0:16 call the meeting in order. Please rise
0:22 to the flag of the United States of
0:25 America and to the republic for it
0:28 stands. One nation under God,
0:30 indivisible, with liberty and justice
0:35 >> All right. Good evening everyone.
0:37 Welcome to the September 9th Planning
0:43 Go through the agenda here. Uh we'll
0:45 start with roll call tonight. >> Here
0:46 >> Here >> present.
0:48 >> present. >> Here
0:56 >> and Kibby Walton is excused tonight.
0:57 Uh any ceremonies, announcements,
0:59 appointments, or presentations tonight,
1:00 Mr. Manley?
1:01 >> There's none.
1:03 >> Amendments to the agenda.
1:07 >> Just one clarification on um public
1:09 hearings. Action item B, Echo Estates
1:12 annexation file A NX 245.
1:16 Uh they withdrew their interest in their
1:19 subdivision. So we continued with the
1:23 annexation aspect of their request. >> Okay.
1:30 Sounds good.
1:32 >> What does that mean?
1:34 >> So what that means, yeah, there's a
1:35 question about what does that mean?
1:36 >> That's fine.
1:39 >> So what that means is as the applicant,
1:42 they are just looking for a zoning
1:44 recommendation from you tonight as part
1:46 of the annexation request. That'll go
1:49 before city council at a later date to
1:51 hear whatever the outcome is tonight
1:54 from you guys. and then um at a later
1:56 date down the road once they have more
1:58 direction then they would apply for a
2:01 subdivision at that time if it was
2:02 approved. We don't know the outcome of
2:05 where it's going to where it's go.
2:08 >> Yeah. So there's still a hearing. We'll
2:09 explain a little bit more but there's
2:12 still a hearing for them tonight.
2:15 >> Okay. Yep. Any declaration of conflict,
2:17 expparte contacts or site visit from
2:18 commission members?
2:20 >> Have a conf I have a conflict tonight on
2:22 the consent calendar. So, I'll recuse
2:22 myself from that.
2:25 >> All right, sounds good. Anybody else?
2:28 >> Nope. All right. Uh, can we go over the
2:30 consent calendar, please?
2:32 >> Yeah, we got action item A, which the is
2:35 the meeting minutes from the July 29th,
2:37 2025 commission meeting. We got action
2:39 item B, which is the meeting minutes
2:41 from the August 12th, 2025 commission
2:44 meeting. Action item C is the Poland and
2:46 Zoro special use permit reason decision
2:49 file number SUP253.
2:51 Action item D is the River City Corner
2:53 subdivision reason decision file number SUBD251.
2:56 SUBD251.
2:58 Action item E is the River City Corner
3:00 special use permit reason decision file
3:07 Action item F is G2 development
3:09 annexation zoning recommendation file numbernx252.
3:12 numbernx252.
3:14 Action item G is the G2 development
3:17 annexation reason decision file number SUBD252.
3:19 SUBD252.
3:21 And action item H is the Painted Rock
3:23 subdivision reason decision file number SUBD253.
3:26 SUBD253.
3:30 Okay. Any questions?
3:32 >> Anybody like to make a motion on the
3:33 consent calendar?
3:35 >> Yeah, I'll move to approve the consent
3:36 calendar as presented.
3:38 >> Okay, we have a motion. >> Second
3:38 >> Second
3:40 >> and a second. Roll call, please.
3:42 >> Stephenson. Yes. >> Schlavhower.
3:43 >> Schlavhower. >> Yes.
3:43 >> Yes. >> Shriber.
3:44 >> Shriber. >> Yes.
3:44 >> Yes. >> Wilhham.
3:45 >> Wilhham. >> Yes.
3:46 >> Yes. >> Carrie.
3:46 >> Carrie. >> Yes.
3:47 >> Yes. >> Kimble.
3:48 >> Kimble. >> Abstain.
3:48 >> Abstain.
3:52 >> All right. So moved. All right. Uh, next
3:54 item is citizen issues. This section is
3:56 reserved for citizens wishing to address
3:58 the commission on an item that is not on
4:00 the agenda tonight. You will have five
4:01 minutes to speak. Do we have anybody
4:03 that would like to speak on something
4:06 that's not on the agenda tonight? All right.
4:08 All right.
4:09 Come on up.
4:12 >> I have copies of this. you guys like it?
4:19 >> Uh, name for the record, please.
4:25 >> Uh, good evening. Thank you for the
4:27 opportunity to speak. I'm just going to
4:28 read straight from this because I have
4:31 public speaking anxiety. Um, my name is
4:33 Sarah Ericson. I'm here tonight to ask
4:35 you to consider a small but meaningful
4:36 change to the city code regarding
4:39 backyard ducks. Yes, I said ducks. Right
4:41 now, the code treats ducks as livestock
4:43 and requires at least one acre of land
4:44 to keep them. Chickens, however, are
4:47 already permitted on any detached single
4:50 family lot with up to 10 hens. I believe
4:51 ducks should be allowed under similar
4:53 guidelines. And I'd like to share why.
4:56 Ducks require very little space, 10 to
4:58 15 square feet per bird uh of outdoor
5:00 run area. They are often quieter than
5:02 chickens, especially male ducks, who
5:04 often make little noise at all. Their
5:06 waste is actually less of a nuisance.
5:08 Unlike chickens, duck manure is cold
5:10 compost that can be applied directly to
5:12 gardens without aging. Ducks also
5:14 provide natural pest controls, eating
5:15 slugs, mosquitoes, and other bugs, which
5:18 reduces the need for chemical pesticides
5:20 in our neighborhoods. Another point I
5:21 forgot to put in here is they have
5:23 nutrient-rich eggs. So, people who are
5:24 allergic to chicken eggs can eat duck
5:27 eggs sometimes. Uh, and they're
5:28 healthier for you. Beyond practical
5:30 benefits, ducks bring joy and are
5:32 absolutely hilarious. if you'd like to
5:36 see my child duck videos later. Uh they
5:37 are gentle social animals that provide
5:39 companionship and emotional support much
5:41 like chickens already do for families
5:43 across Post Falls. I also want to
5:45 recognize concerns about neighbors and
5:47 animal welfare. That's why I'm proposing
5:50 clear limits. A maximum uh minimum, I'm
5:52 sorry, of two ducks since they're flock
5:54 animals uh with a strong recommendation
5:55 to start with three for their well-being
5:58 in case one dies. uh a maximum of five
6:00 ducks per household to keep flocks small
6:02 and manageable. Families could either
6:04 have one male with up to four females or
6:07 all males or all females. Um housing and
6:10 setback requirements um would mirror
6:13 those already in place for chickens. Uh
6:14 duck pools would need to be kept clean
6:17 to prevent odors uh and mosquito issues,
6:19 same as any standing water on property.
6:21 Ducks only need to be able to submerge
6:22 their face. They don't really need a
6:25 whole pond. Uh the water from that kitty
6:27 pool that some people use uh is
6:29 nutrient-rich and like I said, cold
6:32 compost, so instantly usable. People are
6:33 even doing duck ponics and watering
6:35 their indoor plants with it because it
6:37 does not smell like chicken manure does.
6:40 Um in short, allowing a few backyard
6:41 ducks under the same framework as
6:43 chickens would give families
6:45 flexibility, help educate children,
6:48 protect neighbors, uh and ensure animal
6:50 welfare while bringing environmental and
6:52 personal benefits to our community.
6:54 Thank you for considering this amendment
6:57 to section 6.08.030.
6:58 >> Okay. Thank you.
6:58 >> Thank you.
7:06 Anyone else tonight?
7:10 >> Okay. Any unfinished or old business?
7:11 >> There's none.
7:13 >> All right. We'll move into the public
7:14 hearings tonight. If you're wishing to
7:16 speak, uh, make sure you fill out the
7:19 form in the back. We went up front. So,
7:20 and at that time, you'll have four
7:22 minutes to speak. The timer is on the
7:25 podium, so please pay attention to that.
7:30 Um, also, as we're going through the
7:32 staff report and the developer talking
7:34 and public, uh, please keep all your
7:37 comments to yourself and everyone just
7:38 give everybody the courtesy to be able
7:39 to speak their mind if you would speak,
7:41 come up here. Uh, there is no question
7:45 answer. After public testimony, the
7:46 developer does have a time to come up
7:49 and and rebut any testimony and kind of
7:50 can answer any of those questions. So if
7:52 you do have questions, ask them and then
7:53 the developer will answer them after
7:55 that fact.
7:57 All right, with that we'll open up the
8:01 Harvest Meadow just PUD.
8:03 Um, good evening commissioners. John
8:05 Manley, planning manager, city of Post Falls,
8:06 Falls,
8:08 introducing the Harvest Meadows PUD and
8:11 subdivision case file PUD 252 and issue 254.
8:13 254. The
8:15 The
8:18 um owner is Blackwell Homes and
8:20 Development. The applicant is Merl Van
8:22 Hton. The requested action for you
8:24 tonight is to approve the proposed PUD
8:27 on the 11.2 acres and the associated
8:31 subdivision that they're proposing into
8:33 85 single family residential lots at the
8:37 7.36 dwelling units per acre. Now, if
8:39 you remember, this was brought to you
8:43 recently in June. They had 92
8:45 lots. the applicant from what I
8:46 understand and they can go into more
8:48 details took kind of your considerations
8:50 and your concerns and they proposed an
8:51 amendment and that's what we're here
8:53 tonight is kind of look at their revised
9:00 looking at the PD they do base
9:03 everything off of the gross acres of so
9:04 there I have highlighted there on where
9:06 that's stated in the falls municipal code
9:09 code
9:12 the property and the project location is
9:14 as you see here and hatched red
9:16 sandwiched between Guyia Road and
9:18 Spokane Street just to the west or
9:20 southwest of the intersection of North
9:23 Brookie Drive and Spokane Street.
9:25 Brookie Drive is that uh one-way street
9:28 that kind of serves those lots that are
9:34 The current land use, it's transitional.
9:36 You can see some pre-existing single
9:37 family homes that were once there that
9:40 they're intending to remove, but it is
9:42 transitioning to some other future than
9:45 what was there in the past. It is over
9:47 the raft and prairie aquifer. The water
9:49 provider would be East Green Acres and
9:50 the city of Post Falls would provide
9:57 Looking at the surrounding zoning in the
9:59 city of Post Falls, you can see that to
10:02 the north, east, and south, it's the
10:05 single family R1 zone. The golf course
10:09 to the east is all zoned to R1
10:11 with the golf course.
10:14 To the west, you do see some large lot
10:17 undeveloped county egg property just to
10:24 So moving on to the PUD review criteria.
10:26 So what I did here is as we stay on each
10:27 criteria, I highlighted them in
10:29 different colors. So we'll progress to
10:31 different colors. But the first one is
10:33 does the proposed PUD provide for
10:36 adequate utility services and parking to
10:39 service the proposed development.
10:42 So regarding the public water supply
10:44 system, there is a will serve letter
10:46 associated with the subdivision in this
10:49 project from East Green Acres Irrigation District.
10:50 District.
10:53 Sanitary sewer service is available and
10:54 there's capacity to service and this
10:59 deals with the next criteria.
11:01 And is there
11:02 accommodations for other utilities
11:04 necessary to support the proposed
11:06 development? and looking at exhibit A3
11:08 which is the preliminary plan. They do
11:10 show the corridors for utilities and
11:12 easements along the private and public
11:14 roadways and the aloays within the project.
11:16 project.
11:18 The next one is does the proposed
11:20 project is there sufficient parking to
11:22 meet the needs of this PUD and this is
11:24 kind of the crux I think of the last one
11:25 and where they've kind of revised this a
11:28 bit. So, our code requires a minimum of
11:30 two off- streetet parking stalls for
11:32 each residence. And in their narrative
11:35 and in sheet C5, the applicant details
11:38 114 available on street parking stalls
11:47 Here is their
11:51 plan where they show where the on street
11:54 parking will be and the the type. And so
11:55 where you have Airshshire Lane, that is
11:57 their private street and they do have
11:59 parking on the south side being
12:01 proposed. Those would be the front
12:05 loaded product on along there
12:07 to the north of the air private lane.
