The motel in Capital Hills originally approved as a Motel 6 by the Tehachapi Planning Commission in early October, and then withdrawn by the developer in November after an appeal was filed against it, is back on the drawing board.
The commission will now consider the construction of a new non-franchised motel to be built on the same exact property located north and adjacent to Capital Hills Parkway, east of Magellan Drive and west of Challenger Drive at its Jan. 14 meeting at 6 p.m. in the Beekay Theatre.
The appeal filed on Oct. 22 by Ken Hetge on behalf of local pilots and airport hanger owners, halted the originally slated motel in its tracks, citing concerns over building a structure in the protected flight path of aircraft arriving at and departing from the airport, and the map used to determine that path.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the California Pilots Association are also actively involved in the appeal, which is based on alleged lack of compliance with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and guidelines set forth by the state of California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
"The applicant has withdrawn his application," City Community Development Director David James said. "He has apparently severed his ties with Motel 6 and he can't represent that project as a Motel 6 without that franchise agreement."
At the time Developer Terry Delemater said the appeal had nothing to do as to whether it's a Motel 6 or not.
"If there's any motel they wouldn't like it," he said. "My intention is to file a modified site plan and architectural renderings, and process a revision to the approved project."
According to Tehachapi Airport Manger Tom Glasgow, the new plan will be presented to the Tehachapi Airport Commission at its Jan. 8 meeting at 6 p.m. in the airport pilot's lounge to get input from the pilots, hanger owners and the airport commission prior to going before the planning commission.
"Any proposal based on a modified plan must meet the airport compliance plan," Hetge said. "It's a public safety issue. If any part of it is in the B1 zone, I'll be right back there waving my $1,561 (to file an appeal)."