into compliance with the height restrictions. Um so that's just a brief update on the height after the latest staff report and we will now get into um some compatibility items and I'll turn the time over to my partner Jonathan. Could you like orient me to where we are here? Where where are the roads?

Uh State Street is on the north on the top plan north on the top of and Sherman is on the bottom uh with uh 6th Avenue on the on the left side for for it's actually not on the left. It's much further over uh with the this doesn't fill up the entire site. So So the parking is below not in that free area. Correct. Yeah, let's wait. Let's wait on questions. Yeah, let's get through the presentation and yeah, then we'll get questions.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity uh to speak today. My name is Jonathan Clan. I'm with the architecture design team.

Uh, our goal uh today is simple. To show that this project fully meets the city of Hood Rivers compatibility requirements. Uh the city site plan review definition of compatibility states uh quote the height, bulk and scale of buildings shall be compatible with the site and buildings in the surrounding area. Use of materials should promote harmony with surrounding structures and sites. Um everything you'll see today uh directly responds to that definition. Our site is one of the few larger downtown parcels similar in scale to existing sites like the Wacoma, the Fullale Brewing, and the adjacent city parking lot. We are redeveloping a site that is currently incompatible with its surroundings and bringing it into alignment with the zoning code in the established downtown pattern. While many nearby buildings cover their entire lots, our project uses only a portion of the parcel, as you can see in the highlighted gray there, which actually reduces the overall impact compared to what is allowed and typical in this zone. In short, we've transformed a large underutilized site into one that behaves exactly as the city intends for this zone. Uh the first item I'd like to discuss in the definition of compatibility is is the height portion of that uh matching the Hood Rivers terrace block structures. Hood Rivers downtown is defined by sloping blocks. So we evaluated the design in relation to whole city blocks, not just isolated buildings. The project is intentionally broken into five distinct steps or terraces, not a single monolithic building. And this, as Eric mentions, because of the 60 plus uh feet of grade change on the site, this terracing directly responds to the grade and mirrors the rhythm and stepping patterns the city already has in place. The result is a building form that fits the

natural terrain and matches how downtown Hood River already handles slope. The next uh bullet point in the definition of compatibility is bulk uh bulk compatibility or minimizing the visual impact. The structure is placed at the lowest corner of our site uh which significantly reduces the perceived height and mass when compared to nearby uh anchors like Fullale and the Wakoma building. Our massing is fully in line with the established larger buildings in the city. On a large parcel, we are using massing strategies typically found on much smaller sites specifically to remain compatible by breaking up our building facade into these five distinct segments that we mentioned. Uh the next uh item in the definition of compatibility is that of scale. Uh the project is carefully cited to reinforce the human scale character of downtown and stage street. At the ground level, we are preserving the original building footprint, which keeps the pedestrian experience familiar and appropriately scaled. This maintains continuity with the walkable, intimate feel that defines downtown Hood River. And we've shown in this uh diagram other buildings adjacent to it along State Street uh for reference and comparable scale and massing. And then in the uh continuing with the definition is that of material compatibility or harmony with the surrounding architecture. Uh our material pallet that of brick, metal panel and wood accents was sus selected specifically because these materials already appear throughout downtown. They help the project blend into the existing context, not compete with it. The building will look and feel like it belongs in Hood River. Uh downtown Hood Rivers is distinguished with these many beautiful brick uh and ornate buildings and our goal is to fit within the context of that as can be

seen in the rendering at the middle uh the bottom middle there. And then while not listed in the definition of compatibility, we wanted to address the walkability component as well with the location of strengthening our our connections to the downtown area. Um, our hotel is built for walkability, not isolation. Uh, other hotels in town are on the other side of the freeway or in other parts of of the city, uh, not directly related and adjacent to the downtown core. Guests and residents will be within steps of restaurants, bars, retail, and other community amenities, uh, such as Mike's Ice Cream, and many of the other breweries, uh, that great breweries we have downtown here. Uh, this supports existing businesses and encourages a pedestrian oriented environment, one of the city's core planning goals. We are reinforcing the pattern of downtown movement, not introducing a new one. Uh and then we've we've shown here several maybe five minute walks uh that basically the entire downtown can be reached uh from our site with with those uh short walks. Uh in closing, our project fully meets the city's compatibility standards. We have been intentional in every decision uh including materials, bulk, scale, and height to ensure that this redevelopment doesn't just fit into downtown Hood River, but truly strengthens it. This underutilized site will once again become part of the city's fabric, connected through walkability, respectful design, and a deep commitment to harmonizing with the surrounding built environment. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay,

thank you, Jonathan and Eric. So, we've all just learned much about the design process, and before we hear what others think, I want to highlight that this project is about more than just fitting a building onto a site. This structure represents an important opportunity for Hood River. Our tourism trade has and continues to grow steadily and a new hotel of this caliber will help to satisfy this increase in demand. There's no denying that Hood River has various accommodation options, but not one can offer all that this hotel proposes. The hotel will complement the existing hotels and vacation rentals downtown. Not only expanding overnight room supply, but providing ample space for meetings and events. The convenience of having everything under one roof will enable Hood River toast more groups and special occasions such as weddings and celebrations. Plus, the dining options and a spa will be open to the public, giving visitors and locals new destinations to experience. It's also true that Huda is seeing considerable development, but much of that has been focused on the waterfront. Visitors are often concentrating their exploration there, missing the historic downtown area. With our proposed hotel, guests can park their cars on site and just be steps away from downtown restaurants, bars, galleries, and shops, injecting greater spending power into the heart of Hood River. When factor in local business support, new job creation, and tax revenue generation, the project is estimated to contribute directly and indirectly $100 million to the city of Hood River over the next decade. This estimate incorporates fees, taxes, construction, and employee spend. Such funds could give the city greater flexibility in addressing community needs, whether that's affordable housing, parking, or other projects. The Smith family and our team are committed to a project that will enhance our community and respect

its historic aesthetic and its livability. We thank you for your support. Thank you very much. All right. I believe we are moving on now to the public testimony portion of this evening. We are going to go ahead and start with folks in this room and I'm going to go down the list here. I apologize in advance if I pronounce any of your names incorrectly. Madam chair. Oh yes. Um you might ask if any of the commission members have any questions of the Sure. or their team.

Yes. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Well, what are your questions? Appropriate time or not. We get a chance to have questions later. Yes. Okay. So, this isn't it. We don't we don't we don't answer a question now. That means we we don't we're we're cut out from questions or we can no early and [clears throat] often is my uh policy when it comes to commissioner questions. Okay. So preferable to ask questions now.

It it always is. It it allows your fellow commissioners to get a notion. I mean [clears throat] they may have the same questions you do, you know. So the more information that's relevant to commissioners that comes out sooner rather later is a good thing. Okay. So, if we we start with public comments right now, then we are not able to ask any questions till public comments done.

That's probably best to not interrupt public testimony once it's rolling along, but you know, it's the the commission is in charge. You're supposed to get information that you need to make your decision. So, um uh another objective is to get all the public testimony. uh into the record as expeditiously as possible so everyone has a chance to say what they want too. Okay. Sounds like now is an appropriate time

uh for Dustin uh with their new calculations uh in regards to the height of the different segments that uh segment two and three I believe. I I didn't get to do the map, but that was certainly an important thing that was raised in uh your November uh excuse me, the uh I believe November 24th supplemental report. Uh we would confirm those calculations and the ask in continuation was to confirm those met that 25. Uh I will I will review that and you should too to make sure that right they uh do meet that number

based based on those revisions. So, uh, also part of, um, the continuation of the record is they will be submitting those materials within that 7 days for you to review over the next month.