12:08 Those are rear loaded. So then that
12:10 provides the reason why that's purple is
12:12 because that's a continuous parking
12:14 that's not interfered by driveways. And
12:16 so that would those would be um
12:18 continuous parking along those lots as
12:20 well as the open space which I'll go
12:22 into detail in a little bit. And then
12:23 you have the other orange along the
12:24 north which show those are more
12:26 front-loaded and so you'd end up having
12:30 a driveway between lots and one uh
12:37 So the next criteria does a proposed PD
12:39 provide for integrated transportation
12:40 network and adequately serve the
12:42 proposed development.
12:46 We're looking at the um providing for
12:48 continual arterial and collector streets
12:50 meeting the standards. They provide
12:51 they're proposing Tennessee Avenue
12:54 within first phase that would connect
12:57 the project to the southwest. Another
12:59 connection to Spokane Street, improving
13:02 uh emergency service access to that area
13:04 and improving circulation. Phase two
13:06 that is planned to connect Guy Road out
13:09 to the west.
13:11 And then by staff reviewing this, they
13:13 all look like there is sufficient
13:14 capacity to handle the proposed development.
13:20 Does the proposed network allow for
13:22 adequate circulation and snow storage
13:24 throughout the entire development? They
13:26 do have some tracks. I'll let the
13:28 applicant go into and how they intend to
13:30 meet the snow management of this
13:32 project, but they do have a few a couple
13:36 tracks and the open space.
13:39 We do identify that the there's going to
13:41 be no parking on the proposed alleyways
13:43 and on the p and the private street only
13:53 Does the project provide for pedestrian
13:54 bicycle systems designed to provide
13:56 adequate circulation throughout the
13:59 entire development? So you do see and
14:01 I'll show on this next slide here. Let's
14:03 see. I think it was in the previous one
14:07 here. The project does have the plan for
14:10 the open space and pedestrian connecting
14:12 out to Spokane Street. You do have on
14:13 the along the east side, you will have
14:15 improvements that will improve the west
14:28 As far as let's see, there's their open
14:36 Looking at the next criteria, does the
14:38 proposed PED provide enhanced community
14:40 design by conserving and incorporating
14:43 sites significant natural, scenic or
14:44 historical features of development if
14:47 any? So, this site does not have any,
14:51 but it is along the
14:54 park here along the
14:56 rail corridor. They would be required to
14:59 have a sixoot fence to kind of protect
15:06 Does the proposal integrate a mix of
15:08 compatible land uses into development
15:10 and adequately buffer or separate inco
15:13 incompatible uses in development? Staff
15:15 use this as they're proposing single
15:17 family development detached. They're
15:20 next to other single family detached
15:22 units. Albeit it is an R1 zone. They're
15:26 proposing an R2 on smaller lots.
15:28 From staff's perspective, they're not incompatible.
15:36 And then looking at are these proposed
15:38 uses in the PUD blend in with the
15:40 surrounding uses neighbor neighborhoods.
15:44 I site here that the they do have um
15:46 average lot sizes of about 3,400 square
15:48 feet. The smallest lot is 2,800. They're
15:50 only on three lots, the 82, 83, and 84
15:53 with the largest lot being about 6,200
15:59 Regarding the open space pods are
16:02 required to have 10% of their project be
16:08 in their exhibit in their application
16:11 they cited the net area. So what I did
16:13 is I calculated out what they site as
16:16 their gross in their project as 11.57
16:19 10% of their gross would be 50,000 about
16:21 5,400 square feet. They are greater than
16:23 that. So they are slightly above what is
16:25 required for the PD. they would meet that.
16:32 And then the fourth criteria, does a
16:34 proposed PD provide for timely
16:36 development of the property and security
16:38 for future completion and maintenance?
16:41 So as stated, they do propose three
16:43 phases and each phases does
16:45 independently stand on its own and would
16:48 allow for continuation and continuity.
16:49 The other one is ensuring that each
16:51 building in the development lot has
16:52 sufficient access to around the
16:53 structures and allow for continual
16:55 maintenance of the building and access
16:58 for emergency services. So in regards to
17:00 our setbacks on our individual lots that
17:03 does allow for um access and maintenance
17:05 of each structure and we do see that
17:07 within their combination between their
17:09 public way and private ways you'd have
17:13 access to their residences.
17:15 ensuring that a funding mechanism exists
17:17 to adequately maintain common areas that
17:20 are not publicly maintained.
17:22 We require an HOA to be established
17:24 prior to platting and that's typically
17:26 how staff recommends and sees this as
17:34 And then are there any modifications and
17:37 deviations? This is what is cited in the
17:40 conditions right now for approval if you
17:43 guys deem so. And
17:45 As far as memorializing,
17:48 they're reducing the 4,000 square foot,
17:50 which is typically in an R2 zone, to
17:53 2,800 square feet.
17:56 The driveways, minimum of 16 foot wide
17:58 driveways. This allows for the potential
18:02 for two cars to park side by side.
18:03 It has some standards for some rear
18:07 loading, has some standards for the 40
18:09 foot front loaded, the 40T. That's how
18:12 you get to the 16 feet because we
18:15 require and code 40% of the frontage to
18:17 be for driveway approaches or driveways.
18:19 That's how you get from 40 to 16. So
18:20 they tweaked their project a little bit,
18:22 increased our lot sizes so they could
18:28 And then you can see the other ones at
18:30 that point, some setback standards that
18:33 they requested.
18:35 Any questions for me on the PD at this
18:38 point? on that that sheet, your last
18:40 sheet there. These are the things that
18:41 they're going that they're that they
18:42 don't meet.
18:44 >> These are the things that they're asking
18:46 for either that they don't meet like in
18:48 particular like the 4,000 foot, you
18:50 know, that would be the typical R2
18:54 minimum lot size. So, in order to get um
18:57 this layout in the form they are
19:00 proposing like the minimum being that
19:01 2,800 foot on the
19:05 >> How many of the lots don't meet it?
19:07 The what do you have for an average?
19:10 >> The average was a slide earlier too. >> 3377
19:13 >> 3377
19:14 >> the applicant may know
19:15 >> net lot sizes.
19:17 >> The applicant may know how many lots are
19:19 under 4,000 square feet.
19:22 >> Okay. And then and then on the the I
19:24 remember last time one of our concerns
19:27 was the setback the front setback for
19:29 driveway parking. What do they have
19:30 versus the code?
19:32 >> They would I don't think we're on that
19:34 one there. The driveways got are going
19:37 to have to be 20 feet long. So we we
19:38 wouldn't entertain anything any
19:39 different anyways. We got to make sure
19:40 that that
19:41 >> garage to sidewalk
19:43 >> the garage face to sidewalk as with any
19:47 other um lot in Post Falls is 20T from
19:49 either property line to face a garage or
19:51 back a sidewalk to face a garage
19:53 whatever is closer
19:56 >> and the building is 15. Yes, you can
19:58 take the structure like if you had, you
20:01 know, a living room or whatnot that can
20:04 that can be 15 feet off, but >> Sure.
20:07 >> Sure.
20:09 >> Will you go back to the plat? >> Mhm.
20:11 >> Mhm.
20:15 >> Visually, what is different on this than
20:18 the one that we already seen?
20:21 Other than there's seven fewer lots,
20:23 >> but it's very similar to the exhibit
20:24 that was part of the NX.
20:26 >> So, the free space is still the same size.
20:26 size.
20:28 >> No, they actually it's a little bit
20:30 smaller. They had to if you look at the
20:32 previous one, which I accidentally left
20:34 on one of these slides, I noticed. Go
20:36 back to it. So this right here, you can
20:39 see how on the previous layout they had
20:41 a little bit more open space, but in
20:45 order to in um to deal with some of the
20:48 concerns with the amount of parking. So
20:49 before I think they had a single
20:52 driveway with a with a questionable
20:54 whether they can get twocar garages, >> right?
20:54 >> right?
20:56 >> So there was concerns about that. So
20:58 what they did from what I understand is
21:00 they widen some of their lots. They
21:02 widen their driveways and I believe they
21:04 plan on doing some a two-car garage
21:07 product on some lots. And so that's how
21:09 they were going to address it
21:11 >> and move some of the open space to the
21:14 other end of that private road.
21:17 >> So that's what led to a reconfiguration here
21:19 here
21:21 because once you widen some lots up, you
21:34 Okay. So, I'll move on to the subdivision
21:40 aspect of this.
21:42 So, here is their proposed layout, which
21:45 you've seen.
21:47 So, is there provisions for water? We
21:49 know there is east green acres. Um, the
21:52 city's identified the second one, the is
21:54 there sewer and there is capacity for
21:56 the project.
21:58 proposed streets are consistent with the
21:59 transport element of the comprehensive
22:02 plan. So we've already discussed how the
22:04 the roads will connect Spokane and the
22:11 Look at the fourth criteria. Is there
22:13 any top topographical conditions or that
22:15 would present hazards? It's over the
22:17 aquifer and there are known no known hazards.
22:23 The fifth one is a proposed subdivision
22:25 zone for the proposed uses. Does it
22:26 conform with the requirements found in
22:28 the code? This will be solely subject to
22:30 the the PUD and being consistent with
22:38 And the sixth criteria looks for
22:41 the developer. It has plans to ensure
22:43 that the community would bear no more
22:45 than its fair share of cost to provide
22:47 services and paying fees and furnishing
22:50 land, providing parks, mitigating its
22:53 impacts to the community. This typically
22:55 done through impact fees that are
22:57 assessed at the time of building permits
23:00 and they deal with things cited here,
23:02 parks, fire, EMS, public safety,
23:05 multimotal pathways, and streets. Here's
23:07 the agencies that were notified. Here's
23:10 the comments. Schools neutral, fire as
23:12 usual, deals with at the time of
23:14 subdivision, our construction plans,
23:15 making sure that everything's done at
23:17 that time and as part of development.
23:20 And Yellowstone pipeline, Philip 66,
23:22 they didn't have any issues with the
23:25 site as they don't have any utilities in
23:28 the vicinity.
23:33 >> I got a quick question for you, John.
23:34 has more to do with the conditions of approval.
23:35 approval. >> Mhm.
23:36 >> Mhm.
23:40 >> Um condition of approval number 11
23:42 um says the homeowner association for
23:43 the project shall be required to
23:46 maintain the common area right ofway
23:48 frontage adjacent to open or the common
23:50 right-of-way frontage adjacent to open
23:52 space tracks along Guy Road south of
23:55 Holene Avenue including all irrigation
23:56 landscaping and snow removal from
23:58 sidewalk and trails. But it doesn't talk
24:01 about the private street.
24:04 Um, is that an oversight? Should it
24:06 should that or is the city is the city
24:07 gonna be taking care of the private street?
24:09 street?
24:12 >> No, city's not that need to be included.
24:13 >> Guess that should be included in there. Okay.
24:13 Okay. >> Correct.
24:15 >> Correct.
24:17 >> And alleys as well. I'm assuming same
24:22 thing, right? Alley's and Yep. So, okay. >> And
24:24 >> And
24:27 it's probably more of a PUD question. Um,
24:29 Um,
24:31 but I'll
24:32 I'm going to tag on a little bit to the
24:35 HOA thing. Um, we've I've mentioned it
24:38 before in other public hearings about a
24:40 making sure that there's a syncing fund
24:44 calculation done um to make sure that a
24:46 homeowners association is set up for
24:50 success when it comes to maintenance of
24:53 long-term infrastructure like streets.
24:57 Um, I personally have live on a street
24:59 that is maintained by my homeowners
25:01 association and we've spent the last 15
25:03 years trying to accumulate money for
25:06 repaving um because we were set up for
25:08 failure to start with and it did not
25:11 work well and it's very difficult um to
25:12 do that especially in an entry-le subdivision.
25:14 subdivision.
25:17 Um so then maybe I'll maybe the
25:19 applicant can can speak to that a little
25:22 bit. Um, but is there a way that we can
25:25 or do you know of a way that
25:29 we can make that a requirement to or
25:31 that staff can oversee a requirement to
25:32 make sure that there's a syncing fund
25:35 calculation in maybe I should be looking
25:38 at Rob on this. Um, to ensure that
25:41 there's long-term maintenance
25:43 provisions, funding for long-term
25:46 maintenance like road repaving, ceiling,
25:47 things like that.
25:49 >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean what you see as for
25:51 the current condition that's the typical
25:53 process. I think it definitely is worth
25:56 warrants staff to talk about that
25:58 element maybe in a little more detail.
25:59 So then maybe that comes forward as
26:01 maybe you know as part of the staff
26:03 report but typically we have you know
26:06 you have brought those up to applicants
26:08 and let the applicant see how they weigh
26:11 in on that that measure but definitely
26:13 it's something I think staff can talk
26:14 more on.
