Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I shouldn't delete those yet. January. All right, we'll go ahead and get started then. Uh, this is our January 8th planning commission public hearing. Can I start with roll call, please? Gavin Ul, Klay Cruz, David Box, Rich Levy, Brian Adams, Luttor, AJ Summers.

Great. Uh before we begin agenda items, is there anybody here who would like to give us excuse me public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Okay, seeing none, is there anybody online? You can raise your hand. All right, seeing none there as well. Uh then we will jump into our uh first and only agenda item this evening. This is PL 2025363 Holiday and Express reconsider conditions of approval. Uh, is the applicant here or online? Is it to give us a presentation? Might be online. Might be Walter online. Yeah.

Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, just made Walter, you can unmute yourself if you disagree with Ben saying you don't have a presentation. No, I agree with Ben. We do not have presentation. I didn't know if Ben was present yet. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure because Ben wasn't on mic. Um but that's great. Thank you. Does staff have a presentation?

Sure. Um Toby Ster. So this is a development plan to reconsider conditions of approval. Uh the reason this is here tonight is because the original approval went through the development plan public hearing process and that's how the conditions were created. So that's how we can change them. Um the property is um 38 3.88 acres. Its own community commercial. There is a recently built Holiday in Express which was approved under PL 20230056. Um the request tonight is to amend one existing condition of approval that's associated with the phasing plan to update the timing of improvements and the remaining development. That was one condition number eight on the previous development plan approval. It will be turned into three conditions with this request. Um the first condition uh associates some amount of um the development with a temporary certificate of occupancy. The second condition um finalizes some more aspects of that development adds a completion date of September 30th, 2026 or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first for some additional improvements. And then the third condition breaks out um some additional improvements that are required with a second hotel that's supposed to be on the property. So that first condition of approval didn't break out um the hotel B improvements from this and it also didn't include a deadline for these conditions of approval. So we do think that this is an improvement from the old condition. Um it does add the completion date breaks out the improvements for hotel B. We did review these changes concurrently with an improvements agreement um that provides some collateral for the incomplete improvements. So, however the development turns out, the necessary improvements for the Holiday and Express will be developed with or without the

development of hotel B. Um we do think that um the proposed changes to conditions are consistent with the original approval. This amendment shouldn't change any intention or expectation of the approved project. The resulting development will be consistent with the character of the area and the improvements are consistent with the approved plans and what's expected of other developments. The amended conditions allow the phase development that will install temporary water quality and access solutions that are beneficial to the environment. The existing permanent and temporary improvements provide adequate access to the hotel for pedestrians, customers, and for people to turn around before crossing onto adjacent property. and all aspects of the development that are not included in the conditions comply with the approved development plan and are functioning as anticipated. We did receive some public comment on this item tonight. Um [clears throat] in response to that, uh the hotel does have an approved floodplane development permit. Part of that permit process is to provide a final elevation certificate which this um hotel has done. So their floodplane development permit is complete and approved. Um the de the drainage for the project, the development plan for the permanent storm water for the permanent facilities on the hotel have been approved and they are still consistent and built. And then the temporary drainage improvements for the vacant lot that's adjacent to the hotel have also been reviewed and approved prior to this. So drainage and flood plane concerns do comply with our standards and meet the approved development plan. And there is one uh response also from the applicant that corrects some information in that public comment. So we do recommend approval of this project with the revised conditions as listed.

Right. Thank you very much Toby. Any questions from commissioners? David. Two questions. One is um as you mentioned and also in your report it talks about collateral. Is that collateral been pledged and paid or just committed to? It's paid. So, we have I think I think we have a check for that. So, okay, great. And then Hotel A, the Holiday Inn Express is open and there are folks staying there because we had friends in town over the holidays. Um, did they receive a temporary CO or how does that work?

They did. They received a temporary certificate of occupancy. So, those items that are listed under the temporary certificate of occupancy condition there were completed before we issued the temporary certificate of occupancy. So, we did have some timing where we looked at all of this the improvements agreement and this information all at the same time, but they were able to finish those improvements um prior to this hearing. Thank you. They're operating under that temporary certificate of occupancy, which does have an expiration date um and they would not be able to be in business if they did not complete these conditions or um follow through on their improvements agreement or the rest of their development. Okay. Thank you. Right. Any other questions?