Okay. I do have some questions. Yeah. But, uh, seemed like this is the time. I didn't hear them uh, the applicants uh, address anything about traffic, which is, uh, a concern I would have about the traffic. Um, do you have a did you do all your studies for the traffic uh traffic uh impact analysis during uh the months of February and March? Is that what I read or is am I mistaken? Because those are the only those are the only uh dates I could find all of them. Is that is that when you did them? We want to respond to a number of questions at one time or

Well, that was a question. No, I got I got more but yeah, the first one.

Evening. Scott Taylor, uh SGAA engineering uh representing the applicant. Um the traffic studies were completed um by the traffic engineer in conjunction with uh referring to previous studies for hotel um parking demands and needs. There was a study that was done that had 22 separate hotels that were studied um and so that was evaluated as well. And there was also a previous traffic study that was done years ago that was done in the summer months and that was also referenced um in their study um for um comparing that was DK DKS did that

uh DKS. So they're the third party reviewers that the city has hired to review um Richard Gamble's traffic study. Okay. So the quest the answer to my question is you did the studies in in February and March. The traffic counts that were done most recently.

Okay. All right. Well, that that to me is not really a legitimate way to do it, but that's neither here nor there. I think I think that you were probably six months off from the high season, but that's okay. And uh so DKS DKS is another uh uh uh entity that the city works with for studies and stuff. And do you know what the uh the IA is the interstate uh management area? Um I do not but we can we can consult with our traffic engineer and confirm what that is. DKS though is the third parties uh reviewer that the city has hired and I don't know if Dustin could elaborate on that at all. Yeah, a lot of their stuff I'm looking at is from 1999. It was amended in 2006. So, a lot of that's not current. Um, I think that there's a uh the AM study area was chosen to there's a there's an inter here. Let's see why I did this. It's okay if I weigh in on I think that that I I believe that this site is outside of the IMP area. Is that correct, Dustin? That ends on state if that would be a boundary of State Street.

That that is correct. Okay. So, it's the interchange access management plan. It's specialty overlap areas in which the city and ODOT both have interest. So, ODOT has a great interest because the uh the interstate being under their jurisdiction, the ramps and their ability to function are also of state's interest. So, we have some uh areas that overlay exit 62, exit 63, and exit 64 that are subject to ODOT approval. When this application was produced, um we we saw that they were outside of that. However, given its proximity, we still sent it to ODOT. Um and you have some ODOT comments on that. Uh just in terms of organization um this application is subject to 1720 which is your access and circulation essentially call it your traffic um section. Um the applicant is required to produce a traffic impact analysis under their uh which is included in their application. Um rather than the city relying only upon its only its engineer staff uh the city procured services of DKS engineering and traffic specialist uh to be our reviewer. So the si so DKS traffic engineer reviewed on behalf of the city. You can see a couple passes in this uh in this application to where DKS rejected the assumptions required the applicant to reo the study uh with some different assumptions

uh and then their review is included in your application. So DKS is acting on behalf of the city. Um they're paid and they're our consultant. So what I was trying to find I just found was the study area and I can quote this from uh so there's maybe something more current than their their uh the amended uh issue from 2006 but the study area was chosen to reflect the general area where the interchanges would potentially influence land use and traffic patterns. As a general rule of thumb, lands located within approximately one half mile from the interchanges are considered while the southern now the southern the southern boundary right now of that zone is state street. So this project is right up against that that zone. So it goes on to say, I quote, "While while the southern boundary at State Street is significantly closer to the interchanges than 1 half mile, this limit was deemed appropriate for this area given the changes in topography and existing residential neighborhoods to the south that are unlikely to be redeveloped within the planning horizon." So the question is what's a planning horizon? and DKS came up with that reason for not including that because of the topography and because of the because there's neighborhoods close by.

Yeah. Planning horizon uh I believe is 2033 that's our forecasted area that's our transportation system plan um outlook. So I believe we have that within their so they look not only at current traffic they forecast an increase um over year over year um based upon the TSP that is included in their their application and it had to be responded to.

There was back and forth about how much traffic growth what was the forecast. So uh this is not just a point in time this is also analysis when you read the traffic study um that it it looks into the future it evaluates how much traffic is generated from this use and also how much traffic is just generated in general um we call it background traffic uh and that needs to be calculated in into their review. Okay. So if the IM was [snorts] applicable to this uh to this site, would it change anything?

Unlikely no. Uh because the impact intersections that are evaluated are still the impact of intersections. Really the big change becomes uh closer to the interstate you have different access points that are limited. Um and really ODOT would would have their say if they felt like it impacted the interchange. So the in the really the areas of influence are are somewhat um agnostic to the AMP. We we really care about the intersections whether they're in or not, especially the ones that are surrounding this this location.

Okay. Well, again, my my big concern is traffic flow because I do have businesses downtown and I see how the traffic can back up. And I used to shop at Safeway there when it was Safeway and it was really it was crowded back in late 80s and it's it's uh it has capacity. it has the ability to really get backed up. And also it says the city say the city says and the TIA say and and says and so does the the applicants that they should keep track and monitor the intersections that might be affected by the traffic and take appropriate actions if if they do get backed up or get uh basically untenable. What I don't I don't see how there's anything that can be done. I think you've got what you got particularly at Second and Cascade. I mean State Street. I don't see what there's no mitigation possible or Sith and and uh and State Street even it says that to monitor it. What does monitor it mean? And what are you going to do if it if it fails?

Well, is there anything to be done?

I think that's cons that is consistent what the applicant has stated. Uh it's also consistent with what the TSP states. Um, you know, they're they're really and you know, the city admittedly has has stated and adopted for a long time. There's nothing to do at Cascade and and second in particular, like that intersection is not particularly functional, nor does it nor is nor is there an intended response, be it signal, stop, that will make it functional. Um, you know, there is there's a closure aspect. I don't think that has been forecasted nor is it something that's in the influence of of the applicant. So when we evaluate them, we evaluate what are the impacts, what mitigation, they have no authority to change to change that. Uh and the city is has acknowledged east, you know, especially the eastbound direction of Cascade and second is not, you know, it's it's it's not changeable.

Okay. So it's I mean, you could you could close it. We have Well, we have Yeah. So second second in the state or sixth in state are my concerns. Those are in my opinion close to being failed intersections already. And that's nothing there's is there no there's no nothing to be done with that. You know if those if those get worse to the point where they're dangerous I mean what there's no you can't do a roundabout. You can't really put a stoplight in. I mean what is there any plan for that eventuality? Is that just the way it goes? I mean,

yeah, there is a mitigation plan uh right now within their application um that they could they could address that talked about evaluation of what mitigation became possible and not possible. Um I think they would be best suited to talk about that. Okay. Um, I think it would be uh helpful to me if the applicant could address or maybe walk through the the 45 foot um height uh kind of how that was approached with a stepped building and in the supplemental I mean we did see a lot of documentation around that and just a maybe a thorough walkthrough of that kind of methodology would be useful. I guess I'm you know the code is pretty thin around it. So it leaves some area for interpretation and um I think I want to understand is this a is this a reasonable interpretation that you know any intelligent person would come up with or is this a novel interpretation? Um so that's kind of what I'd be looking for. Please please make sure you tap the uh mic too when you're ready.