26:18 >> Okay. Um, and then the other thing, and
26:20 I kind of understand that one of the
26:23 reasons for the open space provision in
26:27 the in the PUB ordinance is for because
26:29 in this case particularly, we're having
26:32 a lot smaller lots, right? So, we have
26:35 modest homes on very small lots with
26:39 very little yard. Um, and
26:41 and
26:43 the open space is for recreation
26:45 essentially, right? For the
26:46 neighborhood. That's kind of the
26:47 trade-off as
26:48 >> either active or passive. There's
26:50 >> active or passive. Yep. Okay. >> Um
26:52 >> Um
26:55 Okay. Uh hopefully the applicant will
26:57 speak towards some of the amenities.
26:58 >> All right. Can can I ask just a quick
26:59 question about zoning? >> Yeah.
27:00 >> Yeah.
27:03 >> So, we've
27:06 the staff report shows 11.2 acres. The
27:09 applicant says it's 11.6 acres. So minor
27:11 difference there. And we can I'll ask
27:13 applicant same question. But if it's R2
27:17 zone and we have 11.2 acres, that's 122 units.
27:20 units.
27:22 When we're talking about reducing the
27:24 minimum lot size
27:26 to 2,800 square feet, we're not anywhere
27:29 near the maximum density in the R2 zone.
27:32 I'm I'm It seems like we're talking about
27:34 about
27:38 reducing the minimum net lot size, like
27:41 finished lot size. Is that what
27:43 because the zone talks about the overall
27:45 density of the project?
27:48 When we get to the PUD level, now we're
27:50 talking about the actual finished lot
27:51 size. Correct?
27:53 >> Well, I'll go back to the slide one. So,
27:55 you go through we have
27:57 >> I always find this confusing.
28:00 >> Yeah. So typically you have the area
28:06 land before um dedication. So you have
28:09 the 11.57 acres gross that includes
28:12 rideway. So once they do their
28:14 development, they're going to have to
28:16 grant rightway. So it'll be majority
28:18 like on Spokane Street to get in order
28:20 to get the multi-use trail along the
28:23 east side of the project over here on
28:24 this development. they'll grant some
28:26 rightaway along with the project that
28:28 shrinks their project down to the
28:31 subdivision aspect or the PUD element
28:33 will be you know you'll be looking at
28:35 the governing documents on the remaining
28:38 net but you base the open space on the gross
28:39 gross
28:41 >> okay so the open space is off the gross
28:44 but what about the if if the minimum lot
28:47 size for R2 for single family is 4,000 ft
28:49 ft
28:52 they could actually by right get 122
28:54 units on Simple
28:57 math potent. Yeah, potentially. But
28:57 >> I'm a simple person.
28:59 >> But on but once you get you do got to
29:01 subtract a certain percentage to your
29:02 roadway. So on any project you have
29:05 gross land once you get our city streets
29:07 and you get our connectivity and you get
29:10 our swells and you you get all that you
29:14 do lose the potential maxima maximizing
29:14 that okay
29:18 >> that that math effect but theoretically. >> Yeah.
29:19 >> Yeah. >> Okay.
29:21 >> Okay.
29:23 Go ahead. Thank you.
29:25 I know I ask that question every time,
29:29 but it's slowly sinking in.
29:33 Any other questions for staff?
29:49 All right. Good evening, commissioners.
29:51 My name is Merl Van Hton. I'm here
29:53 before you again to present Harvest
29:56 Meadows subdivision in PUB. You may
29:58 remember this is an R2 single family
30:01 affordable housing development. Um so um
30:04 John did a great job of covering the the
30:06 material. Um I'm going to let him speak
30:09 to to the overall attributes and we're
30:11 going to kind of try and focus in on on
30:13 how we got here from the beginning of
30:15 annexation and what we've done since we
30:18 last were before you in June. So this is
30:20 an application made on behalf of
30:23 Blackwell Homes. Um and this process
30:25 started last winter with annexation
30:28 request. So at that time this property
30:31 was zoned or what excuse me it was zoned
30:35 a suburban in the city in the county. We
30:37 requested annexation into the city by
30:39 looking at the future land use map and
30:41 saw that it was low density residential.
30:44 Uh the comprehensive plan says that that
30:45 is all types of single family
30:47 residential uses up to eight dwelling
30:50 units per acre and it allowed us to
30:55 choose from these zoning um districts uh
30:58 for for you know our projects we decided
31:02 to go with R2. Um but in doing so we
31:04 limited ourselves to eight units per
31:07 acre. So we came before you in an
31:10 annexation hearing with an R2 layout
31:12 that that's on the screen now. Uh the
31:14 vision was to bring home prices below
31:16 median values products home products
31:19 that are you know at the median value or
31:22 less available for individual ownership
31:24 ability to work and reside in the same
31:26 area. Dedicated open space and
31:27 neighborhood charm dedicated open space
31:29 and neighborhood charm as you're saying
31:31 so we can have places for children to
31:34 play and no multif family housing. So,
31:37 we put this layout before you, we put
31:40 this layout before you, the total was 85
31:42 lots and uh it was really well received
31:46 that night. Um, our
31:48 we left with unanimous approval, um,
31:51 saying that with that cap of an eight
31:53 dwelling units per acre, um, we were
31:57 granted the R2 zoning designation. So,
31:58 want to be clear that we were never an
32:02 R1 zoning designation. Um, we requested
32:05 R2. um you gave us R2 with that caveat
32:07 that we were limited to eight dwelling
32:09 units per acre.
32:12 So we came back before you in June uh
32:16 with a layout that had 92 lots that
32:17 happens to be eight dwelling units per
32:19 acre. And when you saw that actual
32:21 subdivision design, we had moved away
32:24 from the conceptual layout and into a
32:26 real subdivision design. We heard that
32:28 you were concerned with things like
32:32 parking and traffic and the findings or
32:34 the the vote that night was three to
32:36 three which resulted in denial. So what
32:38 we found in the reason decision was the
32:40 steps that the applicant can take to
32:42 obtain approval. Uh the commission
32:44 remained concerned with the proposal
32:46 smaller lots coupled with minimal off-
32:48 streetet parking leading to narrow
32:50 crowded drive aisles impeding
32:52 connectivity and safety. The applicant
32:54 is encouraged to revise its proposal and
32:56 adequately meet the parking needs of all
32:59 uses of the PD and account for the space
33:00 limitations opposed by the smaller,
33:03 narrower lot sizes. So that is what you
33:05 told us and and that is what we've tried
33:07 to consider tonight and bring before you
33:10 a layout that remedies those concerns.
33:14 So this is that layout. As John said,
33:17 we've gone from 92 lots to 85. Um, that
33:19 allowed us to make some of these lots
33:21 wider. Uh, front loaded lots have gone
33:24 from 35 ft to 40 feet, which will allow
33:26 us to put a twocar garage and a two
33:28 stall driveway on every front loaded
33:31 lot. We'll go into that a little bit
33:33 later slide in a later slide. Uh, rear
33:35 loaded lots, um, we can accommodate that
33:37 same parking with the the 35 foot wide
33:39 lot. In doing so, we we have decreased
33:42 open space a little bit. Um, we have
33:45 also increased these snow storage and
33:47 storm water areas at either end of the
33:51 private lane. Um, and what
33:53 what
33:55 what that turns into density-wise to to
33:57 kind of address what Mr. Striber was
34:00 saying is, you know, if this was a
34:02 full-on R2 development, we would be
34:06 allowed 126 lots. Back at annexation, we
34:08 said that's just not compatible with
34:10 what the surrounding neighborhoods are.
34:12 We understand that we're going to offer
34:14 up that that limitation that we are
34:17 going to, you know, be at no more than
34:19 eight units per acre. That would have
34:21 given us 92 lots and that's what we came
34:23 to you with in June. We understand, you
34:25 know, there was still some concerns with
34:29 that. So now we're back with 85 lots.
34:33 That's a density of 7.35 units per acre.
34:35 And it's worth noting that an R1 density
34:39 is 6.7 units per acre or 77 lots. So,
34:41 here we are still trying to hold on to
34:44 this affordable housing community. We're
34:45 trying to fill the need that pretty much
34:47 every report that's come out of the city
34:49 in the last few years says there's a
34:51 need for something that the mayor has
34:53 signed a proclamation for, but we're
34:54 getting, you know, closer and closer to
34:57 an R1 standard density. We're only eight
35:00 lots away from being at an R1 density.
35:02 So, with this layout, we're requesting
35:04 the deviations down here in the lower
35:07 lefthand corner. Reduction in minimum
35:09 lot size from 4,000 square feet to 2,800
35:12 square feet. Vehicular access to lots of
35:14 45 feet wide or less may be front-loaded.
35:16 front-loaded.
35:18 Reduction in right ofway width from 65
35:20 ft to 60 ft. And we'll go into that in a
35:23 little more detail. and then setbacks
35:25 for these side flanking streets that
35:27 they're technically, you know, street
35:30 side flanking and 15 be reduced down to
35:33 five because we're abudding uh storm
35:36 water and snow storage and not a road.
35:38 So, it is a three-phase development.
35:41 Phase one is in green, 23 lots with the
35:44 open space at the south end. Uh phase
35:46 two is yellow, lots across the north,
35:47 and then another chunk of open space.
35:50 And finally, phase three is in orange uh
35:52 with the remainder of the lots plus
35:54 those uh snow storage areas to support
35:58 the private road.
36:00 Open space is largely the same as
36:01 before. We're providing a privacy fence
36:04 and a nice landscape buffer uh from the
36:06 railroad. We're providing pedestrian
36:08 connectivity from Spokane Street into
36:11 the development. And we're providing,
36:14 you know, wide open space playing area
36:18 for for to offset the smaller yards.
36:22 Okay, so this is a closer look at front
36:24 loaded lots on the left, rear loaded
36:27 lots on the right. Both of them have 16
36:30 foot wide garages. Both of them have 16
36:33 foot wide driveways. So conceivably we
36:36 can park four vehicles off street. And
36:38 in the last hearing, there was some talk
36:41 about what people put in their garages
36:44 and what people leave in their driveways
36:46 and what the resultant parking would be.
36:48 And I think this really puts that to
36:50 rest. You know, now we don't need to
36:51 worry about what people are putting in
36:54 their garages because we exceed the
36:55 zoning code. And we've we've listed out
36:57 the zoning code here just to to be clear
36:58 down here in the lower left. I'm going
37:00 to go through it really quick. Off
37:02 streetet parking requirement for single
37:05 family is two for each unit. We have
37:07 four driveways to individual residences
37:10 must be 20 feet in length. And again, we
37:12 brought up that some cars are longer
37:15 than 20 feet, but the city code is 20.
37:18 We meet 20. The front yard and the
37:20 sideyard setback of the front garage is
37:22 a minimum of 20 feet measured from front
37:23 of the garage to the property line or
37:25 the edge of the sidewalk to structure.
37:27 We meet that too. From sidewalk to the
37:30 face of the garage is 20 ft. A single
37:32 residential driveway approaches must not
37:34 exceed 40% of the street frontage of the
37:35 property served by such driveway
37:37 approaches. So, as John was saying, 40%
37:41 of 40T is 16. We meet that as well. So,
37:43 we are doing, you know, we are setting
37:45 this up to to demonstrate that we meet
37:48 all parking requirements for for the city.
37:49 city.
37:52 By comparison, you know, here's another
37:54 development going on in Post Falls.
37:57 Singlecar garage, single wide driveway,
37:59 but good for them. They meet parking standards.
38:01 standards.
38:03 We heard that we there was concern with
38:05 this kind of a product in our
38:07 development. We've taken that to heart.
38:09 we've addressed it and we're going to
38:12 provide more than what you see here.
38:15 So, translating that into the overall
38:18 subdivision layout, um the green lots,
38:20 the green lots are front-loaded, the
38:22 blue lots are rear loaded. That means
38:24 the orange lines are broken up by
38:27 driveways and the purple lines are unencumbered.
38:28 unencumbered.
38:31 They just continuous on street parking.
38:35 The result is 114 on street parking
38:38 spaces and 340 off- streetet parking
38:41 spaces. So the comparison from our June
38:45 hearing to here to today is you know 92
38:48 lots versus 85. On street parking has
38:51 remained the same 1.3 on street parking
38:55 stalls per lot. Off- streetet parking
38:57 has gone from two per lot to four per
39:01 lot. So, total parking has gone from 3.3
39:05 cars per lot to 5.3 cars per lot. And
39:07 let's keep in mind that probably most of
39:09 the families that live here won't have
39:12 five cars. So, I think we're doing more
39:14 than enough to to satisfy the parking condition.
