HOOD RIVER — Hood River Planning Commissioners denied Line 29 Architecture’s application for a 135-room Marriott hotel on the former Hood River News site in a 3-2 vote Jan. 5.
Commissioners Matt Pope, Mike Kitts, and Zac Lytle all voted against the development, with Bonifacio Romero and Chair Kate Hoffman in favor; Bill Irving recused himself because of a real estate relationship with one of the applicants.
Hood River Director of Planning and Zoning Dustin Nilsen said the decision will next be “reduced to writing,” meaning put into document form for future reference; the commission is expected to sign off on the document at its Feb. 2 meeting.
The development team of Line 29 Architecture, with SGA Engineering and site owner Eagle Pacific / Eagle Newspapers, Inc., provided a statement to Columbia Gorge News following the decision: “Redeveloping the Hood River News property is a significant endeavor, and we realize the community is invested in this special site’s future. We believe our proposal was a well-considered approach that would add value. The Hood River Planning Commission’s decision is not what we had hoped for, but we are evaluating how we can come to a solution that will satisfy community standards, introduce new amenities, and provide long-term benefits for Hood River.”
Hearing highlights
A continuance of the Dec. 1 hearing, the applicant’s land use attorney, Ezra Hammer, began by asserting that Kitts had showed bias against the hotel because of statements made on the Hood River Happenings Facebook page back in August of last year. Hammer believed that Kitts should recuse himself.
The comments in question were about the city’s in lieu fees that developers must pay to offset the impacts of on-street parking, which Kitts felt were too low; Kitts responded to Hammer that he wasn’t a commissioner at that time, nor was he considering it — Jan. 5 meeting was Kitts’ second — and that he could be impartial. When asked by Chair Hoffman, no commissioners objected to Kitts’ participation.
Later, during his presentation, Hammer seemed to appeal directly to Kitts — who owns Mike’s Ice Cream and Ruddy Duck — by pointing out that hotel patrons would be within walking distance to downtown businesses.
“If I’m a resident or if I’m visiting the spa for the day and I want to have some of the delicious ice cream in downtown Hood River or I want to visit the library, these are walks that I’m taking, they’re not car rides,” Hammer said.
“I have three retail businesses that would probably benefit, but the health of the town means more to me than that,” Kitts said before casting his no vote.
After Hammer’s objection to Kitts’ participation, Hoffman then noted receiving several procedural objections “to the suggestion that the applicant should get the last word by way of concluding verbal comments this evening,” even though no one objected at the Dec. 1 meeting, when it was announced and discussed. “This is consistent with the statutory requirement that the applicant gets the last word because the applicant has the burden of proof and should be allowed to meet that burden, but with no new evidence in those concluding, final rebuttal remarks,” she said.
But Attorney Mike Connors, on behalf of his client, a Hood River resident opposing the hotel, said the applicant’s final rebuttal should be written only as outlined by state statute.
“We feel it’s unnecessary,” Connors said. “We’ve had two hearings. We’ve had an open record process in which the applicant had two evidentiary submittals, a final written argument submittal, and there’s really no reason to allow the applicant and the applicant alone an opportunity to try to summarize or clarify their proposal.”
City Attorney Dan Kearns told commissioners that it’s common for applicants to get the last word in writing and, frequently, in person, and reiterated it was discussed at the Dec. 1 hearing. Director Nilsen concurred, adding the series of events had been advertised several times.
Ultimately, commissioners opted to continue with the hearing as planned, hearing from the applicant only.
Hammer then walked the council through the proposal, citing public record to rebut the project’s “thematic challenges.” That counterargument covered height, compatibility, traffic, parking, and worries from adjacent property owners.
Of note, two Riverside Community Church representatives were at the Dec. 1 hearing and voiced concern about potential impacts to the property resulting from construction activities; Hammer presented a document from Riverside Building and Maintenance Board Chair Gary Rains showing the church met with applicant engineers to go over the geotechnical report, and that they no longer had concerns about the project.
Commissioners then deliberated by topic, with compatibility being the biggest sticking point. Hammer highlighted properties in Hood River he said showed the compatibility of the proposed hotel, such as the Waucoma Building and Full Sail Brewing, alongside the courthouse, library, and Riverside Church.
“I think it would be good to address what we’re considering the surrounding area for compatibility purposes,” said Pope. “I do agree that, with looking at the notice area, 250-feet of the proposed development as being a reasonable surrounding area. I don’t think picking a building across town is really a legitimate methodology,” as described by the 2008 commission regarding a hotel on Cascade. Looking at buildings within that 250-foot area, “it is grossly incompatible, from my perspective, in terms of scale and bulk.”
“We have no specific definition of surrounding area,” Hoffman said. “For me, I think it makes sense to include the entire commercially zoned downtown area. I understand it’s on the edge of that, but it’s still part surrounding area, with the absence of any other guidance.”
Once the 3-2 vote came in, Hammer immediately addressed commissioners, citing an Oregon State statute “that says, when a deciding body appears to be prepared to deny an application, they have to grant the applicant the opportunity to propose conditions of approval to satisfy the deciding body,” and requested five minutes for the applicant team present to “sidebar” and come back with recommended conditions.
Attorney Connors was given the opportunity to respond, given that Hammer proposed a procedural point; he said there was no requirement to allow them to come back with conditions and expressed doubt they could come up with a compatibility solution that wouldn’t require a redesign.
Attorney Kearns said he’d never seen the provision used in this way; Hammer said there was precedent as of 2024 in Oregon City, when “just this very issue was raised, and in subsequent litigation that occurred, it was found that the city erred by not allowing the applicant to provide an opportunity to propose revised conditions.”
The commission granted the five-minute sidebar, but the proposed conditions of approval — a 10-foot setback to provide a landscape buffer along Sherman Avenue — did not sway anyone to change their vote.
Commented