Um, this is just maybe for clarification [clears throat] and I don't know if Ben or if you can answer it. The my understanding is that there's no infrastructure on [clears throat] on that phase 2 was supposed to or the second building was supposed to have that is impacted by what's taking place now.

That's correct. There is some temporary storm water management on that site for hotel B, but the permanent infrastructure for that site is not there. And so that includes um an access easement along the east side, a temporary turnaround on the west side and then the the sidewalk that's supposed to go down the side. So those are that there's going to be a cross access there and a permanent turnaround and a permanent sidewalk. So, those are all um improvements that would be complete before the CO for the holiday in or by September of this year. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

One [clears throat] for staff. Uh for some of these following items to be constructed for phase one, what does it mean that all disturbed air that reveate all disturbed areas to existing conditions? What existing conditions are you referring to? Uh vacant property. So when they stored um construction materials, they might have, you know, disturbed the vegetation that was there or done some of the grading for that site. So if they're not under construction for hotel B, they need to restore that, reveate that to those existing conditions. If they're under construction, then they would need to be under a permit and they don't have to restore that. So that's just so the existing conditions at the time that we reviewed the development permit,

right? Which were which were vacant land. Yeah. Okay. And it's not again that vacant land is not to be used as construction storage or just extra site um for that because that would require a different approval. So um they need to be under actively under construction or actively reveating. So great other questions. Um just curious the does this mean that there will be no hotel B? No. If there isn't, you know, these temporary structures, then they become permanent.

Um, they would they could become permanent, but they're not necessary after the site is reveated. So, um, the the development plan is approved with a hotel B, it can still be built. So, if that development plan expires without a hotel B, then they would have to go through this process again. Um, the development plan process. Um the temporary storm water facilities are in place while it's not vegetated. So while we're waiting to see if hotel B is constructed, but if it's not, I think they're mainly just a drainage swale. Um the applicant or perhaps Emerick could clarify what those structures are, but I don't think that there's um too much actual infrastructure. I think it was just sort of the grading that happened there. So I think it would be sort of it just wouldn't be necessary after the site was reveated is my understanding.

Okay. Thanks. Um for the applicant, do we have a timeline for phase B or phase two? No. With Zenobia Consultants. Um believe the uh the expiration for that development application is is this coming fall. that would mean that there would need to be either a extension requested or uh a building permit pulled. Um I believe that there is a a desire to extend that um administratively um through a request this coming fall for an additional year, but there is an intent to to build hotel B. Thanks.

And that's correct. Just so you know, the expiration on that um development plan is August of 23. So it would be up in August of 26. They did not have extended vesting, so they could do an administrative extension on the development plan if they wanted to. Other questions?

I had one more. Uh I'm wondering why we think it's okay for this hotel to be operating without existing connection to the I'll call it the court trail for lack of a better and why we're able to allow those occupants not to have to wait till the end of summer for that to be completed. the connection that they have a temporary connection right now. So what they um what part of this um process is is to use the um the emergency the cross access road that's paved and then there's a space that's graded and they will keep that um emergency access road a pedestrian path paved and plowed through the winter to connect to that trail. So that's the temporary um access for these um visitors to get to the trail. So they they pledged as part of this um proposal to keep that clear through the winter and you know with gravel through the summer so that people can get to the trail until they build their connection. So, okay, because I'm looking at the proposed phasing plan and it makes it look like the stuff further to the north is not going to be paved until or it doesn't have to be paved till September whatever that date is 2026. So, you're saying there is already some permanent quote unquote permanent connection.

So, there's a there's a pavement there's pavement along the access road which is which is at the bottom of the properties on the east of the property. So there's some pavement there and then there's a graded space where the future pavement will go. So that's the temporary trail access for now and then in the summer when they they'll be able to create some portion of that trail in concrete. The the I think the portion adjacent to the parking lot can be concrete and then there'll be a gravel section of the trail that will be adjacent to the hotel development site. So they'll still have a a gravel and concrete trail to get to the trail. So it will take a little bit of time until hotel B is con is constructed till we get a full concrete trail. But there's two interim conditions that do allow some access.