39:17 condition.
39:19 There was also concern about, well, when
39:21 all these cars park on this street,
39:22 there's it's going to be too narrow to
39:24 pass. And I think there was some
39:25 confusion last time. So, I've set up
39:27 this slide to to try and illustrate
39:30 what's happening. The top is our
39:32 proposed public road.
39:35 The middle one is the existing Tennessee
39:37 cross-section and the bottom is the city
39:40 standard. I want to show you that all
39:43 three of them are the same. And over
39:46 here, we see that it's requirement of
39:48 parking on both sides to have a paved
39:51 width of 32 feet. All three of these
39:52 have 32 feet. There's no difference from
39:54 what we're proposing to what's out there
39:57 on Tennessee Avenue now to what the city
40:00 says is the standard. We have 32 feet.
40:02 We have a 10-ft swale. We have a 5-ft
40:05 sidewalk. Physically, there is no
40:07 difference between what we're doing and
40:09 what's out there and what the city has
40:12 deemed to be the requirement. What we're
40:15 requesting is a reduction of five feet
40:16 to the right ofway width. That just
40:18 brings the front property lines a little
40:20 bit closer. It helps us with our
40:23 building setback, but to help offset
40:26 that, we're proposing a 15 foot sidewalk
40:28 drainage and utility easement versus a
40:31 standard 10.
40:33 So, similarly, we have a couple of
40:35 private areas where the road will only
40:37 be parking on one side. Want to
40:39 demonstrate that we are meeting city
40:41 code. City code for a street width of
40:44 parking on one side is 28 feet. We have
40:47 28 feet. Again, our parking complies
40:49 with city code. Our street whist comply
40:51 with city code. Any further discussion
40:53 needs to be more about changing city
40:56 standards than it does this development.
40:58 Housing type is three bedrooms, two to
41:00 two and a half baths, twocar garage,
41:03 12-,500 square feet. Smaller houses
41:05 equal fewer cars. Smaller yards equals
41:06 less maintenance.
41:10 So, subdivision criteria. I think John
41:12 did a good job of covering all that. Um,
41:14 I'll just say proposed streets are
41:15 consistent with the transportation
41:17 element of the comprehensive plan.
41:19 Number three, all the streets meet city
41:20 standards. On street and off- streetet
41:23 parking exceed city standard. Let's take
41:25 a little bit more time to go through the
41:27 PUD decision criteria.
41:29 Number one, the proposed PUD provides
41:32 for adequate utilities, services, and
41:33 parking to service the proposed
41:35 development. As we've discussed, we have
41:39 114 for 85 lots of on street parking and
41:41 four off- streetet parking spots per
41:43 lot. Uh we have the provisions for water
41:45 and sewer as well. Number two, the
41:48 proposed PUB provides for an integrated
41:49 transportation network that adequately
41:52 serves the proposed development. So, the
41:54 city has decided that Spokane Street has
41:56 sufficient capacity to handle this
41:59 development. Um, the interior public and
42:00 private roads conform to the city
42:02 standards and we're providing pathways
42:04 and sidewalks that will tie the Spokane
42:06 Street tail to Tennessee trail to
42:09 Tennessee Avenue and Guy. The proposed
42:13 PUD provides enhanced community design.
42:16 So again, you know, this was celebrated
42:18 during annexation as an an excellent way
42:20 to address the need for affordable
42:23 housing. Um, and then some concerns came
42:25 up during the subdivision PU hearing,
42:28 PUD hearing in June. Um, but we're still
42:32 trying to achieve that that R2 light
42:35 affordable housing de uh de development.
42:39 We have 10.6% open space and on street
42:41 parking similar to that of an R1 zone subdivision.
42:42 subdivision.
42:45 Um the peed provides for timely
42:47 development of the property and security
42:49 for future completion and maintenance.
42:51 Um you know the project the project will
42:54 be built in three phases. We will have
42:57 that HOA u established KCFR has no
42:59 conditions and our setbacks are
43:02 consistent with R2 development. So you
43:05 know I hope that's helped clarify and
43:07 put to rest a few of the the concerns
43:10 that were um voiced last time. But I'm
43:12 here to stand for questions and I thank
43:14 you for your time.
43:15 >> Any questions? >> Yes.
43:16 >> Yes.
43:19 >> So, you said the rightway was 10 and
43:21 then you're moving it up to 15.
43:23 >> The easement. Let's go back to that one.
43:27 >> Okay, here we go. So, you'll see on the
43:29 bottom two crosssections,
43:34 the right of way is 65 ft and it has a
43:37 10-ft drainage and utility easement.
43:40 What we're proposing is to take that 65
43:43 and change it to 60. That that helps us
43:45 with our building setbacks and bring a
43:47 product that a housing product that that
43:51 um that we wanted to achieve. But in
43:54 return, we're expanding that that
43:57 standard 10-ft easement to 15 to make
44:00 room for for water meters, dry
44:01 utilities, things like that.
44:03 >> That goes in 10 feet anyway.
44:06 That's Yeah, we're giving it Well, so
44:09 the side Okay, if you see the top one, um
44:11 um
44:13 60 foot rideaway puts puts the property
44:16 line in the sidewalk. We're eating up 2
44:19 feet of that 10. You know, we're choking
44:21 it essentially if we leave it at 10. We
44:23 don't want to we don't want to choke it.
44:26 We want to give room for utilities. So,
44:28 we've obligated ourselves to 15, five
44:30 more than the standard.
44:32 >> Okay. Mhm.
44:34 >> So basically you have 12 and a half ft
44:36 of usable space in the instead of the
44:36 normal tent. >> Exactly.
44:37 >> Exactly.
44:40 >> Yeah. But it it shifts the set back a
44:42 little bit closer to the front property
44:43 line giving you guys a little bit more
44:45 building envelope.
44:47 >> Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely correct.
44:49 >> But it but it shortens up the envelope
44:51 from the sidewalk to the front of the
44:52 house or it does not.
44:56 >> Let's go back to that slide. Um so so so
44:58 here you can you can see on the front
45:01 loaded lot that property line is running
45:04 through the sidewalk.
45:08 So when we do our 15t you know front
45:10 setback you know that brings the front
45:13 of the house here you know however we
45:15 have that other you know part of the
45:17 code that says we need 20 feet from
45:19 sidewalk to garage. So the garages would
45:23 be offset 20 feet, you know, from the
45:26 sidewalk. The houses would be offset 15
45:38 >> And the first time this came before us,
45:40 how many houses were approved?
45:45 >> We we proposed 92 the first time. So
45:49 again, let's look at that. Um, you know,
45:51 we were prop we were you accepted us
45:55 into the city as R2. You know, we
45:57 limited ourselves to eight units per
46:02 acre, which was 92 that but when we
46:04 brought it before you in June at 92
46:06 acres, you know, there were still some
46:07 concerns. We've worked to address those
46:10 concerns. So now we're at 85, which just
46:13 happens to be the number of lots that we
46:15 brought before you at annexation here
46:17 and here.
46:19 So, so what you saw that night, even
46:21 though we were requesting eight units
46:24 per acre, you know, we had 85 lots on
46:25 the screen and and we just happened to
46:35 >> We're right back where we started from.
46:37 Well, we're here tonight to request the
46:40 subdivision and PUB hearing. So, we're
46:42 we're trying to cross another milestone, but
46:44 but
46:46 but yeah, we're we're at the same lot count.
46:48 count.
46:52 >> Mr. Van Hton, really quick. Um, so, and
46:54 forgive me because I I was uh in the
46:59 audience in June. Um, so, uh, with
47:01 regards to the open space, I mean,
47:05 obviously our, um, the lots are small
47:06 and the house is a significant part of
47:07 the footprint.
47:11 >> Um, and as you said, small yard, small
47:14 maintenance, right? Um, but also,
47:16 >> it's important in a neighborhood to have
47:20 places for children to play. And,
47:23 um, in a traditional R1 subdivision, the
47:24 backyard is a great spot for a little
47:27 play structure, right? Um, and there
47:29 isn't really much room uh in these lots
47:32 for that, especially on the rear loaded
47:34 lots. Um, so
47:37 so
47:41 it's been I know PDS are a kind of a
47:42 give and take thing, right? So you have
47:44 to provide open space that space is
47:47 supposed to be there for uh recreation
47:49 for the residents, etc. Um,
47:52 Um,
47:54 you think it'd be appropriate for there
47:57 to be to provide a a play structure in
48:01 the open space? Um, so that kids aren't
48:04 playing in the street.
48:07 Um, I don't know. As a father, I don't
48:08 know how you keep kids from playing in
48:11 the street, but
48:14 um, but um, you know, I can I can
48:16 discuss that with the applicant, maybe
48:18 talk about it during your bottle.
48:20 >> Okay. Okay.
48:22 >> And then are also are you familiar with
48:24 syncing fund calculation? I'm sure you
48:26 probably are. I I mean
48:28 >> essentially insure basically it's some
48:33 it's a mechanism to ensure that
48:41 >> a long-term maintenance for so you do a
48:45 future value calculation um to ensure that
48:46 that
48:48 >> long-term maintenance for private
48:50 streets and alleys so repaving essentially
48:51 essentially
48:53 >> um is baked into the homeowners
48:55 association dues.
48:58 and that a fund is set up inside the
49:00 homeowner association and in the CCNRs
49:04 so that everyone's on notice
49:05 >> um because especially for entry level
49:08 subdivisions um everyone needs to know
49:11 that hey there's a bill coming due in 25
49:14 years when that road needs to be repaved
49:16 and it can come as a shock and I know
49:19 city staff has seen applica or requests
49:22 from several puds that are 25 or 30
49:24 years old asking looking for the city to
49:26 take over their private streets that are
49:27 falling apart, >> right?
49:28 >> right?
49:30 >> Um and that's a problem especially in
49:33 entry level. Um so setting it up to suet
49:35 to succeed in the first place is
49:36 incredibly important.
49:38 >> So are you asking that that be a
49:39 condition of approval?
49:42 >> I would if yeah that would that would
49:44 definitely be a condition of approval to
49:46 just to ensure that
49:49 >> I would ask can we do that? We what
49:50 we've done in the past is we've said
49:52 that they need to have a funding mechanism,
49:53 mechanism, >> right?
49:53 >> right?
49:55 >> We didn't go into the details of whether
49:56 it's a syncing fund or how it's
49:57 calculated or anything like that, >> right?
50:00 >> right?
50:03 >> Well, an HOA do of $50 a month sounds
50:05 good day one, but then in 25 years it
50:08 doesn't sound good. And so advertising
50:10 upfront what the cost really is, I
50:12 think, is what we're talking about here
50:13 >> essentially. Yes.
50:15 >> Yeah. and commissioners, we've talked
50:17 about this a little bit before as to we
50:19 have to make sure that it's roughly
50:23 proportional to the city's imposing what
50:27 it is on the city um to
50:29 offset those costs. I mean, what we're
50:30 talking about is a syncing fund or
50:32 requiring an HOA to have some mechanism
50:35 that talked about before from the city's
50:36 perspective. Well, they put in their
50:38 CCNRs as a private contract we can have
50:41 as a condition, but what is the line? Is
50:43 it proportional to the government's
50:45 interest in this subdivision? Is it offsetting
50:47 offsetting
50:48 potential future costs of the city
50:50 residents taking over these streets or
50:52 the maintenance if the HOA goes defunct?
50:54 And so if you have that finding and you
50:56 can make that nexus, then I mean I think
50:59 it's something that can be a condition.
51:01 >> Well, it's inevitable that it'll happen
51:03 in 25 years if there isn't enough money
51:05 in the news.
51:06 >> Nothing's inevitable, but I I understand.
51:12 >> Okay. Yes.
51:13 >> So, it's in three phases, >> correct?
51:14 >> correct?
51:17 >> When do the open spaces get done?
51:21 >> Okay. Excellent question. So, um
51:24 phase the this open space that's between
51:27 Tennessee and Spokane would be complete
51:31 in phase one. Um the other open space on
51:33 the opposite side of Tennessee would be
51:35 completed in phase two. I do believe
51:36 there was some discussion about this at
51:38 the last hearing and that we were
51:39 willing to condition ourselves on that
51:42 as well. Um just to provide that
51:45 assurance, but that is the plan
51:48 and um I was going to go back to one of
51:50 Ray's comments if if that answers your question.
