Sparks flew at the Francis City Planning Commission meeting this week as members debated the legality of a proposed hotel in the city center zone. It is one of two controversial hospitality projects being considered by officials.

The hotel would sit on the southwest corner of S.R. 35 and Spring Hollow Road, and the development would also include commercial space for restaurants and retail businesses. East Side residents overwhelmingly expressed their displeasure with the project at a public hearing in December, citing concerns about privacy, traffic and noise.

A City Council decision to raise the maximum allowed building height to 45 feet last year, as proposed in the developer’s design, also caused the project to stir controversy. Many community members opposed the decision, saying tall buildings take away the rural charm of the area.

Additionally, the hotel has been associated with a proposed ordinance that would change the number of allowed stories in the city center zone from three to four. The four-story, 67-room design proposed by developers is currently in limbo as the Francis City Council failed to approve or reject the ordinance last month after two tied votes.

City councilors are expected to revisit the ordinance next week.

The Francis Planning Commission unanimously approved the hotel’s landscaping plan on Wednesday, but a recommendation regarding the conditional-use permit quickly became a point of contention.

Planning Commissioner Kimberly Lawson said approving the conditional-use permit may not be possible because of a law in the city’s code stating 24-hour commercial developments may not be located “near” residential areas. 

However, the city’s legal counsel previously said that portion of the city code is overridden by state law and the city’s conditional-use allowances table because the code does not contain objective language. Essentially, it’s too vague to enforce because there are no definitions of what “near” a residential home means, according to City Planner Katie Henneuse.

Henneuse said the most efficient route for the Planning Commission would be to forward a recommendation, either positive or negative, to the City Council. The city attorney would then be able to work through the conflicting codes and legality of the hotel with city councilors, who would have the power to legislate changes to the code if necessary.

But Planning Commissioner McKenna Marchant questioned the developers’ intentions in general, stating she was uncomfortable with the project and its leadership.

“To me, this is an actor who is really trying to push the envelope and really trying to circumnavigate our code,” Marchant said, referring specifically to the four-story proposal.

Planning Commission Chair Justin Ciampi responded by saying he didn’t care about the intentions of the developer. Instead, he asserted the Planning Commission should be focused on the legality and administrative duties at hand.

Marchant said she understood, but she wanted to ensure the city has good partnerships with developers working within its boundaries. She compared the process to officials’ collaboration on the other hotel proposal involving a Best Western franchise.

“[They] really asked for and got community feedback. A ton of it was negative, so they did try to mitigate that through landscaping, through berms. To me, that is going above and beyond. It’s not just, ‘We meet the code. You have to approve us.’ That is showing good intent, good partnership,” Marchant said.

But Ciampi said the developers of the town center hotel have agreed to more mitigation efforts and show a willingness to work with the city, pointing out a compromise to have evergreen trees surrounding the property as well as a concrete fence.

The two commissioners also disagreed about mitigating factors regarding a nearby home. 

Henneuse said the developers had agreed to work with the residents on landscaping to mitigate disruptions to their property, and Marchant asked to have the agreement in writing. However, Ciampi and Planning Commissioner Scott Buchanan said that was outside the purview of the Planning Commission because the residence is on private property.

“What you’re talking about is not within the scope of what we should be doing at all,” Buchanan said.

“If you can’t cite how it doesn’t meet these mitigation requirements in writing, you’re opening up the city to liability,” Ciampi added. “That’s the whole point. We make recommendations to put in barriers so that we block the light. We make recommendations to do all these things. That is the purview of this group.”

Lawson ultimately made a motion to send a negative recommendation to the City Council in an effort to move the process forward, saying city councilors and the attorney are better equipped to answer the questions being asked.

The motion passed in a 3-2 vote with Lawson, Marchant and Planning Commission Vice Chair Rich Christiansen in favor of a negative recommendation. Ciampi and Buchanan were in opposition.

The Planning Commission also voted 4-0 in favor of a positive recommendation regarding one of the development’s two proposed drive-throughs, with Marchant abstaining from the vote.

She also abstained from voting on the second drive-though, but commissioners still passed a favorable recommendation to the City Council in a 3-1 vote. Lawson voted against the motion for the second drive-through, citing parking and congestion concerns.

The City Council will meet on Thursday. The conditional-use permits for the hotel and two drive-thrus are expected to appear on the agenda.

The post Francis hotel bid receives negative recommendation after heated debate appeared first on Park Record.