Uh good evening planning commissioners. My name is Ezra Hammer. I'm a land use attorney on behalf of the project applicant. Thank you. Um we're jumping a little bit ahead so forgive us here as we work with you tonight. Um this issue of building height and more importantly how to measure building height uh is something that we took a lot of time to consider and to respond to your question directly commissioner Pope uh the interpretation is not for us to make. The interpretation is for the city to make and the city uh promulgates its code and then tasks the planning director with interpreting the code. I've pulled up for you here the definition of height that's included in your uh municipal code and importantly um it does anticipate grade change. Um it actually anticipates uh grade change and accounts for uh how you should measure uh building and building segments when you have grade change over 10 feet on a site. As we mentioned earlier, we have 63 feet of grade change on this site. uh most likely the one of the most significant grade changes of any lot in downtown. And if anybody's been to the site and parked there and you've gone to the southwest corner and looked up, you'll notice there's a sheer wall, uh you know, uh dozens of feet high. Um, and because of that, uh, if you were to measure the building, um, as if that grade change didn't exist, measure building height there, you'd end up with a building sunken below the grade itself. So, you'd actually have a building that was significantly lower than the grade itself. And so, your code recognizes that that's not uh, the outcome that the uh, folks are looking for. And so you have what we refer to as subsection two here um which requires us to measure each segment of a building. And as um my colleague mentioned in the presentation,

if you go around town, you'll see a number of buildings that have this step segment to them specifically on sites with significant grade change. Um, importantly for folks that would like us to measure the site differently, I just want to note that a reading of this code, if we were to say just um we were to say you only measure once, uh, well, you would measure each building once and we could place on this site any number of buildings and measure each one of those buildings. Now, from an operational standpoint, that's silly, right? You don't want to have a hotel that's made up of five different buildings uh because your HVAC will be bad. Your circulation won't make sense. It'll be difficult for guests. It's not anybody's intended outcome. And so what we do instead is we look at building segments. Um but again only in situations where you have a great change over 60 ft in height. So, uh, if you're looking at this slide, um, on the left hand side of the screen, uh, we're down on State Street and then on the right hand side, you see us kind of moving up and those sloping lines are the grade change. Now, what you'll note is from a design standpoint, we wanted to break this uh, hotel up in a way that features kind of a stepped elevation. This will lead to a world where from a pedestrian standpoint uh when you're at and facing a very uh one of the various building segments, it will read more natural to you than just one single edifice. And so you'll notice here in the dark purple, our allowed building height is actually significantly taller than what we've proposed. Again, the desire there is to really craft something that interfaces beautifully with that intersection. the buildings uh from a total height standpoint kind of move up along with

the grade. Right now, um this is kind of the city's response to folks who would move a bunch of dirt on site to create something uh that was flatter. And if you're familiar with the courthouse building, you'll notice that it is significantly elevated from the pedestrian realm. Right? You go there, there's about 30 feet of dirt and then the building starts. Right? That's kind of the way that people did things previously. Bring a bunch of dirt onto the site, build it up flat, and go from there. And the city doesn't want that, right? The city wants buildings that respond to the natural grade change. And so here that has us building kind of buildings that kind of are lower in the lower segments and then follow the grade change as it expands. So, um, that's kind of the accounting for that's included in the code itself. Importantly, not our decision to make, right? the the question of reasonableness really lies with the city. Uh and we we're tasked with articulating our understanding and our um how we read the code and then your staff is tasked with interpreting that and issuing termination which they did which then we're obligated to file to follow excuse me which led to the proposal that's in front of you.

Um that's great and then it's helpful. So while you're still up here, can we can we just walk through u the calculations for one of these? Yeah. U segments. I think it'll help to just you know slowly move through like this is the datim that would be useful. Yes. Thanks.

Uh and we will have this um if it is the planning commission if it is the planning commission wish to kind of allow for this extended response period which we were anticipating we'll have that all detailed. It is in the material that we've provided. I don't have the slide that shows it, but I'll do my best to talk it through with you here. Um, which is again, so we are going to go out to um, so um, we go to screen. So we go to essentially the uh, building area. Uh, we go five feet out from the building area. We identify the lowest point. We then determine whether or not there is 10 feet of grade change between the tallest point and the lowest point. That then takes us to our subsection of how we measure building height and we build from that lowest point. So it's you kind of expand beyond the footprint of the building. You measure each one of the datim which one of the segments rather. you determine the grade shift for your your building footprint and then you measure from there. So each one of these segments were were measured independently just as a uh independent building would be measured don't trans that I I assume that's your completed answer.

Yes. Yes. And again, forgive me for not having the visual. It is in the record and we're we will absolutely recreate it. Um but I I don't have that slide right here.

Okay. Just making sure. Any additional questions? Yeah. I have a question for the development team. Just in general, I want to know how you came to the decision to go with a hotel instead of housing. Um, and we're always faced with affordability here in Hood River. And I know that there are possibilities of doing hybrid projects where you can have housing as part of a hotel. and want to know if you've explored the possibility of any incentives that the city might offer

um to make that work.

The exploration thus far has been like pure residential. So, we've looked at rental apartments versus condos. We haven't looked at a blended option. Um but condos have challenges from a financing point of view. Um I think there's a lot of people that come to Hood River that don't want to buy condos. wants single family homes with equipment storage, garages, etc., rental apartments. Um, [clears throat] the challenge with current high construction cost, getting it to an affordable point where the rents are affordable for average people requires a very high density of development on that site. Uh, and I would note there I think under state law we are permitted potentially to build with like zero parking on site and we didn't believe that that was the best you know use for that site. Um,

uh, the reason I asked I just did a quick search on blended products in Oregon and there's one currently approved in Corvalis that's a very similar project. So yeah. No, I don't know about that. So um yeah with focus we just got a you know a market study done and you know through all the different options we looked at and historical development exploration this was deemed to be the best best use for the site.

Okay.

Good. No more questions. Okay. And the also when you get into your deliberation, we will be available to help you with items already in the record. Uh if you get stuck on technical things, we will not be able to bring anything new into it. It will only be on those pieces. So um as you get in to ask questions of each other um we'll we'll be staff will be available to help point you and where these things live and exist in a couple hundred pages of text. Okay. Perhaps we're now ready for the public testimony section of this meeting. Okay, great. So, we are going to because we have online we have here and then we have our remote viewing in-person location which I don't think there are too many folks over there. We are going to do it room by room here. So, we're going to start with everyone in person here and then we're going to move to the remote location and then we're going to do everybody that's online. So, I'm going to go down the list here and uh please step up, state your name when you get to the microphone. Uh and we're going to start with Scott Frank.

Oh, tap again. Just just on the side there. Oh,

thank you, Commissioner. Um Scott Frankie it is. And uh I'm an owner the owner of the building down uh next to the Astro Gas station at 212 Front Street. So a couple blocks down from here. And uh you know I'm I'm endorsing the concerns that Commissioner Kits seems to have raised and I'm you know not deep into the code and section 1720 regarding traffic and and that. But oh, while I'm at it, I also for people who are well steeped in that want to endorse um the submission written submission of Anne Froal to you who uh knew enough to you know mention a number of the uh difficulties with in your code. But having my office uh down there on Front Street, I've observed the day-to-day traffic uh at the three-way stop where, you know, uh Highway 30 curls around and meets State Street there. And I see the backups occur at busy times, sometimes backing all the way up to this building and beyond. Uh, and so, um, you know, I also often park across the street where this proposed building is going to be because there's not enough parking on the street by the library and that. So, um, you know, it's really hard to find uh, many times. My wife also owned a shop down in Oak Street for about 20 years and frequently heard folks saying that they had stopped shopping downtown because of the difficulty with parking uh there. And I also ran a hair salon behind uh my office in that building at 212 Front. Uh and they lost many customers uh due to insufficient parking. And I also lost hairdressers there because they moved up to the heights because of that problem. and their customers complaints. So,

while the the height, bulk, and scale of this proposal is the main issue, I believe that uh you'll hear lots more about uh the number of rooms and their proposed buyout of all these parking spaces that they really ought to have beneath this uh together with this traffic problem u and the greater anticipated traffic snarls that will happen uh make the scale of this current proposal uh something that will really affect the quality of life in the city. So, it needs to be scaled down. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Frankie. Next up, we have Trudy Clinger, and I sorry, I should have reminded everyone that we do have our little two-minute timer. Uh, not to make feel nervous, just to make sure we can keep track of everything testimonies tonight. My name is Trudy Clinger. I live at 3,400 Y East Road. I am currently on the board of directors for Thrive. Thrive is a nonprofit community organization that has worked to protect Hood Rivers, farmland, forest, wild places, and the livability of its cities in rural communities since 1977. Thrive submitted written testimony dated November 12th and will submit additional testimony by December 8th. Those letters detail how the proposed complex fails to satisi satisfy the five required elements of compatibility cherrypicks definitions to understate impacts in the traffic study and contravenes the comprehensive plan regarding parking. You don't you do not have all these arguments and evidence in writing in front of you yet and it's going to be a long night. So we will say simply that there are sufficient legally defensible grounds for rejecting this application and we urge you to do so. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have this is Gary Reigns.