51:52 question.
51:55 Um so about the open space I I did
51:59 recall um as you know early on in the
52:03 conceptualization of this project we did
52:06 discuss like some more I don't know I
52:07 want to say just some more more
52:10 amenities in the open space that that
52:13 drove a higher price point and you know
52:15 the conversation ultimately the decision
52:18 ultimately was oh well this is um you
52:20 know this is an affordable housing
52:22 community so how much do we really want
52:24 to obligate them to to pay for. So, you
52:26 know, a play structure
52:27 >> maybe, you know, if that becomes an
52:29 important piece. But but yeah, that we
52:31 did kind of try and keep the open space
52:33 simple to keep the obligations light.
52:34 You know,
52:36 >> understand it's a I mean, the math is
52:40 what a $20,000
52:43 um $25,000
52:46 play structure divided by 80 lots.
52:48 >> Couple hundred bucks a lot.
52:50 >> Probably not going to be the breaking
52:51 point, right?
52:53 pro, you know, more likely probably a
52:54 sales point.
52:56 >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
52:59 >> Yeah. I'll talk to the the applicant
53:01 about it and and uh get back to you
53:05 during rebuttal.
53:07 >> Did you get your HOA question? I did.
53:17 >> All right. Thank you.
53:19 >> Thank you.
53:21 public testimony.
53:23 >> Can I ask John a quick question here? >> Shoot.
53:24 >> Shoot.
53:27 >> Hey, John. I'm just uh
53:28 uh
53:31 you know, I'm also struggling with why
53:34 this huge difference between um units
53:38 per acre, which it sounds, uh you know,
53:42 which sounds very um reasonable at
53:45 eight, but then we're so far off on the
53:49 minimum lot size. Is it because And and
53:51 so these are two different ways of of
53:53 controlling density and and the
53:55 footprint that people have for their
53:58 home. Is it because there's so many
54:00 streets on this particular lot and it's
54:03 such a weird shape? Is that why um street
54:03 street
54:08 >> is that why we have such small lots and
54:12 but still meet the eight lots per acre?
54:15 Well, I do know that from
54:20 discussions early on, the
54:23 eastern portion of it was two two parts
54:25 of the annexation, but the eastern
54:27 portion of this is in a little awkward
54:29 shape. So, it did
54:31 getting Tennessee over to Spokane did
54:34 create some geometric
54:37 um difficulties that we did kind of that
54:40 the applicant mold over. And then you
54:42 know then they did talk about different
54:45 options of getting the road back to Guy
54:48 road. Uh so I think it does play a role.
54:51 I mean roads do consume like I said as
54:54 part of my staff report land and you do
54:56 end up with remnant portions that you
54:58 divide out into lot sizing.
55:01 Do I believe like I think there's a lot
55:03 of different options you can do in R2. I
55:05 mean you can do 6,000 square foot lots
55:06 in R2. I mean you can do 8,000 square
55:09 foot lots in R2. You can also do 4,000.
55:11 So, a lot of it is up to the applicant
55:13 to look at the land that they have
55:16 >> and decide what kind of path they want
55:20 to go forward. We heard them tonight say
55:21 they wanted to go to more of an
55:23 attainable housing slant to their
55:26 proposal. Uh so, in being so a lot of
55:28 times when you go that direction, that
55:31 does naturally reduce lot sizes as you
55:32 try to bring down that that purchase cost.
55:33 cost.
55:36 >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. I just it doesn't
55:38 really make sense that they're so, you
55:41 know, they meet the they so far exceed
55:44 uh the eight lots per acre, but yet the
55:45 lot size has to be so much smaller than
55:48 the minimum. It's like there's a miss in
55:50 the code or it's just because there's so
55:53 many on-site streets.
55:54 >> It's the streets, but it's also the open
55:56 space. There's a breakdown on the
55:59 subdivision plan that shows that the net
56:03 residential area is 8.6 Six acres after
56:05 you take out the streets, all the
56:08 streets and the the open common areas.
56:09 >> Uhuh. Is how much?
56:13 >> 8 point My eyes aren't that good. 8.59.
56:15 >> So that would be 64. That's would make
56:17 more sense.
56:19 >> Well, and then the R2 does allow I mean
56:23 it does entertain density closer to I'd
56:24 have to do the math 12 or 14 20 in
56:26 Prager. I mean so there are product in
56:29 the R2 whether it's attached town
56:32 product or there's more dense product
56:35 that that would make sense. So in this
56:37 configuration though and they weren't
56:38 trying to do town homes to increase
56:41 density above 10 12 you know as part of
56:44 a PUD request because we do have
56:45 standards you got to stay within a
56:49 certain percentage for uh a PUD you got
56:50 to be consistent with the underlying
56:53 zone and so they're on the lower end of
56:56 an R2 otherwise it would be an R1 PUD
57:05 >> So zooming in it's 11.6 6 acres gross
57:08 minus streets minus common area. You did
57:14 get down to just the lots is 6.6 acres.
57:17 >> They end up losing five acres to common
57:20 area streets.
57:21 >> Yeah. I think that's where all the
57:23 properties that's why the lots are so small.
57:23 small.
57:25 >> So you're not really bound. So the
57:27 question is more for a
57:29 a knowledge type question.
57:31 >> Right. Right. Yep. Exactly.
57:33 >> Thank you.
57:35 All right. Uh, the first one here did
57:39 not have a title. Brian McConnellan
57:42 was this com. Okay, we thought so just
57:44 based on the comment here. Um, not
57:47 wishing to speak in favor in favor. This
57:49 is a valuable addition to the community
57:51 of Post Falls.
57:55 Uh, not wishing to speak in favor. J
57:57 J
58:00 I'm sorry I can't demon
58:01 demon
58:03 uh there was no comment but they're in favor
58:06 favor
58:08 not wishing to speak in favor Gavin
58:11 Jacobson Harvest Meadows a piece of
58:13 property with an opportunity to provide
58:21 let's see highest and best use would be
58:23 used as part of the city of Post Falls
58:27 as it surrounding area already.
58:32 Not wishing to speak in favor. Taylor
58:36 Harland, no comments, just in favor.
58:38 Not wishing to speak in favor.
58:42 Alexandria Cook, no comments, just in favor.
58:44 favor.
58:47 Not wishing to speak. In favor, Hannah
58:49 Hunter in favor. This is an amazing
58:51 option for dozens of my friends and
58:53 family. I have many acquaintances paying
58:55 the same cost in rent that they could be
58:58 paying for to own a house. Being a young
59:00 person in this town has become
59:03 impossible. This would help.
59:06 Not wishing to speak in favor. Colton
59:08 Blizzard, Postf Falls needs more
59:11 affordable housing and more affordable
59:13 um more housing and more affordable
59:17 housing as well. Uh the builder has
59:18 builder is born and raised in post halls
59:20 native that cares about the community
59:27 Not wishing to speak in favor. Seth Wy
59:30 no comments just in favor.
59:34 Not wishing to speak in favor. Brandon
59:36 Brandon
59:39 Rio Rio. Sorry if I mispronounced that.
59:42 No comments but in favor.
59:45 Now wishing to speak in favor. Katie
59:50 Barnett. No comments. Just in favor.
59:53 Wishing to speak. Yes. In opposition.
60:06 >> Name for the record. You have uh four minutes. And we'll set the timer up
60:08 minutes. And we'll set the timer up there for you.
60:10 there for you. at Deborah Thomas at 384 West Blandon
60:12 at Deborah Thomas at 384 West Blandon Avenue, Postf Falls
60:14 Avenue, Postf Falls prior meetings, I and surrounding
60:16 prior meetings, I and surrounding homeowners raised many objections, but
60:18 homeowners raised many objections, but we lost the resoning issue for Alers
60:20 we lost the resoning issue for Alers annexation, the five acres on the west
60:22 annexation, the five acres on the west side of the proposed PUD as well as the
60:25 side of the proposed PUD as well as the Steckman annexation to the east. Both
60:27 Steckman annexation to the east. Both were approved separately. The city
60:29 were approved separately. The city approved going for from low density
60:32 approved going for from low density indicated on the comprehensive plan that
60:34 indicated on the comprehensive plan that would mean a minimum lot size of 6,500
60:36 would mean a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet to R2 light as they called
60:39 square feet to R2 light as they called it allowing medium density with a
60:41 it allowing medium density with a minimum 4,000 square foot lot size
60:44 minimum 4,000 square foot lot size ignoring the required compatibility and
60:46 ignoring the required compatibility and density cohesion considerations. No
60:49 density cohesion considerations. No adjacent subdivisions to this proposed
60:51 adjacent subdivisions to this proposed PUD are compatible to such small lots
60:54 PUD are compatible to such small lots and density. A condition for R2 light
60:56 and density. A condition for R2 light was also approved allowing a maximum
60:58 was also approved allowing a maximum eight detached single family homes per
61:00 eight detached single family homes per acre. This would create a maximum of 40
61:04 acre. This would create a maximum of 40 homes on 5 acres. The developer then
61:07 homes on 5 acres. The developer then came back with a proposed PD to the
61:09 came back with a proposed PD to the planning committee combining both
61:11 planning committee combining both annexations with minimum lot size of
61:13 annexations with minimum lot size of 2649 square ft and where 81 out of 92
61:17 2649 square ft and where 81 out of 92 proposed lots were below the approved
61:19 proposed lots were below the approved 4,000 square foot minimum. That was
61:22 4,000 square foot minimum. That was defeated. We are now being presented
61:23 defeated. We are now being presented with a PUD where the developer wants to
61:25 with a PUD where the developer wants to again combine both annex properties and
61:28 again combine both annex properties and get a variance in order to have lots as
61:30 get a variance in order to have lots as small as 2800 square ft. This is a 30%
61:33 small as 2800 square ft. This is a 30% reduction from the 4,000 square foot
61:36 reduction from the 4,000 square foot minimum the city approved. In addition,
61:38 minimum the city approved. In addition, it appears the developer wants to now
61:40 it appears the developer wants to now have 46 or more homes on the L first 5
61:42 have 46 or more homes on the L first 5 acres instead of a maximum of 40. The
61:46 acres instead of a maximum of 40. The overall reduction from 92 to 85 proposed
61:49 overall reduction from 92 to 85 proposed lots with single family homes is
61:50 lots with single family homes is appreciated. However, 72 out of 85 have
61:54 appreciated. However, 72 out of 85 have lots under 4,000 square feet. This
61:57 lots under 4,000 square feet. This development should still be held to
61:59 development should still be held to 4,000 square foot minimum lots. The
62:02 4,000 square foot minimum lots. The maximum 40 detached single family homes
62:04 maximum 40 detached single family homes on the Elers's portion. The POD overview
62:07 on the Elers's portion. The POD overview zoning information states a maximum 35-
62:10 zoning information states a maximum 35- ft height. I do not know how that
62:12 ft height. I do not know how that equates to the number of stories that
62:14 equates to the number of stories that would be allowed, but we were always
62:15 would be allowed, but we were always shown the homes to be two story and that
62:17 shown the homes to be two story and that should remain the maximum two and a half
62:19 should remain the maximum two and a half or more to try and help with some sense
62:21 or more to try and help with some sense of privacy for existing homes
62:24 of privacy for existing homes surrounding this development.
62:26 surrounding this development. As currently proposed, lot 81 is
62:28 As currently proposed, lot 81 is adjacent to my property with the side of
62:30 adjacent to my property with the side of the house running parallel to my fence.
62:32 the house running parallel to my fence. The setback on the south side of this
62:34 The setback on the south side of this lot is now showing 10 ft from my fence.
62:37 lot is now showing 10 ft from my fence. The owner through Merurl made this
62:39 The owner through Merurl made this change and agreed to this at the prior
62:41 change and agreed to this at the prior meeting. It is appreciated as it now
62:43 meeting. It is appreciated as it now matches all other homes to the east of
62:45 matches all other homes to the east of this lot. However, the current PUB
62:47 this lot. However, the current PUB overview zoning info states the side
62:50 overview zoning info states the side setbacks are 5 ft. It needs to state in
62:53 setbacks are 5 ft. It needs to state in writing that lot 81 has a sight set back
62:55 writing that lot 81 has a sight set back of 10 ft from our fence on the south
62:57 of 10 ft from our fence on the south side. Merlin also previously stated to
63:00 side. Merlin also previously stated to me that the owner had agreed to remove a
63:02 me that the owner had agreed to remove a very large cottonwood tree that is
63:04 very large cottonwood tree that is partially on my property. He also stated
63:06 partially on my property. He also stated this in the last public meeting. The
63:08 this in the last public meeting. The total tree removal needs to be stated in
63:10 total tree removal needs to be stated in writing as my last conversation with
63:12 writing as my last conversation with Merl seemed to put this in question.