Thank you. Any other questions? See none. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? Yeah. come on down if you can give us your name and address and try and keep your comments at three minutes.

I'm Debbie Spiker, 1225 Meadowwood Court. I live directly behind the project. I got a letter to come and comment about the temporary certificate of occupancy which is a moot point because you've already given it. Um there are still significant issues about flooding. Um, I'm most concerned about the drainage and the and the delay of putting this in and allowing him to delay the finalization of infrastructure before he opens because what happens? Uh, Walter McIll said at one meeting he plans to sell the property at one point. So, who's going to pay for the rest of the infrastructure should the hotel be sold? Um, the the flooding in 2024 was drastically significant for those of us on the east side of Walton Creek compared to the past. That whole area used to be um flooded by several inches of water during the spring runoff. We raised issues in 2019 when the Homewood Suites was built and we're told it was no issue including Ben Bill. Um and it flooded drastically and the hotel had to transport people over to the front door. um they have been allowed to mitigate and change the land over there and water is being pushed back into Walton Creek and uphill towards our properties and so the drainage issue is a serious concern to me that he's being allowed to delay that and still open the hotel. And since the occupancy has been granted, my issue was don't grant it till they're finished. That's a move point. But I would also like to talk about the lighting. So Homewood Suites has white lights all around the roof line. And I'm expecting this hotel to have the same. And then the four floors of the hallways face uphill towards our homes. Homewood Suites has flimsy white um curtains that don't block any light. The light pollution is horrendous. Holiday in Express for many months has had you can count the number of lights going down the hallways on the four floors because there's no light there's no window coverings right now, but I would request that some sort of light blocking um

shades be required to be put down automatically at night and taken up because the light pollution is horrendous. And then thirdly, a month ago, a sign appeared. It's literally 8 feet long, 2 feet tall. It's bright white, bright white. The only people that can see it is the parking lot, which there's nobody there right now. They It's not visible to Highway 40. It is visible to all of us facing that back side of the hotel. And I'm asking why is that sign a necessary and b allowed to be put up there? Um so anyway, those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I think uh I don't see any other public comments, so we'll close um public comment portion. Um, first giving the applicant the opportunity for any final followup they wanted to give.

Sure. I'll I'll just uh comment, but I think Togei already um um summarized it well that that the existing or the infrastructure that still needs to be um completed is either uh secured with uh collateral in an improvements agreement or is not associated with any uh of the flood plane improvements uh for the project and the uh flood plane certificate has already been been issued the elevation certificate. So, um I I don't um I think uh in close or in summary the updated conditions of approval are more reflective of a of a phased uh project. Um unfortunately, the original phasing diagram uh that was uh put together with the development uh application did not clearly reflect the infrastructure that was necessary to support phase 2 versus phase 1. Uh I think working with staff uh on the revised conditions of approval have clarified those and and refined those in a way that makes sense for a phased uh hotel development. So uh appreciate your time this evening and uh look forward to uh working uh to uh complete phase 2 hotel B at some point in the future. Thanks.

Thank you.

And Toby, do you have any staff uh followup? Yeah, I'll just mention that um on page 1.5 in that um condition number two, it does say permanent storm water quality treatment facilities associated with phase one improvements. So that's the hotel and its parking lot are required before that temporary certificate of occupancy. So all of the permanent permanent um water quality treatment and permanent facilities are in place already for the hotel that's existing. Um, regarding lighting, um, we are trying to look into a community solutions for lighting. We understand that that's a a a broad problem that we need to work through. Our lighting standards are not the best, but we're going to continue to work on that as a with a communitywide solution hopefully. So, we hear that and we're also looking into the sign. Um, so it it does have a permit, but it does appear to be a little bit brighter than we allow in our standards. So, we've um started to look into some enforcement on that, and we'll adjust that sign. When I was looking at the permit today, it does look like there is there are some switches. So hopefully we can adjust that brightness and and not have that impact there. But signage is allowed on the property um for commercial properties. So it is allowed to be there and it does meet our standards other than perhaps the brightness which we're looking at.