Good evening. Um I'm here representing Riverside Community Church. Um, you probably know it well. It's the black basalt church that's down here on State Street. It was [clears throat] built in 1912. The, um, postmodern portion was built in 1956. It's 7 ft from the back wall of the Hood River News building. So, there's seven there's a 7 foot uh, piece of property. It's been used for 70 years by our church that has an elevation from six feet from state above State Street to 22 feet at the back where it meets the parking lot. I'm not an engineer, but I did the simple math and the math came up with 218 cubic yards of dirt. 22 10yard dump dump trucks are being held up and supported by the back wall of the Hood River newslet. This area is used for planting beds. It's used for meetings. It's a um it supports many splits, two sets of many splits for the church. It also has sewer, water, um and gas running through it, none of which have been accounted for. So here we are. We're the next door neighbor of the proposed hip Marriott and we're wondering how we can reconcile what we've been told and what the engineers have said. SEA said in their narrative about the entrances, the existing retaining wall will be remained and no impacts to the adjacent church um and parking lot is um is proposed. Saga engineering said it's an urbanized extremely steep piece of property, but

then they deferred to the to the engineering firm Silver Peak. The Earth Engineers did a geotechnical report from 200 from 2019, totally different project. And if you read it, they had one day to do two borings. And they say that additional borings and additional testing will be required in order to understand the east end of the property, the property that adjoins our property. And then Silver Peak Engineers, structural engineer letter said that all of the retaining wall will be taken down except the part that supports the parking lot.

Could you please uh and and the church will not be pardon me. Could you please try and summarize the rest of your testimony? I'm sorry. Could you please try and summarize the rest of your testimony for us? I'm almost Okay, great. This is very important.

Yes. So the and they say the church will not be impacted any more than the Safeway building. That was 70 years ago and we don't know what the impact is was and they don't either. All of these current and old assessments leave a lot to the imagination. When we contacted Jonathan Clan from line 29 architecture in July, he said that they would talk to us. We'd hear from the engineers. We've heard nothing. So, let me be clear. Riverside Church is not opposed to building a Marriott hotel, but we are opposed to moving forward on a project that has not addressed the issues that include our property and will impact our property.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Eric Matthews. Good evening, Erica Matthews, EM Architecture here on behalf of Riverside. I'm elaborating a little bit on Gary's comments. They have concerns, he noted, and are seeking additional clarity to prevent exposure, minimize risk of their property resulting from construction activities. So, this is a little more technical in nature, nothing about compatibility, but to expand on that, there's sort of three realms. There's discovery of content on Riveright's property. Gary alluded to things above the surface, things below the surface. One of the items he didn't mention is drainage, but there are utilities. There's natural drainage through the site, and there's no real understanding of how construction activities will manage the flow of water, including the utilities and other items like Gary noted. uh from the consultant design team. It'd be nice to see some additional information including the geotechnicals engineers recommendations for the new hotel foundations, the type of foundation options, uh angle of repose and again the drainage and then shoring you know what kind of shoring is being installed once the uh in fact what's the sequence of removal of any existing foundation systems and what's the shoring systems that are being proposed. uh there are some foundations remaining. So, you know, preservation of those and how the new ties into those and again the temporary shoring or permanent shoring. That's it. Just underscoring the concerns that were noted.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next up, we have Stephen Austin. Good evening. My name is Stephen Austin. I live out towards Odell. Uh residents here in Libert. Um have moved back recently. Um and have lived in Hood River in the past. What we see here is a lot of unbridled development in the city. I think most people live here like the city of Hood River, like Hood River County. Um, but I think also the concerns that we voiced tonight about traffic congestion, stop lightss, sewer, water, all the things that go along with this. I don't know. I don't think it's going the right direction. I think we have better things for Head River than this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Austin. Next, we have Dale Hill.

Good evening. My name is Dale Hill. I live in the upper valley, 52000 Woodward Drive. I'm here to talk about what I've heard mentioned several times this evening already, and that is the word interpretation. Um, I reference a couple of things that you may or may not be aware of. One is the statewide land use planning goals, which include as goal number one, purposely put as goal number one, and that is the involvement of the public in land use planning issues. Secondly, the staff report which I read extensively included a section where it talked about three different criteria that go into the quasi judicial decision-making process. I forget the first one frankly. The second one was public involvement, public comment. The third one was the criteria as listed in the uniform code uh of the city of uh Hood River. My biggest concern is that you all have an incredibly awesome responsibility to try and balance all these things. I also read every single comment that was submitted. There were about 85 or so of them back in August and I counted those up. Now, this is not a scientific survey, but I counted there were 81 that were against or at least had significant concerns about this project. There were three that mentioned that they were in favor of the project. To me, that's an immense public statement about this not being something that is compatible in the minds of the people. My question is simply what is the role of public involvement? It seems like to

me that if the decision is to be made solely on the criteria in the code, why am I here talking to you now? To me, that would be a sham, a charade. I don't like that. I don't think it's right. I think you need to interpret based upon the public comment as much as the other criteria. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ruth Sue is next.

Thank you, Ruth Su. I live at 413 Adams Creek Place in Hood River. I am I agree with what has been said about how troubled I am with the amount of parking in the presentation that was made. There was nothing about parking. So I guess that's really not an issue. We're imagining it. It is a huge issue and there was a lot of attention given to how people could walk from the hotel all around the area but they will come here in their cars and people will come to the restaurant in a lot of them in their cars. Where do those cars park? There are supposed to be these great jobs. Where do those people park? There seems to be no attention given to that. At least it wasn't addressed in the presentation of his mate today. And it's very troubling. And it says there are these great jobs that are going to be provided with family supporting jobs. I'd like to know more about that as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bill Stenson.

And I apologize if I'm pronouncing your name wrong. actually didn't realize I was commenting. Uh, Bill Stenson, uh, 6121 Bailey Road up in Parkdale. Um, I appreciate the, uh, the attempt to integrate the uh, the structure into Hood River. I think it's tasteful. I think uh but my concerns are I think what many of us have in their traffic. Um we just can't build any more roads. I'm not sure how we will handle this. Um that's really my concern at the moment. That's that's it. It's the traffic and uh unless we make State Street a one-way street and we make the other, we end up looking like the DS perhaps. Um but I don't know any other solution. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Susan Frolish. Hi there.