63:15 Merl seemed to put this in question. My tree expert who is a certified
63:17 My tree expert who is a certified arborist Stefan at Grace Tree Service
63:19 arborist Stefan at Grace Tree Service highly recommends this tree be removed
63:21 highly recommends this tree be removed before any development occurs. This
63:23 before any development occurs. This should occur as soon as possible while
63:25 should occur as soon as possible while the land is still in essence vacant. The
63:28 the land is still in essence vacant. The tree removal needs to include stump
63:29 tree removal needs to include stump killing which also kills the roots and
63:32 killing which also kills the roots and then stump grinding to complete the
63:33 then stump grinding to complete the process. This is important because the
63:35 process. This is important because the stumps and roots left from the prior
63:37 stumps and roots left from the prior continu removal on the alpha section of
63:40 continu removal on the alpha section of the proposed PRD are now growing
63:42 the proposed PRD are now growing branches around the rotted centers and
63:44 branches around the rotted centers and from the roots creating massive bushes.
63:47 from the roots creating massive bushes. Complete removal is necessary. So there
63:49 Complete removal is necessary. So there is no longer any joint ownership or
63:51 is no longer any joint ownership or issues to create new problems. I have
63:53 issues to create new problems. I have information from Mike Cherry of Green
63:55 information from Mike Cherry of Green Tree Spray Service who can perform the
63:57 Tree Spray Service who can perform the stump kill and kill the roots before
63:59 stump kill and kill the roots before stump grinding. And I'm willing to pay
64:01 stump grinding. And I'm willing to pay for this treatment. Once all this work
64:03 for this treatment. Once all this work is completed, I will buy and donate a
64:05 is completed, I will buy and donate a new tree the developer can then plant on
64:06 new tree the developer can then plant on his property in the new location of this
64:09 his property in the new location of this cottonwood. The new tree can then grow
64:12 cottonwood. The new tree can then grow and adapt to the new environment. Thank
64:14 and adapt to the new environment. Thank you.
64:15 you. >> Thank you.
64:24 Wishing to speak in favor. Michael Wendland.
64:33 Name for the record. You have four minutes. Uh Michael Wendland, Cordelane,
64:35 minutes. Uh Michael Wendland, Cordelane, Idaho builder, realtor, developer. Um
64:39 Idaho builder, realtor, developer. Um I'm here. I'm past president association
64:41 I'm here. I'm past president association realtors, past president for the
64:42 realtors, past president for the builders. Worked on multiple committees
64:44 builders. Worked on multiple committees for housing urban development throughout
64:46 for housing urban development throughout the entire state of Idaho. I work with
64:47 the entire state of Idaho. I work with ITD, all the highway districts, and I've
64:49 ITD, all the highway districts, and I've even worked with you guys in smart code
64:51 even worked with you guys in smart code before. Reason I'm here today is I
64:53 before. Reason I'm here today is I support Ben. Um Ben has went above and
64:56 support Ben. Um Ben has went above and beyond as you've seen. He's met multiple
64:58 beyond as you've seen. He's met multiple exceptions that you guys asked for in
65:00 exceptions that you guys asked for in your last hearing. Um his green space
65:03 your last hearing. Um his green space exceeds what is required what's needed.
65:06 exceeds what is required what's needed. His street design exceeds what's
65:08 His street design exceeds what's required and what's needed. He exceeds
65:10 required and what's needed. He exceeds the number of parking units. He's
65:12 the number of parking units. He's nowhere near the density level that's
65:14 nowhere near the density level that's that he can be. This project doesn't
65:16 that he can be. This project doesn't work for him. it could work for some
65:18 work for him. it could work for some other developer out of Seattle and they
65:20 other developer out of Seattle and they can run this thing up to 100 units out
65:22 can run this thing up to 100 units out there and they can get it approved. He's
65:23 there and they can get it approved. He's not looking for that. Ben's from Post
65:25 not looking for that. Ben's from Post Falls. Ben's here to make Post Falls
65:28 Falls. Ben's here to make Post Falls better. He's here to provide housing for
65:30 better. He's here to provide housing for entry- level buyers and that's why he's
65:32 entry- level buyers and that's why he's doing this project.
65:35 doing this project. Before I run out of time, I just want to
65:36 Before I run out of time, I just want to say that he has met and exceed all code
65:39 say that he has met and exceed all code requirements and really he should
65:42 requirements and really he should receive approval on this project.
65:45 receive approval on this project. I want to touch base real quick on the
65:46 I want to touch base real quick on the land itself. So, we talk about R1, we
65:50 land itself. So, we talk about R1, we talk about R2, we talk about location
65:52 talk about R2, we talk about location and what's around it. Obviously, we're
65:53 and what's around it. Obviously, we're in real estate. The best thing is
65:55 in real estate. The best thing is location. This is in a great property.
65:57 location. This is in a great property. He's got a railroad track on the south
65:59 He's got a railroad track on the south of him. He's got railroad tracks to the
66:00 of him. He's got railroad tracks to the north of him. He's got three of the
66:02 north of him. He's got three of the busiest streets in Post Falls that
66:04 busiest streets in Post Falls that surround him. He's got nasty smelling
66:06 surround him. He's got nasty smelling water coming from the west. He is
66:08 water coming from the west. He is improving the city by developing this
66:10 improving the city by developing this property into lots that can be bought
66:13 property into lots that can be bought and be owned by entrylevel buyers.
66:16 and be owned by entrylevel buyers. People that go to Keech, people that go
66:18 People that go to Keech, people that go to NIC, people that work here, people
66:20 to NIC, people that work here, people that live here that will have home
66:23 that live here that will have home ownership and desire to maintain their
66:26 ownership and desire to maintain their property and and keep a nice
66:28 property and and keep a nice neighborhood. Again, I believe the
66:30 neighborhood. Again, I believe the applicant meets and exceeds all code
66:32 applicant meets and exceeds all code requirements as we've seen today and
66:34 requirements as we've seen today and this should be an approval. Thank you.
66:37 this should be an approval. Thank you. Thank you.
66:46 Motion to speak in favor. Christian Troutman.
66:54 Name for the record. >> Hi, my name is uh Christian Troutman. In
66:56 >> Hi, my name is uh Christian Troutman. In regards to the Harvest Meadow Estates
66:58 regards to the Harvest Meadow Estates proposal, I am for it because it would
67:00 proposal, I am for it because it would be nice to have affordable, new
67:01 be nice to have affordable, new construction, family-friendly homes. I
67:03 construction, family-friendly homes. I wish my fiance and I had this
67:05 wish my fiance and I had this opportunity. A few years ago, when we
67:07 opportunity. A few years ago, when we purchased our home in Post Falls, we
67:09 purchased our home in Post Falls, we bought a 30-year-old home and it doesn't
67:10 bought a 30-year-old home and it doesn't come with any of the offerings that this
67:11 come with any of the offerings that this place does. It would also be easier to
67:13 place does. It would also be easier to purchase and get a loan for a new home
67:16 purchase and get a loan for a new home compared to an old one. This is a great
67:18 compared to an old one. This is a great option. I have a lot of friends and
67:19 option. I have a lot of friends and family that could definitely benefit
67:21 family that could definitely benefit from this development.
67:23 from this development. Thank you. Thank you.
67:44 Hi, I'm Sean Sammon. Uh, I'm born and raised in this area. Um, my wife as
67:46 raised in this area. Um, my wife as well. And something that we just did is
67:49 well. And something that we just did is we were a part of the Britain crew who
67:50 we were a part of the Britain crew who just moved in um off of Greens Ferry.
67:54 just moved in um off of Greens Ferry. And so this is something that definitely
67:55 And so this is something that definitely is close to our hearts just because for
67:58 is close to our hearts just because for growing up here, I always wanted to live
67:59 growing up here, I always wanted to live here. couldn't raise my kids here
68:01 here. couldn't raise my kids here because it was too expensive. And I hold
68:03 because it was too expensive. And I hold a really nice job, my wife does, too.
68:05 a really nice job, my wife does, too. And when the median home price in the
68:07 And when the median home price in the area is over a half million for a lot of
68:10 area is over a half million for a lot of houses to fit a family of four or the
68:12 houses to fit a family of four or the kids have to share a room, it's very,
68:14 kids have to share a room, it's very, very hard. So, seeing that they're
68:16 very hard. So, seeing that they're trying to put more houses in this area
68:18 trying to put more houses in this area that people can afford, specifically
68:19 that people can afford, specifically locals, is a huge win because I've seen
68:22 locals, is a huge win because I've seen my friends move out of the area. It
68:24 my friends move out of the area. It really, really hurts to watch them go.
68:26 really, really hurts to watch them go. And so that seeing that they're trying
68:27 And so that seeing that they're trying to make it an option so that these
68:30 to make it an option so that these families or even people that want to
68:32 families or even people that want to live here because Postfall is an amazing
68:34 live here because Postfall is an amazing place to be being born and raised here.
68:36 place to be being born and raised here. I love the school district. I love the
68:37 I love the school district. I love the people that are from here. My family,
68:39 people that are from here. My family, I'm over a hundred years uh on my mom's
68:42 I'm over a hundred years uh on my mom's side of the family here. We all want to
68:44 side of the family here. We all want to stay. And so I tell my customers um in
68:47 stay. And so I tell my customers um in banking that if I wasn't from here, I'd
68:48 banking that if I wasn't from here, I'd want to show up. But I can't afford to
68:51 want to show up. But I can't afford to work here with the wages that this area
68:53 work here with the wages that this area provides. So with what they're doing
68:55 provides. So with what they're doing here, it makes it affordable and makes
68:56 here, it makes it affordable and makes it tangible and makes it families the
68:58 it tangible and makes it families the ability to actually be in a spot that um
69:03 ability to actually be in a spot that um gives them the ability to actually reach
69:05 gives them the ability to actually reach those goals which is really awesome. So
69:07 those goals which is really awesome. So yeah, so I appreciate you guys' time.
69:09 yeah, so I appreciate you guys' time. >> Thank you.
69:17 >> Wishing to speak in favor, Garrett Critz.
69:27 Good afternoon, evening. My name is Garrett Crates. I'm a resident of just
69:30 Garrett Crates. I'm a resident of just like uh Sean of the Miracle on Britain
69:33 like uh Sean of the Miracle on Britain development uh here in Pulse Falls. I'm
69:35 development uh here in Pulse Falls. I'm here to voice my support for Harvest
69:37 here to voice my support for Harvest Meadows. Um I understand or I was led to
69:40 Meadows. Um I understand or I was led to understand that some of them would be I
69:42 understand that some of them would be I didn't realize all of them would be
69:43 didn't realize all of them would be affordable. Um, but that they would be
69:46 affordable. Um, but that they would be set aside for essentially people like
69:48 set aside for essentially people like me, uh, my family and my neighbors. Uh,
69:51 me, uh, my family and my neighbors. Uh, lower middle to middle class working
69:53 lower middle to middle class working families that want to raise their
69:55 families that want to raise their families here. But their journeys are
69:57 families here. But their journeys are tough ones like ours was. Uh, my wife
70:00 tough ones like ours was. Uh, my wife and I were in pretty good condition to
70:02 and I were in pretty good condition to uh, buy a home back in 2020. Uh, and
70:05 uh, buy a home back in 2020. Uh, and then the world shut down and somehow in
70:07 then the world shut down and somehow in a shutdown world, America found Idaho.
70:10 a shutdown world, America found Idaho. Uh prices skyrocketed, supply crashed,
70:13 Uh prices skyrocketed, supply crashed, local people lost the ability to buy. We
70:16 local people lost the ability to buy. We ultimately were forced to rent, pay
70:18 ultimately were forced to rent, pay someone else's mortgage, give someone
70:20 someone else's mortgage, give someone else wealth, wealth that we could have
70:22 else wealth, wealth that we could have used to grow our lives. We could have
70:24 used to grow our lives. We could have given ourselves our home. We've heard
70:28 given ourselves our home. We've heard the numbers, heard firsthand the
70:29 the numbers, heard firsthand the troubles, seen them in the news. But
70:31 troubles, seen them in the news. But this subdivision and its dedication to
70:34 this subdivision and its dedication to follow
70:35 follow uh my neighborhood gives these families
70:38 uh my neighborhood gives these families something that they haven't had in a
70:40 something that they haven't had in a long time, if at all, and that's hope.
