Planning commission approves design review for 8‑unit Horizon Apartments near State Route 89A

The Planning and Zoning Commission approved design review DR‑26‑005 for Horizon Apartments, an eight‑unit (four duplex) project just west of State Route 89A, after hearing a staff presentation and questions from commissioners. Carlo, a community development planner, told the commission the site is about 1.1 acres, zoned C1, and surrounded by commercial and multifamily uses. The project proposes four single‑story duplex buildings totaling eight units, each roughly 2,000 square feet, with building heights just under 17 feet and required setbacks of 10 feet from North Alamos Drive and 15 feet from 89A. Staff summarized recommended stipulations: develop the project as approved, conform to the comment letter submitted with the staff report, comply with applicable zoning‑ordinance sections, and submit a building‑permit application within 24 months of approval.

Commissioners questioned practical details. Commissioner Rothrock asked about the access width; staff and the applicant confirmed a 24‑foot driveway entrance. Commissioners also asked whether units would be sold separately or retained under a single owner; the applicant, who later identified himself as Christopher Moore, said the current buyer intends to purchase all four duplexes together but the design could be split later and that maintenance obligations for shared access and landscaping would be described in sale documents. Moore said the units are being offered as long‑term rentals ("not short‑term rentals") and that trash handling will rely on individual roll‑bins stored in garages and set out to Alamos for collection.

The commission probed whether the project meets newly adopted design standards that became effective recently. Staff (Director Sam Rial) said the project was submitted before those standards took effect and that staff had not yet completed a comprehensive analysis comparing this application to the new standards; staff advised the commission to evaluate the project against the standards in effect at time of submission and promised any deficiencies would be itemized in staff reports going forward.

Several commissioners flagged neighborhood concerns such as proximity to the highway, noise, and the risk of absentee owners failing to maintain landscaping or parking rules. Commissioner Ross said the location ‘‘is kind of funky’’ amid industrial uses but acknowledged the development has improved nearby properties. Vice Chairman Camo and other commissioners said the use fits the C1 zoning and could provide moderately priced housing; the applicant said rents are being targeted at about $699 for some units and that the project aims to attract local buyers interested in owner‑occupied rental models.

A motion to approve DR‑26‑005 subject to the staff stipulations passed on a voice vote and was recorded as unanimous. The commission advised the applicant to ensure compliance with the staff report and the referenced comment letter and reminded residents that code enforcement handles any post‑installation landscaping or maintenance complaints.

The commission’s approval applies to the design review only; building permits, any future lot splits, and compliance with code conditions remain subject to administrative review and enforcement.