Great. Thank you, Toby. Those were all the questions I was going to ask you. That's wonderful. Any other final questions? All right. I'll close our public portion of this agenda item and come to commissioners for discussion and emotion.

Um I I I remember the the project when we first started to talk about this and I remember the concerns expressed about the flood plane. Uh, a lot of those concerns were because the Homewood Suites had flooded and I believe that um there was an error in the original modeling that took place uh for the the flooding and flood control and I believe that was corrected and a covert was put in um to [clears throat] accommodate some of that problem near the Homewood Suites. Um I also remember that the modeling included the two hotels and that modeling did not show any appreciable uh increase in flooding potential. So, uh, well, I I can understand that's a very lowlying area and I can understand the concerns, but I believe the modeling, uh, had been calibrated and, um, I probably should have asked Ben uh, that previously, but I'm pretty sure that's what what took place. Um, so as far as I'm concerned, as long as the there is no infrastructure associated with hotel B that is important for the operation of hotel A one or two, whatever they are, um, I I have no problem with this project.

Great. Any other discussion or motion?

No. Oh, you want a motion? I thought I was giving you a chance to chime in. Love to make them. I'll I'll move to approve PL 2025 0363 and I believe it was four conditions of approval. Five conditions of approval. Four. It was four. Sorry. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Any other discussion on that motion?

I don't have much to add. I'm sorry, Rich. I'll let you down on that. I I I think uh you know looking through it my my biggest concern going through the the change was just to see if there was any kind of um you know critical safety that was being ignored for the time and kind of pushed back into the future too far that that could cause a problem. I didn't see any. Uh the only questions that I that I saw were raised I think were good questions um by the uh public commenter that we have and uh sounds like there's a path to resolution on the sign which is great and understanding whether or not there was a permit, whether or not the permits being followed, things like that. I think that's already in place and not to be um not to hang us up tonight, I guess, in my opinion. Um, and uh, so yeah, maybe I did find something to talk about, but no, I really don't have any problem with it. I think this is a well-considered change. Anybody else want to go?

I'd agreed. I just encourage the applicant to hear some of the comments that were made and see what they can address even above and beyond the code. Yeah, fair. All right, I'll call for a vote. I I I I I I That passes unanimously. Thanks for your time to everybody.

Uh let's see. Do we have a director's report this evening? Uh just real quick, thought I would [clears throat] give you kind of a summary of 2025 in numbers. Um, just cuz I try to kind of keep you all updated. Last year, we in the planning department alone reviewed over 700 building permits. We received over 250 planning applications. Um, and we opened 290 code enforcement cases. And lastly, we approved 2,466 short-term rental licenses. And we just entered our third year of renewals this month. So, um, rolling along there, and it was a very busy year, and I don't necessarily foresee this coming year being a whole lot different. Um, I also just wanted to note um that we do plan to have a work session on January 26. So, try to keep that that one open on your calendars. Um, we have a couple of items scheduled for that day. One is um Toby and Brad are going to be presenting some code amendments um to align some of the language in the in the code that refers to the community plan. So, we have some updates there to sort of revise the language given the new community plan adoption. And then we also plan to review um some other potential code amendments that we're um considering for 2026 and provide you all with an opportunity uh to tell us if you have other ideas or suggestions or priorities. Um probably not. We'll we'll share with you sort of our broader work plan as well which includes

several major uh initiatives. One being the design guidelines or design standards update which would be a pretty significant code change. Um but uh our our code team also tries to continue to um work away at some of the more minor routine things that we come across in the code. So we'll we'll try to keep packaging those and bringing those I think on a quarterly or twice a year basis is sort of what our goal has been there. So we want to hear from you all as well on that. Um and that's all I have. Great. Thank you very much. Uh let's see. We have two I'm trying to remember what we're doing next. We're doing public hearing minutes. Two minutes.

Two minutes. The first one is from October 23rd. Uh any changes, comments or motion to approve? Move to approve. Second. All in favor? I. Great. And then our second one was from December 11th. Uh similarly, any changes, discussion, move to approve. Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. That passes as well. Um, that's it for us then tonight. Anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I Great. We were journed.