Hi. Um I'm Susan Frolic and I live in Moer right now. I have a house in Hood River and I probably will be moving there sometime soon. Um, I thank you so much for having this quasi judicial hearing. I know that you could have just signed it off and I appreciate that you do involve the public in uh decisionmaking because this is a major major uh development. State Street. I I agree with all the comments that have already been put forth, so I won't reiterate on them. One of the things I guess I will talk a little bit about is this is a 135 room hotel. There are not enough they're not building enough parking spaces for that. And I have to say that there we live really close to Portland and when somebody comes for a wedding there might be four people sleeping in one room all driving cars. And I think a more realistic interpretation of how many cars if the if the hotel is filled would be closer to 200 plus because if you have two people sharing a room that's two cars not one. And I think that that ought to be addressed. The other thing I think that hasn't been mentioned is fire safety coming down from the fire station to Highway 35. If there's a lot of traffic, how do those emergency vehicles get through and I think that definitely needs to be addressed. Um the traffic situation is horrendous and until the city really puts some effort into building a parking structure or addressing the parking, I think that any project is going to be um uh questioned

in terms of how it works in especially in downtown. Um, also the Hampton Inn, just to put it into consideration, has 88 rooms, not 135. And so that in terms of scale, you may want to look at that and say, you know, this scale is just too much. And um, I will be writing more comments later. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, we have Mark Geller. Good evening, planning commission. I'm Mark Geller. My wife and I own 411 Sherman Avenue. It's a small office building behind the proposal. We're the second closest structure uh to the proposed hotel. This is what our place looks like. Was built in 1921. We kept it pretty vintage and it's not compatible with the hotel

height, mass, scale, bulk, whatever you call it. 131,000 plus square feet is not compatible with 1924 square feet. It's not to scale. As you can see from this Google picture from a few days ago, that guy, he's to scale to our building, but not to a 131,000 plus square foot structure. That's only one element of compatibility. Compatibility also according to HRMC 17.06030.2A addresses impact the size and operating characteristics. Historically, there's been uh theo the Safeway there. There's been the uh Hood River News, the dentist, and the title company. All sort of nine-to-five businesses. They turn their lights out, go home, and they serve the local community. The hotel is catering to San Franciscans, Seattle people, and people from far-flung places, not to people on Sherman Avenue, not to people in city of Hood River or Hood River County. So, the whole height thing, it's a red herring. If you squish this building down to the appropriate height, which it is not, you still have all these problems mentioned today. And a quasi judicial hearing is required tonight because it's a change of use. A change from all the uses that I mentioned that would still be appropriate today, including a courthouse, including uh a row of commercial structures on the bottom with apartments up above for people to live that maybe don't have cars and could park behind it if they do have cars. So, compatibility is not met. That's for you to interpret just like it's for you to interpret the hype code despite recommendations. I'm going to add more

as well. I appreciate the opportunity for a two-minute hurry up offense. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we have Gretchen Liry. Do I just press this? Oh, it's already on. It's already on. Can you hear me? Yeah.

Um, my name is Gretchen Liry. I live at 1239 30th Street. I've lived in Hood River for about three years. I lived in Portland about 20 years. Prior to that, I went to University of Oregon and I have a my master's degree in architecture. I'm not a licensed architect, but I have gone through the rigorous architecture school. Um, and I just wanted to say that um, there's a couple things here. I don't know if anyone's been to Stila, Washington, but it has been designated a historic community in the downtown area and has historic code. And so I would like to ask the planning commission to start incorporating historic code because clearly many people here find our downtown to be historic. Historic means it has scale and there are certain things that are consistent with that. For example, it's not just picking brick. It's about the height. It's not about window size that's giant. It's about window size that's human scale. It's about the connection to the street. From what I can see right now with the plan, it looks like anyone walking down the street is going to be hit with a parking structure. Um, it's it's about building structures not with cranes. Our whole downtown was built by man with ladders and that creates a certain fabric, a certain vibration that creates equality. And so I think what we're talking about here that people are having a problem with is the quality aspect. This project does not fit within that quality. If it wants to go down, you know, across from uh Le Schwab, that seems appropriate. Um exterior balconies are not part of this fabric that we have in town. We have Juliet balconies, for example. at the Dopio building. It's three stories high. It doesn't seem offensive, but this is at least one story too high and has um certain things that are not

boutique. Boutique hotel is also technically under 100 rooms. If you look it up online, it this is 135 rooms, which is quite large. So, I would like two things. is one to ask the city and the planning commission to start incorporating historic code so that we feel like our voices here are not in vain if this project goes through and also just to consider what many people have said that this is way out of scale. It's not taking into consideration the quality of our town.

Thank you. Next we have Warren John's top. Nope. Yeah, there you go.

All right. Ready, set, go. Um, so first of all, the Smith family, just want to um show gratitude for the contribution that's been made to this community over many years. Must be very hard to find uh compatible use. Um, and I want to thank the committee for your sincere interest in uh hearing from us. I want to remind you that the audience here is the community and we are here because we care about livability. the applicants are here and they're focused on the guest experience and the profits. I think where I have a lot of concern is around the compatibility. The volume of the building relative to other areas, other buildings in town uh makes it incompatible. It's about four times the size of um the uh the courthouse. Um, multiple statements were made today about the the building, uh, the parking. Um, and I am really concerned that, um, the impact studies were not, to your point, uh, done well done well and relevant. And I felt like in hearing it, it just felt like deceptive, um, on the part of the applicants and the way that they presented it. um it'd be obvious to, you know, do the study in August like a lot of us have said, I'm wondering whether truly all the parking um would be available to the guests. Would it would it meet the need if the building was full? And again, a lot of uh comments about the walkability for uh the guests and and the use of the building for the guests uh making it best for the guests. And what I think our values are in our community here is we want it to be walkable for the residents. We want views for the residents. We want access

um for the hotel uh guest. Um um sorry, I lost my notes here. Um, I guess that's a good uh end there. One last comment would be just recommend that um we bring the community together, start over, uh, incorporate more of what the community cares about and um, and find something really um, uh, compatible for for everybody involved. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right, last person on my list here is Eric White House. Hi.

I wasn't really planning on speaking, so I don't have anything prepared, but um I'd like to commend uh Commissioner Kits for um being skeptical on the traffic. Obviously, in parking, it seems like it's a big concern. Uh, according to the presentation, we heard from the developers. You and other business owners are into making a lot of money off of this. The city is going to make a lot of money off this, but what about the rest of us? Um, sure, there might be some nice restaurant we could go to for a special occasion or something, but I don't see how it really improves the fabric of community. Um, I don't see how throwing a giant hotel next to a failing intersection is going to improve the fabric of our community. Um, I don't see how putting this hotel with limited parking next to our library that doesn't have a dedicated parking lot is going to improve the fabric of our community. Um, I don't see how my 76-year-old mother is going to take her grandkids to the library on a rainy day when they have to park eight blocks away and try to hoof it. Um, not going to happen. So, I hope that we kind of look beyond the monetary gain from this and think about like is this really going to improve the life of the people who live here? Um because I don't think currently as it is it will nor is anybody asking for this. I don't think if you ask the community what we need is a boutique hotel owned by a multinational corporation. I mean it is it's AC hotel

but it's owned by Marriott. It was acquired by Marriott. Um, I don't see how they have a vested interest in our community more than the people who actually live here. So, um, although it might fit in the code, mess with the numbers, it's there, you got to take more into account than just does it meet the bare minimum. That's all I had to say. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, I should probably check to see if there's anybody that's not signed up that very much wants to say anything this evening before we move to our next room. One hand. Okay, come up to the podium. Please state your name. It's already on. You don't have to tap.

Thank you. I thought I wasn't going to have anything to say and it turns out Please state your name. Sorry for the record.