70:43 long time, if at all, and that's hope. Hope that they can finally afford
70:44 Hope that they can finally afford something that has been to us every step
70:46 something that has been to us every step of the way, the American dream. While it
70:49 of the way, the American dream. While it has changed over time from the two
70:51 has changed over time from the two children, a dog and a white picket fence
70:52 children, a dog and a white picket fence to something simpler, it's still a
70:55 to something simpler, it's still a dream. one that you can help realize for
70:57 dream. one that you can help realize for families like mine. So, I urge you to
70:59 families like mine. So, I urge you to approve this uh for the residents of
71:02 approve this uh for the residents of Coutney County, keeping our workers
71:04 Coutney County, keeping our workers here. Thank you.
71:06 here. Thank you. >> Thank you.
71:14 wishing to speak in favor. Maggie Alliance,
71:28 >> Maggie Lions. For the record, I serve as the executive director for uh Panhandle
71:30 the executive director for uh Panhandle Affordable Housing Alliance and the
71:32 Affordable Housing Alliance and the Project Britain that you've heard from
71:34 Project Britain that you've heard from two of our buyers already.
71:36 two of our buyers already. Nine months ago, we broke ground. We now
71:40 Nine months ago, we broke ground. We now have 10 families in their homes with
71:42 have 10 families in their homes with five more in by the end of this year.
71:45 five more in by the end of this year. All 28 homes will be owner occupied by
71:47 All 28 homes will be owner occupied by next summer.
71:52 Let me tell you who they are. You've heard from two, but in our most recent
71:55 heard from two, but in our most recent round, we had a firefighter and his
71:57 round, we had a firefighter and his wife, a graphic designer, and their
72:00 wife, a graphic designer, and their baby. We had
72:03 baby. We had a police officer and his wife an office
72:06 a police officer and his wife an office receptionist for an OBGYn office and
72:09 receptionist for an OBGYn office and their baby.
72:12 their baby. We have who you just heard from Sean.
72:15 We have who you just heard from Sean. They have two grade schoolers now
72:18 They have two grade schoolers now enrolled in Greensbury Elementary.
72:26 These are the people who serve our community.
72:28 community. They want to stay here. They want to
72:30 They want to stay here. They want to raise their families here. They love
72:32 raise their families here. They love this community. And over 82% of the
72:35 this community. And over 82% of the applicants that have applied for all the
72:37 applicants that have applied for all the Britain homes, we have over 350
72:40 Britain homes, we have over 350 applications,
72:42 applications, were born and raised in Coutney County.
72:47 were born and raised in Coutney County. What we have learned is very clear. The
72:49 What we have learned is very clear. The demand is enormous by our local workers
72:53 demand is enormous by our local workers and there is virtually no inventory
72:56 and there is virtually no inventory available for them.
72:58 available for them. The need is unmet. And yet before you
73:01 The need is unmet. And yet before you tonight is an application
73:03 tonight is an application for a neighborhood
73:06 for a neighborhood dedicated to meeting this need.
73:09 dedicated to meeting this need. In large measure, this need can be met
73:11 In large measure, this need can be met because of the greater density. That's
73:13 because of the greater density. That's what we have in Britain.
73:16 what we have in Britain. But in order to do this, it takes
73:18 But in order to do this, it takes partnership.
73:20 partnership. It takes cities governing for all.
73:24 It takes cities governing for all. It takes builders like Ben Steckman
73:26 It takes builders like Ben Steckman willing to step up and realize what is
73:30 willing to step up and realize what is needed and support the lower priced
73:34 needed and support the lower priced starter homes. And then on the on the
73:37 starter homes. And then on the on the side, I'm going to clarify this a little
73:38 side, I'm going to clarify this a little bit. PAHA when these homes are deed
73:41 bit. PAHA when these homes are deed restricted. So it ensures long-term
73:44 restricted. So it ensures long-term preservation of these homes for local
73:46 preservation of these homes for local workers. PAHA is that third angle of the
73:49 workers. PAHA is that third angle of the triangle to manage those homes to keep
73:51 triangle to manage those homes to keep them forever affordable.
73:55 them forever affordable. I uh I I can tell you this is not easy
73:58 I uh I I can tell you this is not easy work. Most developer builders are not
74:00 work. Most developer builders are not interested in doing this, but Ben is,
74:03 interested in doing this, but Ben is, and you've already heard how he was
74:04 and you've already heard how he was raised here and how he's committed to
74:06 raised here and how he's committed to this community.
74:09 this community. He is committed to selling these at
74:12 He is committed to selling these at lower than median home prices. And in
74:15 lower than median home prices. And in addition to that, he has agreed to
74:17 addition to that, he has agreed to dedicate 10% to even lower prices so
74:21 dedicate 10% to even lower prices so that we can reach our lower wage
74:22 that we can reach our lower wage earners. I have not had very many
74:25 earners. I have not had very many developers step up willing to do this.
74:29 developers step up willing to do this. 70% of our residents want home
74:31 70% of our residents want home ownership. Britain is scalable. It's
74:34 ownership. Britain is scalable. It's repeatable and it is being built for the
74:37 repeatable and it is being built for the long term so that we can get more
74:39 long term so that we can get more developers doing exactly what Ben is
74:42 developers doing exactly what Ben is proposing tonight.
74:45 proposing tonight. This is how we keep families here. This
74:47 This is how we keep families here. This is how we build a livable future. And
74:50 is how we build a livable future. And thanks to Ben and I believe the city of
74:52 thanks to Ben and I believe the city of Post Falls, because you're already a
74:53 Post Falls, because you're already a great partner with us in Britain, that
74:55 great partner with us in Britain, that this can be done and going forward,
74:58 this can be done and going forward, we'll see more and more homes restored
75:00 we'll see more and more homes restored or restoring the American dream of home
75:02 or restoring the American dream of home ownership. So, thank you.
75:04 ownership. So, thank you. >> Thank you.
75:12 >> Wishing to speak in opposition, Chad Gabbert.
75:23 Hello, my name is Chad. Um, I'm a homeowner. I live off of Nike Court. Um,
75:26 homeowner. I live off of Nike Court. Um, I oppose this for a couple reasons. It's
75:29 I oppose this for a couple reasons. It's my neighborhood. Um, but I did some
75:32 my neighborhood. Um, but I did some research on your guys's uh goals and
75:37 research on your guys's uh goals and your comprehensive plan that you guys
75:39 your comprehensive plan that you guys have set up. Um, goal G5, G14
75:46 have set up. Um, goal G5, G14 and policy 1 and two of the city
75:49 and policy 1 and two of the city comprehension plan stress that the
75:52 comprehension plan stress that the importance of maintaining community
75:54 importance of maintaining community comprehension
75:56 comprehension and ensuring developing are compatible
76:00 and ensuring developing are compatible and welldesigned
76:02 and welldesigned basically designing what's neighborhoods
76:05 basically designing what's neighborhoods are like it are like R1. So,
76:09 are like it are like R1. So, you guys, the city council approved an
76:11 you guys, the city council approved an R2, which I understand it got approved.
76:14 R2, which I understand it got approved. Um, R2 minimum
76:18 Um, R2 minimum design is 4,000 square ft. They're
76:20 design is 4,000 square ft. They're trying to go a lot less than that. I
76:24 trying to go a lot less than that. I believe that we should stick to a 4,000
76:26 believe that we should stick to a 4,000 foot lot to maintain an R2
76:32 foot lot to maintain an R2 uh development. Um
76:35 uh development. Um also uh
76:38 also uh I traffic plans uh patterns I understand
76:41 I traffic plans uh patterns I understand and discuss and how these developments
76:44 and discuss and how these developments might um affect existing and future
76:48 might um affect existing and future traffic patterns especially on Spokane
76:50 traffic patterns especially on Spokane Street. I don't know if they're going to
76:52 Street. I don't know if they're going to widen Spokane Street and put a turn lane
76:54 widen Spokane Street and put a turn lane in after the railroad tracks. That could
76:56 in after the railroad tracks. That could be a major concern on people turning
76:59 be a major concern on people turning into that neighborhood. Um, that's all I
77:02 into that neighborhood. Um, that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank
77:04 have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you.
77:13 Wishing to speak in opposition. Ren Ferguson.
77:31 Yeah. Ren Fugleston speaking and this is the fourth meeting I've been to here and
77:34 the fourth meeting I've been to here and I've opposed it from the very first
77:37 I've opposed it from the very first meeting and I tell you getting it down
77:41 meeting and I tell you getting it down to an R2
77:43 to an R2 was the first mistake.
77:46 was the first mistake. It's uh
77:49 It's uh it's just plain wrong and terribly
77:53 it's just plain wrong and terribly wrong. And uh and now it it's getting
77:57 wrong. And uh and now it it's getting worse every time you look up up on the
77:59 worse every time you look up up on the board. And uh now one question I have,
78:04 board. And uh now one question I have, what what are the prices of these
78:07 what what are the prices of these affordable homes?
78:14 Do we get do we know what the prices are going to be for what you consider
78:17 going to be for what you consider affordable?
78:18 affordable? >> The applicant may be able to speak to
78:19 >> The applicant may be able to speak to that during his rebuttal.
78:20 that during his rebuttal. >> What's that? the applicant may be able
78:22 >> What's that? the applicant may be able to res speak to that during his
78:24 to res speak to that during his rebuttal.
78:26 rebuttal. So we don't we don't know but the
78:28 So we don't we don't know but the applicant can probably speak to
78:30 applicant can probably speak to >> well um
78:32 >> well um you look at at afford affordable from
78:36 you look at at afford affordable from numbers I had heard it's not that much
78:38 numbers I had heard it's not that much difference anyway but uh
78:42 difference anyway but uh and
78:44 and the last time talking about uh
78:48 the last time talking about uh about R2 and the numbers now you're
78:52 about R2 and the numbers now you're working towards
78:54 working towards towards the min minimum size, you know,
78:58 towards the min minimum size, you know, and uh and it talk talks about
79:02 and uh and it talk talks about attractive
79:04 attractive addition to the area. Um
79:08 addition to the area. Um a matter of opinion, I guess it it's
79:11 a matter of opinion, I guess it it's farthest to me the farthest thing from
79:14 farthest to me the farthest thing from attractive. and
79:17 attractive. and um you're talking about solving parking
79:22 um you're talking about solving parking and traffic,
79:28 you're off base. There's going to be so much traffic there. there's going to be
79:31 much traffic there. there's going to be a lot of problems
79:33 a lot of problems and uh
79:35 and uh so it would be interesting knowing you
79:39 so it would be interesting knowing you know how much everyone considers
79:42 know how much everyone considers affordable but uh
79:52 anyway and those tight lots do we have the number of feet from the the home to
79:56 the number of feet from the the home to the fence the existing fences there Is
80:00 the fence the existing fences there Is that 10 feet?
80:04 >> Off the top of my head, I don't know. The applicant can speak to that.
80:06 The applicant can speak to that. >> Okay.
80:08 >> Okay. >> Are we looking at 10 feet?
80:11 >> Are we looking at 10 feet? >> They'll be up here.
80:11 >> They'll be up here. >> He'll be up here after he can do a
80:12 >> He'll be up here after he can do a rebuttal after all the public test.
80:14 rebuttal after all the public test. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. And uh
80:19 >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. And uh just looking at that and the the homes,
80:22 just looking at that and the the homes, the families and the I would just look
80:26 the families and the I would just look at it as quality of life for a family in
80:30 at it as quality of life for a family in a in a tight tight little area. Anyway,
80:34 a in a tight tight little area. Anyway, I think it's terribly wrong
80:37 I think it's terribly wrong what what is taking place and I think,
80:40 what what is taking place and I think, you know, I think the number number of
80:43 you know, I think the number number of lots should be addressed.
80:47 lots should be addressed. I'd like I'd like to have it closer to
80:51 I'd like I'd like to have it closer to 23 than 85. I'll leave you with that.
80:54 23 than 85. I'll leave you with that. >> Thank you.