The Francis City Council will decide whether to approve or deny the commercial development of a Best Western hotel next month after the Francis City Planning Commission forwarded a neutral recommendation of the project.

The proposed three-story Best Western hotel, which is slated for the northwest corner of Lambert Lane and S.R. 32, would have 69 rooms and 80 parking spaces, including 16 spaces for trucks and trailers. It would be part of a larger commercial project spearheaded by Harwood Development.

Dozens of community members have voiced their opposition to the development in Francis over the past few months, specifically the Best Western and a second proposed hotel in the city center. However, the Francis City code allows hotels in commercial zones with a conditional-use permit, according to city planner Katie Henneuse.

“This project is facing State Road 32, which is the largest and most traveled road in Kamas Valley,” Henneuse said. “It is also located in the commercial zone, which was created to encourage commercial development with access on the main arterial road. It is not unreasonable that development would arrive at this location.”

She added the city and developers have worked together on mitigation efforts to reduce noise, traffic and other issues commonly associated with nightly rentals, such as privacy fencing, low-decibel HVAC equipment and reduced lighting overnight.

“Our goal is to enhance the local economy while preserving the character of Francis City,” said Wes Harwood, the CEO of Harwood Development, in a video presented to the Planning Commission. “We’re creating a thoughtfully planned development featuring a hotel, restaurants, retail spaces and essential services to meet the needs of our growing community. This isn’t just another commercial project. It’s an investment in the quality of life, providing convenient access to businesses, dining and retail while maintaining the beauty of the Kamas Valley.”

Nearly 20 people spoke during a public hearing on the conditional-use permit on Thursday, citing concerns about environmental impacts, privacy for nearby residents and increased crime and traffic. Water quality and noise pollution were also mentioned repeatedly, as well as the economic viability of the hotel in the rural Francis community.

However, planning commissions are obligated under state law to favorably recommend or approve developments on private property if the landowner meets code requirements regardless of public opinion. Planning commissions are purely administrative, and any policy changes, such as banning hotels in Francis, would need to come from the City Council.

“We have to consider the evidence and how we’re mitigating the detrimental effects,” Henneuse explained. “If those can be mitigated, then you have to approve the conditional use. … We don’t get to choose whether we like the policy or not. We are looking at the code and at state law.”

That’s the tricky part, said Planning Commission Chair Justin Ciampi.

“Even if our emotions or feelings or all of those things that come into play with making the decisions as a part of the Planning Commission happen, if there’s public dissent, if your very close neighbors absolutely hate the project, it doesn’t really matter,” said Planning Commission Chair Justin Ciampi. “You’re obligated by law to look and to meet the objectives set forth.”

Ciampi said he understands the public’s frustration, but denying hotel development is outside the scope of the Planning Commission’s administrative purview.

“I understand the emotion connected to the issue,” he said. “I understand how it must feel, or at least I think do, how it must feel to have this development being built right next to your house. I can appreciate all of those things and those arguments, but our hands are tied. I urge all of you to come to the City Council meetings as well. Those are your elected officials. Those are the bodies that make the decisions, but you should know that if they meet the requirements in the law, that’s the law. That’s what it is.”

Commissioners voted 3-1 to approve the site’s trash storage plan and landscape plan and to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the overall site plan, parking, architecture and outdoor lighting. Planning Commission Vice Chair Rich Christiansen was absent from the meeting.

Planning Commissioner Kimberly Lawson was the lone “no” vote. She expressed hesitations about the project as a whole despite developers meeting all code requirements.

“It is so obvious that you guys took so much of the public comment from last time and really tried to incorporate it, and that’s great,” praised Planning Commissioner McKenna Marchant. “I really appreciate that. The landscaping’s beautiful. The architecture’s beautiful.”

There was not a consensus regarding the conditional-use permit, however, which included stipulations requiring an 8-foot privacy fence, tree buffers, shortened delivery hours and other mitigation efforts for nearby residential homes.

Marchant and Lawson wanted to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, while Ciampi and Planning Commissioner Scott Buchanan were in favor of a positive recommendation. 

Ultimately, the Planning Commission unanimously decided to forward a neutral recommendation to the City Council instead of tying up the vote and tabling the issue. The Francis City Council is expected to discuss and possibly vote on the hotel’s commercial development and conditional-use permit next month.

The post Francis Planning Commission punts Best Western hotel proposal to City Council appeared first on Park Record.