My name is Julie Hatfield. I live at 1212 Columbia Street and Hood River and I've lived here for 21 years. Um, I didn't think I was gonna have much to say. It turns out I do. The whole parking thing, from what I understand, and this is really kind of a question. The hotel developers know how many parking spots they need. They know they don't they can't make that many. And there's this idea that I had read in other materials that they were just going to pay a a a fine, so to say, to go towards a parking garage in the future. That hasn't been planned, and we have no idea where it would be, when that would ever happen. Parking has been a problem here for the 21 years that I've lived here. So, what I really want to know is exactly what kind of shortfall are we looking for in the parking and what exactly are the people who work there and the people who stay there and the people who show up for a wedding or an event there or a meeting there. How is that all going to be fitting within parking that isn't adequate? That's what I really want to figure out is those numbers of how many spots do we need to have, how many do we actually have, and where the hell do you think all these people are going to go? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Uh let's see here. What was that? Oh, another hand. Come on up. Please take

Hello. My name is Scott Freeman. I live at 407 Sherman and uh I live right behind where they want to build it and it would destroy my view which is selfish but it's a great view. I like you know not that to have that go away. And the other thing is the traffic. I watch the traffic all the time and you go from State Street to Serpentine to Seventh Street. It's impossible to get across there sometimes. And during the fires when they're out at Rowena, it was a threehour backup there. So if there's ever an emergency that's going to get worse and people can't get through three-hour wait, think about it. That road's got to get fixed. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, no more hands in this room. Do we have anyone uh in our remote site that's interested in We have two people at the fire station under um the city manager's computer. So, we'll unmute her computer. Okay.

Hi there. I assume you can hear me. My name is Peter Belmont. I live at 1018 Nina Lane here in Hood River. Hi. Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great. Um, before I moved here 12 years ago, and I've owned my home here for 12 years, I practiced environmental and land use law for 30 years. Um, and so I've come across the compatibility issue in numerous cases in which I've either litigated or argued about before commissions like yourselves. So, I want to start with one lesson that I learned in that experience. And that lesson is that a smart review commission will use citizen testimony to support its ability to say no when incompatible development is at issue. And I say that because it is citizen testimony which can be as important and as weighty as a traffic engineer, a civil engineer or other persons who are labeled as experts. The other point really in my short time here to speak to you I want to make is really my conclusion to all of this which is um we can do better. And so denying this application is not a rejection of development at this site and a site that clearly calls for redevelopment but rejection is rather a commitment to better more contextsensitive development. another way of saying more compatible development. And so yes, we can do better. In this case, the answer is no. And I look forward to something that is better and more compatible in the future. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I just assume the next person will step up. Yeah, I guess that's all from here. Yeah. Can you say your name again? Hi everyone. This is the city manager, Abigail Elder, letting you know,

letting you know that was our only comment from the fire station, but we did get the question of just um that sorry uh that people can still give written comment in the next seven days as the record is still open. So, I think Dustin has already confirmed that, but I just wanted to say that publicly. Um, that folks here uh we have about I think eight or nine people here at the fire station and they um know that they're not going to comment live now, but they can still do that. Uh written comments in the next seven days. Yeah. And just to confirm that's if the planning commission approves it, which uh is the staff recommendation.

Great. Then I think we're wrapped up here at the fire station. Thank you. Thank you. I see a hand here. Is this a question? Yes. Is it a quick question? Okay. So, a few comments before August. Oh, sorry. Sorry for the fire station. We cannot hear you if you're not at the microphone. Can you step up to the mic? Thank you. Did you want me to comment? Just for a quick question there. Uh my name is Warren Johnson. Uh my question is if you submitted some comments before August and you've heard all of this testimony, can you uh amend or add to that in the next seven days?

Yeah. Uh the open record will be open to everyone, all parties involved or not involved uh for seven days to introduce any new evidence. So whether you participated before or not, it it's still open. Thanks, Justin. Thank you. Okay, sounds like we're ready to move to online testimony. Yeah, please, if you're online and you want to testify, please raise your hand in the Zoom user interface. Uh, and again, please try and make sure that your names are your legal names. No, Mr. Bungles will be testifying this evening.

Mark Vanderanden is up next. And after him will be Jill Perry. Okay. Mark Vanderin. Oh, hi. Good evening. This is Mark attorney. I live at 32 right on. Have a good day. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. There's some background noise.

I live at 3265 Southwest Fairmont in Portland. Um, I'm the founder of Surround Architecture and I've been an architect practicing many uh years in Hood River. My first project in Hood River was back in 1992 and I've been uh fortunate to design many buildings in Hood River. One of my projects was the Hampton Inn. I was the design architect for that. I've also uh designed another project for um an expansion of the um Columbia Gorge hotel which is yet unbuilt. Um, you know, I've reviewed the information and been put together and, you know, for the life of me, I can't figure out how to check whether the height limit has actually been achieved by the the height limit is has uh been complied with by the applicant because the information that's provided is so um poorly put together. And in fact, you know, the staff is has noted that it doesn't comply with the height limit. And I think it's kind of silly that we're all looking at this and you know being asked to um review this when it's not even compliant with the regulations. So I think at the very least we all need to see something that complies. I mean I think that it's as an architect I would I would be pretty embarrassed to be in front of you right now with a project that doesn't meet the height limit as the staff report notes. It's not simple to take out two and a half feet. And actually, when I when I measure this, I think it's more like five or six feet over the height limit. And I'd love to check it, but I really can't because the information is not adequate to even review. And so I I actually, you know, think that it's a perfect site for a hotel. I just think it's too big. I

think it uh is, you know, exceeds the height limit as I've noted. And I think the best thing to do is to make it smaller. And when you look at compatibility, I think you have to compare the size of a hotel like that against the hotels in the community, which which I would I think the actually the Hampton's the biggest at 88 rooms. So this is like 50% bigger than the the next largest hotel. So compatibility to me is like are you really going to ramp up the size of hotels to that capacity and if it's exceeding the high limit by I think five or six feet you got to take a floor off the top or something like that. I also challenge the parking because I get it like but I challenge the parking as an architect that's done

Mr. Mr. Vanderan if you could try and wrap your testimony up would be appreciated. Okay, I would just challenge the parking. I think it's like if you want a project to succeed in Hood River, you have to provide at least one parking space for every room. It's been my experience having you know again been involved in hotels to to suggest that. So I just offer that as you know from my experience something that should be considered. Um but thank you. Thank you very much. And when you're done speaking, please, I guess you have to put your hand down as well. Um, Ollie, how many people do we have? Two more. Oh, okay. Three more.

Three more. Okay, great. Uh, Jill Kerry, you said, is next up. Jill Perry, then Mike Connors.

Okay, Jill, we can't hear you. Don't know if you're muted.

Mr. One minute. Oh, okay. [clears throat] Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you now. Okay, good. Just going up to my computer. Okay.

My name is Jill Perry. My husband Peter and I moved to Hood River in January. Our address is 1841 4th Street. We moved from Delray Beach, Florida. Which is a very similar community to Hood River. It's a small town by the beach in southeast Florida faced with development. because it's a destination. When I first came to Hood River and heard about the proposed hotel, I was very much against it. But hearing about it tonight, I think there's some merit to the plan. However, in my mind, the lack of sufficient parking is number one concern. And the number two concern is where are you going to get people to work at this hotel that can afford to live in Hood River? I went to the Lightwell Hotel last week.

It is so understaffed. The the cocktail bar had a bartender and nobody on the floor to clear the tables uh to uh to do anything. There was a bartender in a big area. So, I know that's not the concern of the developers, but the reality of a big hotel with facilities doesn't seem to be wellconceived. Thank you. Thank you.

Sorry, I forgot to turn my mic on again. Thank you, Jill. Next up, we have Mike Connors.

Thank you, Mike Connor. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Um, thank you, commissioners. For the record, my name is Mike Connors. I'm a land use attorney and I represent Lars Ryerson who's a Hood River resident. My address is 1125 Northwest Cooch Street, Portland, Oregon 97209. As you've heard many people testify, I think the root problem with this project is its size. It's because of the massive size of this project that the applicant is unable to demonstrate compliance with the 45 ft height limit, compatibility standards, transportation standards, parking requirements, and access requirements. I'll touch on a few issues. So since many people have testified on on these issues earlier uh first of all question was asked whether the building height interpretation is a reasonable reasonable or novel interpretation. It's a novel interpretation. It's an interpretation that's never been adopted or applied by the city in its history. And what the applicant during their explanation failed to explain is that their interpretation is based solely on the international building code. The international building code is not recognized in your city code. There's no reference to it and it's never been used or applied in other decisions. And I think the commission should be very concerned about adopting a new novel theory that will essentially allow future developers to do exactly what this developer did is to reset the height in each and every instances and that way get around the 45 ft height limit. On compatibility, what you haven't heard is compatibility compared to what? Your code requires it to be the surrounding area. Prior decisions by the city have determined that the surrounding area is immediate surrounding area. There's no question that a 100,000 130,000 square ft five-story building is not compatible with the immediate surrounding area. It's the second largest building in the entire central business district and is clearly dwarfs any of the buildings in this immediate area. On transportation, there are two intersections that will

fall below level of service. one of them will be failing and this project's going to cause it. Regardless of the city's inability or or lack of mitigation measures that they've identified, that doesn't mean that this applicant gets a pass. It means this project doesn't comply with the transportation standards. And on parking, similarly, they're only providing twothirds of the required parking. And you've heard plenty of testimony about the existing parking constraints in the city. This is only going to make it worse. If they can't comply with the parking standard, you should deny the application. My last comment I want to make before I run out of time is that I believe the post-hering record process that the city has recommended does not comply with state law. Per state law or S197797, all parties are entitled to an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence and argument during the second week. So, all parties can submit supplemental evidence during the first week, but if the applicant is going to submit new evidence, and from what I can gather, they're going to submit a lot of new evidence that we haven't seen. They're going to address issues that we haven't had an opportunity to review.

Mr. Connor, if you can wrap up, we'd be appreciated. Yeah, you need to provide an opportunity for all parties to submit new evidence and new argument during the second round. That concludes my testimony. Thank you. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Oh, we have one more person online. Correct. Mary Ellen. Okay, Mary Ellen.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Okay. Um, I wanted to talk about the original issue you raised, which was the apparent uh criteria consistent with the county code. and you said you have to make decisions with respect to the county code and I want to bring those issues up. The regulations implementing those uh codes relate to inl uh the height of the building and the traffic study. Uh the inloo fees are inappropriate in this particular location. Uh it hasn't been brought up much in this hearing today, but uh the applicant says they don't have enough parking for uh the uh capacity for their building and they're they're asking to pay for inl fees. But inloo fees are discretionary with the commission. In other words, you don't have to accept the um uh the ability to pay for 63 parking spaces when parking isn't ter is a an issue uh addressed in this whole um issue. parking has become a real problem. And then with

Miss Ellen, I I know you're going to run up on your two minutes really soon here. with respect to the height of the building. I can't imagine that they stopped see the the height of the building says respect with no respect to the data and all of that. The height of the building says that the height of a building that is stepped or terrace is the maximum height of the segment of the building. So applicant used a terrorist approach in attempting to receive approval from your commission. Yet that approach should result in your conclusion that a segment of the building downs slope exceeds 45 ft limit. And then there's the traffic study. The traffic study was done in March 2025. There was no uh no study about whether it was done uh in the tra in the in the um season peak seasons in the uh uh the um se off seasons in the um

Miss Ellen this this we greatly appreciate your testimony. Your two minutes is up. this particular topic has has been brought up previously in testimony this evening in a way that I think you were probably going to cover. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. It looks like we have one more raised hand and I'm trying to get through the rest of this here because we still have to give the applicant their opportunity to cover the the response. Yeah, Briefish. Thrive Hood River. Yeah, Thrive. I see a hand. Someone from Thrive. You're muted. Still muted. Okay.

Hey, there you go.

Yeah. Thank you. This is Peter Cornellison. I live at 100035th Street. That is the east portion of the Heights. And uh myself and my neighbors use Serpentine and Sixth Street um regularly to get to downtown to the freeway etc. Um Sixth and State is already a failed intersection at certain times of the day. Uh turning into and out of um Sixth onto State and vice versa. um with this hotel complex. Um it would make that situation much much worse. Um I think um Mr. Kits had it right. We've got failed intersections already. This project is going to greatly exacerbate the situation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. No more hands anywhere. Oh, we have another hand. Sally R. I'm really gonna stick to the two minutes now, folks.

Hi, this is Sally Richmond and um I like Peter live up in the neighborhood just uphill of uh the proposed development. And I just want to mention that um there's been a lot said about the traffic and the failed intersections when we have a major closure on I 84 as we did for the Eagle Creek fires as we did for the Moer fires. Um the State Street corridor is a major evacuation route leading to 35. It is also the major route that the fire trucks come down to get to the port to get to the freeway and I haven't heard anything discussed about that. Um just evacuation routes in case of emergency because they cannot go through Oak Street. Um there's too many crosswalks, too much going on down there. They come down State Street. That's my comment. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Okay, I think that's all the hands and we're at hour three now. So, it might be time to yeah wrap wrap up the testimony part. Uh I think we did a good job of covering a lot of topics and now we have the applicant's overview of what any responses you have to things. I think I think we're just looking for an overview of issues that you intend to look at and not a rebuttal. Yeah, sorry. Not a rebuttal. I'm just reading what the script says. So just uh not not applicant rebuttal, more of maybe a recital of some of the things that have been heard. Oh town hall. There you go.

Should have paid attention. Um uh good evening uh planning commissioners. Again, Ezra Hammer here on behalf of the project team. Um before we jump into that and we're happy to provide um a wrap-up here, we just be helpful to understand what the planning commission's wish is regarding the uh continuation and the issues there that have been raised because I think that um either puts us into a lengthy response. Uh I have testimony here from approximately 25 people and we want to address that all very thoroughly or if it is your wish to uh continue pursuant to the staff recommendation will we'll provide a a little bit more brief uh response.

Yeah, I think you were going to leave the record open. So I think this was the very brief this is the maybe a preview of the things that you were going to come back with. So this is the short response time. Yep. Is this a is this a good time for me to add in some things that may work that that might be worthwhile to see in a followup that information that that would be great if if you have questions or things that um that you feel necessary to come back and review that would be wonderful.

Yeah. I just just in terms of the facts that would be good to fill so we have a little picture I can yeah sorry here um so I do so it does it does sound like you have a new u proposal that does comply with 25 foot um height limit so those two segments would no longer exceed so I mean obviously we would need to see that as a um as a final document because I don't think we've seen that yet we just heard about it today it exists. Um so I'd expect to see that. Um I think the questions about how how you're addressing the adjacent site um and sort of you know engineering concerns that have been really very clearly delineated um and articulated in uh what uh in the public record to see some information around. I think it would be useful to and not sure that I can uh you know formally ask for this but I think it would be helpful to see how you've calculated the parking um and and and how how you're comfortable yourself that the parking um that you're planning for you meets the needs of all the guests and the and visitors of the hotel that I will you know useful for people um and I think with compatibility One of the challenges is that we've only seen kind of one, you know, perspective rendering and that's really um kind of inadequate from my perspective to determine compatibility to the surroundings in terms of bulk and scale. Um particularly there's there aren't any perspective renderings or really any high quality renderings on the Sherman side. And so I really have a lot of concern around that kind of fourstory wall that just about that's this clearly you know sort of diminishing

and and kind of it's a it's a clear uh point of sort of you know interchange between zoning. So like to see more perspectives and it would probably be useful just to see uh designs that that uh address that you know that interface and the kind of the bulking scaling there. Um that's it for me. I think one other piece that heard from Commissioner Kits was uh regarding traffic analysis and some of the assumptions regarding timing and methodology.

And I think uh on the procedural side I don't know if we have legal here. Um, Mike Connor's represented some concerns regarding the open record period. Uh, representing uh Mike representing um a resident here. I think uh if we can bring Dan up. Sure. Can you hear me? All right. Yes.

Okay. Um the the way it works is that the uh the applicant submits new evidence during the uh for example the first 7-day segment then the public is entitled to respond to that if warranted with with new rebuttal evidence. So Mr. Connor is correct but also this the 77 period it's a narrowing process. So, uh, if the public does need to submit new evidence, new rebuttal evidence during the second period, then it it may extend these open record period by another 7 days potentially, but um it it depends on what comes in.

Does that make sense?

Yes. and and and state law does distinguish between uh what is new what is evidence versus what is argument. So evidence is factual information uh that's not already in the record and argument is purely argument based on the law applicable law and what is already in the record and I think a lot of well during this open record period the applicant should be uh state whether the documents they submit are already in record because I think a lot of it already is. I heard uh several people uh uh mention that the building height information is not in the record uh and that this interpretation has never been made before. I think that's in the record already. So um those sort of clarifications would be very useful as you go forward.

Thanks Dan. Hey, are we ready to have the final brief comments from the I just have a quick uh I guess concern if we're asking him then to do a brief um maybe what they're planning on bringing next time. Does it just seems like we should stick to the procedures that we have laid out and then decide whether or not we want to approve or not or extend but probably need to stick to what we have currently. Maybe that's a question for Dan.

Yeah, I I think you've actually just covered it. So in your questions um you know the applicants element. So I think you you've kind of gotten through the roundup of information um with with the applicant. So

yeah, the state law requires you to at least leave the record open 7 days if anyone requests it. I heard the applicant asked for that opportunity uh in order to respond to some of these things possibly with new evidence. So once you're into that uh open record scenario, you have to provide certain procedural rights to other participants. So that's why the the the first 7-day period would be any comment any new evidence by anyone on any relevant topic and then the second period would be uh arguments in response to what comes in during that first 7-day period. It may be that to respond to what comes in during that first 7-day period from the applicant will require new evidence by the public in which case you know they should be entitled to do that. They should be allowed to do that. Uh the record uh a after that the third 7-day period would be the applicant's final rebuttal. Typically, no new evidence is allowed uh during the applicant's final rebuttal, but if the applicant feels really compelled to submit new evidence, that would cause another extension to the open record period because if new evidence comes in by the applicant, the public is entitled is entitled to respond to that.

See? You see what I mean when it's I say it kind of depends on what happens. But you should be aware of what you're required to do, what process you're required to provide depending upon what does happen.

And just just so I I'm clear on this, we so they are going to respond to what's on the record now and in the future response, we will not be going over what's in the record currently, only what's being added to the to the record. I think what you'll hear tonight is kind of the applicant's kind of first stab at a preliminary response to public testimony. Uh because and so then this multi-period open record schedule will ensue where you'll hear a lot but this is just sort of like sneak preview I suppose you could call it uh from the applicant.

Thank you Dan. Go ahead.

Hi, Robert Gillum, part of the development team. Um, just wanted to round up thanking everyone for their attention and all who have offered input here today. We do understand that change is challenging as it always comes with unknowns. Um, I did firstly want to reiterate a point I made in my earlier opening uh speech. Marriott will have 0% ownership in this hotel. They are simply a marketing partner. I know that's been a hot button for a lot of people, but I just wanted to clarify that they are simply a marketing partner. Um, the Smith family has taken a very deliberate and a well-considered approach to reimagining an underutilized and unsightly property into something beautiful for the community and for Hood River's future. I and all the project partners share the family's vision of committed to creating a responsible, sustainable and highquality project. We know that a market study supports the proposed hotel as the site's best use case. Providing a big economic boost for the city and such a boost could give the city greater flexibility in addressing community needs whether that's affordable housing, additional downtown parking or other projects. We know it will reflect the historic nature of downtown Hill River and provide welcoming spaces for locals and visitors alike. It will contribute to downtown's vibrancy by encouraging guests to walk and explore the dynamic local businesses that are Hood River's heart and soul. We know that demand for overnight accommodation is only growing when this hotel expands capacity whilst filling a void of gathering spaces for meetings and events. The marketing partnership of Marit Hotels brand will further help drive visitors year round without sacrificing the unique touches that will make this a quintessentially locally

owned and operated hood hotel. We know the traffic and parking flow are issues around Hood River, but our proposed design is grounded in traffic studies and code requirements. The hotel complies with city code and includes spaces sufficient for guests and employees whilst traffic is expected to remain at manageable levels. We know the project makes sense. We're not asking for any exceptions or variances. It follows all zoning requirements is fully and privately funded. It will generate jobs and revenue serving as a long-term economic driver and also as a community gathering place and making memories. We know we're grateful for your support in moving forward. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dustin. We need a motion to decide on this 777 situation. I can't imagine

that any of you want to deliberate this tonight. Oh, I believe uh after a request from the applicant, you you have to leave the So, okay. Although you may wish to do so tonight, I I believe you are procedurally obligated to extend it. Even better. Okay. Do we need to do a motion about this?

You are going to need a motion. And then we'll ask for a quick uh consensus to make sure everyone's on board with the uh procedural um extension as it's written. And I think uh your intend intentions were to follow Dan Karen's um description and lead with the the seven days for all parties to submit their um their information into the record, seven days for all parties to rebut uh and which depending on what comes in and then seven days for the applicant to provide its final rebuttal. No new evidence. Great. Well, and we will see how what information does come in.

Okay. Can we have a motion on that, gentlemen? I can attempt a motion. Um, so I'll make a motion to provide a 7-day uh period for all parties to provide testimony, additional testimony, an additional seven days for all parties to rebut and with an additional seven days after that for the applicant to uh prepare and deliver a final rebuttal. Sounds good. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay. All commissioners in favor I I I Okay, that is uh approved. I think we're just

I I would clarify that that the first seven days is will allow additional evidence and the second 7-day period. Uh new evidence is not prohibited, but it should be specifically tailored to address evidence that comes in during the first seven days. And then if the applicant has a an overarching need to provide additional new evidence, then it'll they'll need to um get back to planning commission and uh that'll extend the open record period somewhat if they are going to be submitting if they need to do new evidence during that period. But I would stick with the motion that was made for now.

Okay. Thank you, Dan. one one amendment uh for the purposes of uh date certain uh your your intended time to reconvene uh to keep this record continuity open will be January 5th. Okay.

Also, uh Dustin, how do people submit make submissions to you on why don't you give the calendar dates for that and and what time is the deadline for each of those? looking at the so uh first seven days would be end of day uh and I we'll call it midnight um I plan on being here later but uh December 8th would be the first seven days uh 15th uh midnight would be the next seven and then December 22nd midnight uh would be the third and final period. Okay. Have we covered everything? I think

that uh you might check to see if anyone has any objections to that. I don't know if you Mr. Connor weighed earlier. Yes, his objection was pre-noted. Does anyone else have any objections in the audience? None. Okay, great. Are we ready to adjourn this meeting? I I think uh do you have any objections to the the open record period? No. Okay. Holly, do we have Mike Connor's on uh online? Yes. Okay. I see stating no objections. Oh, there. There we go.

You're go ahead. Yes. For the record, Mike Connors, thanks for the opportunity. No objections. Thank you, Mike. All right. Okay. With that, we will adjourn this meeting. Thank you everyone very much. for being here.