81:03 >> All right. and not wishing to speak but in favor
81:06 in favor I'm going to butcher this name is it
81:08 I'm going to butcher this name is it char
81:14 I'm sorry >> you want to try
81:20 projectati >> there you go
81:22 >> there you go >> swar projectati
81:30 >> in favor and no comments thank you now wishing to Speak in favor. Holly
81:32 now wishing to Speak in favor. Holly Lamb. No comments. Just in favor.
81:37 Lamb. No comments. Just in favor. Uh, wishing to speak. Yes. In
81:39 Uh, wishing to speak. Yes. In opposition, Karen Olsen.
81:59 >> Hello, commissioners. I'm Karen Olsen and I am nervous. And I'll tell you
82:00 and I am nervous. And I'll tell you what, my head had just spinning. Um, I
82:04 what, my head had just spinning. Um, I had something kind of prepared. But
82:05 had something kind of prepared. But first off, I'm going to say I'm a simple
82:07 first off, I'm going to say I'm a simple person, too. I'm not a real estate
82:09 person, too. I'm not a real estate developer. I'm not an engineer. I'm not
82:12 developer. I'm not an engineer. I'm not anything like that. Um, I do still work
82:14 anything like that. Um, I do still work and I live on Guy Road.
82:17 and I live on Guy Road. I've driven by the Britain development
82:21 I've driven by the Britain development and it was commented on earlier that I
82:23 and it was commented on earlier that I think there's 28 homes there. And when I
82:26 think there's 28 homes there. And when I drove through there and it's not through
82:28 drove through there and it's not through being um completed, but that community
82:31 being um completed, but that community there looks like the community I live in
82:33 there looks like the community I live in now. What's being proposed is not.
82:37 now. What's being proposed is not. So that being said, and it's beautiful
82:39 So that being said, and it's beautiful over there. If we could do that here, I
82:42 over there. If we could do that here, I think I'd be in favor of it. I'm here to
82:45 think I'd be in favor of it. I'm here to ask commissioners to deny this request.
82:48 ask commissioners to deny this request. And when I said I'm a simple person,
82:50 And when I said I'm a simple person, I've never seen the PUD used in any of
82:53 I've never seen the PUD used in any of the paperwork. Um, I have heard the word
82:56 the paperwork. Um, I have heard the word compatible. It's used in the language on
82:59 compatible. It's used in the language on the city's website. It's used by the
83:02 the city's website. It's used by the personnel in the office when I go in and
83:04 personnel in the office when I go in and ask my questions. That word is used
83:07 ask my questions. That word is used constantly, compatible.
83:10 constantly, compatible. I am assured that this is the touchstone
83:14 I am assured that this is the touchstone for the assessment of the developers
83:16 for the assessment of the developers requests and for the decision-making
83:19 requests and for the decision-making process for our community.
83:26 My home is an R1. My neighbors are an R1. At the beginning, we were shown that
83:29 R1. At the beginning, we were shown that across the railroad tracks and all the
83:31 across the railroad tracks and all the communities around it's an R1. And the
83:33 communities around it's an R1. And the developer asked for and received R2.
83:37 developer asked for and received R2. Um not everyone was happy with that, but
83:39 Um not everyone was happy with that, but we're accepting it. And I just don't
83:41 we're accepting it. And I just don't believe that the project is abiding by
83:45 believe that the project is abiding by what the um city has decided.
83:48 what the um city has decided. And in the PUD, it says that a PUD
83:52 And in the PUD, it says that a PUD may contain may contain a mix of
83:55 may contain may contain a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial
83:58 residential, commercial, and industrial uses so long as the proposed areas.
84:01 uses so long as the proposed areas. Anyway, yada yada. And again, I I'm this
84:04 Anyway, yada yada. And again, I I'm this isn't my Valley Wick. I'm I'm not
84:06 isn't my Valley Wick. I'm I'm not understanding all of this. All I know to
84:09 understanding all of this. All I know to me anyway is that if if it's designated
84:12 me anyway is that if if it's designated to be able to do all these things, even
84:15 to be able to do all these things, even though the word may is used, I'm
84:18 though the word may is used, I'm believing that it will absolutely all of
84:23 believing that it will absolutely all of that could very well happen. And I
84:24 that could very well happen. And I didn't move there and choose to live
84:27 didn't move there and choose to live where I live on Guy Road to have
84:29 where I live on Guy Road to have commercial or industrial buildings. Now
84:31 commercial or industrial buildings. Now I don't see that on the project but this
84:34 I don't see that on the project but this isn't my first this is not my first
84:36 isn't my first this is not my first meeting but everything keeps changing
84:38 meeting but everything keeps changing and changing and it forgive the analogy
84:41 and changing and it forgive the analogy I kind of feel like when the the kiddos
84:44 I kind of feel like when the the kiddos keep coming asking for a cookie and I
84:45 keep coming asking for a cookie and I give one and I give one and they keep at
84:48 give one and I give one and they keep at me and badgering until finally either
84:50 me and badgering until finally either one I put my foot down or I cave
84:57 and I'm just asking when is enough enough if it can look like Britain
85:01 enough if it can look like Britain That would be awesome, but it doesn't.
85:04 That would be awesome, but it doesn't. Thank you.
85:06 Thank you. >> Thank you.
85:14 >> All right. Any more?
85:16 Any more? >> All right, sounds good. Invite the
85:19 >> All right, sounds good. Invite the applicant back up for a rebuttal.
85:44 Okay, thank you. Um, so no, it was great to have so many people in support
85:46 to have so many people in support tonight. Um, you heard from a lot of
85:48 tonight. Um, you heard from a lot of people who would benefit or have
85:50 people who would benefit or have benefited from a development like this.
85:52 benefited from a development like this. So, um, just like the the studies the
85:55 So, um, just like the the studies the city has issued in the proclamation, the
85:57 city has issued in the proclamation, the mayor has said that there is a serious
85:59 mayor has said that there is a serious need for affordable housing
86:01 need for affordable housing developments. Um, but I'm going to go
86:04 developments. Um, but I'm going to go through some of the comments I heard
86:06 through some of the comments I heard from the opposition address those. So,
86:09 from the opposition address those. So, um,
86:11 um, so this this piece of land was never um
86:15 so this this piece of land was never um required to be a 6,500 square foot lot
86:19 required to be a 6,500 square foot lot development. Um, you know, again, we we
86:23 development. Um, you know, again, we we started off with this process here with
86:24 started off with this process here with the future land use map. Uh, the
86:26 the future land use map. Uh, the comprehensive plan says up to eight
86:28 comprehensive plan says up to eight dwelling units per acre, all types of
86:30 dwelling units per acre, all types of single family, multi-residential uses,
86:32 single family, multi-residential uses, and these are the zones that can
86:34 and these are the zones that can accommodate that. So, so was it ever set
86:37 accommodate that. So, so was it ever set up to be a 6,500 foot lot uh
86:40 up to be a 6,500 foot lot uh development? No. No, it wasn't. Nor were
86:43 development? No. No, it wasn't. Nor were we, you know, obligated to a certain lot
86:45 we, you know, obligated to a certain lot number. This is what we're working
86:47 number. This is what we're working through now is is what the subdivision
86:49 through now is is what the subdivision should look like. Um, so there was also
86:52 should look like. Um, so there was also talk about density on the Stecman piece
86:55 talk about density on the Stecman piece versus the Alfred piece. You know, when
86:56 versus the Alfred piece. You know, when this was first brought as annexation,
86:58 this was first brought as annexation, there were two separate applicants. Now
87:00 there were two separate applicants. Now there's one. So that's why we're looking
87:02 there's one. So that's why we're looking at this as a single project. What what's
87:04 at this as a single project. What what's happening on one versus the other is is
87:06 happening on one versus the other is is irrelevant because it's all one single
87:09 irrelevant because it's all one single application.
87:11 application. Um, there was never any obligation to
87:14 Um, there was never any obligation to build single story. I don't know what
87:16 build single story. I don't know what was promised but that was certainly not
87:18 was promised but that was certainly not from us. Um and um you know did we have
87:22 from us. Um and um you know did we have discussed tree removals and setbacks in
87:24 discussed tree removals and setbacks in the past and if that's if that's a you
87:27 the past and if that's if that's a you know the the part that gets us approved
87:29 know the the part that gets us approved then then we can accommodate that. Um
87:34 then then we can accommodate that. Um so there was also talk about um you know
87:37 so there was also talk about um you know the Spokane Street being widened. That
87:40 the Spokane Street being widened. That will happen. Um it will be widened to
87:42 will happen. Um it will be widened to the city uh standard. We are working
87:45 the city uh standard. We are working with the engineering department to to do
87:48 with the engineering department to to do the proper configuration and striping of
87:51 the proper configuration and striping of the road from from the northern boundary
87:53 the road from from the northern boundary through the railroad crossing. Um so it
87:55 through the railroad crossing. Um so it will meet city standards and and receive
87:58 will meet city standards and and receive approval from the engineering
87:59 approval from the engineering department. Um however um you know there
88:03 department. Um however um you know there was discussion about you know these lots
88:06 was discussion about you know these lots being required to be 4,000 square foot
88:08 being required to be 4,000 square foot minimum. So when that when we go back to
88:11 minimum. So when that when we go back to that,
88:13 that, we're going to look at a project that's
88:15 we're going to look at a project that's a standard R2 subdivision. You know, if
88:17 a standard R2 subdivision. You know, if we're going to put forth an R2 a 4,000
88:21 we're going to put forth an R2 a 4,000 foot lot, then there's no there's no
88:26 foot lot, then there's no there's no need to provide no requirement to
88:29 need to provide no requirement to provide open space. We're providing a
88:30 provide open space. We're providing a standard R2 subdivision, not a PUD. With
88:34 standard R2 subdivision, not a PUD. With the PUED, we're requesting smaller lots
88:36 the PUED, we're requesting smaller lots that bring the price points of those
88:38 that bring the price points of those lots down, but in return, we're
88:40 lots down, but in return, we're providing open space. So, you know, this
88:44 providing open space. So, you know, this talk about, you know, sticking to a
88:45 talk about, you know, sticking to a standard R2 subdivision, I think we
88:47 standard R2 subdivision, I think we should explore that because that, you
88:48 should explore that because that, you know, let's say we get denial tonight.
88:51 know, let's say we get denial tonight. You know, that might be what we come
88:52 You know, that might be what we come back with next is, you know, we've heard
88:54 back with next is, you know, we've heard that you don't want this PUD type
88:56 that you don't want this PUD type product. We've heard that we're going to
88:58 product. We've heard that we're going to develop this as an R2 subdivision
89:00 develop this as an R2 subdivision because that's what we have, you know,
89:02 because that's what we have, you know, as our zoning designation. Uh we come
89:04 as our zoning designation. Uh we come back with 4,000 square foot lots. Um our
89:09 back with 4,000 square foot lots. Um our maximum density would be eight units per
89:11 maximum density would be eight units per acre and uh we have no requirement to to
89:14 acre and uh we have no requirement to to to provide any kind of open space. These
89:17 to provide any kind of open space. These are, you know, 4,000 square foot lots
89:18 are, you know, 4,000 square foot lots that don't have that luxury or that
89:20 that don't have that luxury or that benefit. And um you know unfortunately
89:23 benefit. And um you know unfortunately the people who are relying on the price
89:26 the people who are relying on the price point that these smaller lots achieve
89:28 point that these smaller lots achieve are now out in the cold. So it really
89:30 are now out in the cold. So it really accomplishes nothing. Um I feel like
89:34 accomplishes nothing. Um I feel like what we prop we're proposing here you
89:37 what we prop we're proposing here you know provides a lot more. you know, we
89:39 know provides a lot more. you know, we have these granted smaller lots, but a
89:42 have these granted smaller lots, but a more achievable price point and they
89:44 more achievable price point and they have the benefit of some open space
89:46 have the benefit of some open space that's right down the block where where
89:48 that's right down the block where where they can, you know, have the benefit of
89:50 they can, you know, have the benefit of running and playing and um because going
89:53 running and playing and um because going from a 2,800 foot lot to a 4,000 foot
89:56 from a 2,800 foot lot to a 4,000 foot lot does not provide you a lot of extra
89:58 lot does not provide you a lot of extra yard space. Um,
90:02 yard space. Um, so let me go through my notes. Um, there
90:05 so let me go through my notes. Um, there was a question Mr. Mr. Fugenson was
90:07 was a question Mr. Mr. Fugenson was asking about lot depth. I I I tried to
90:10 asking about lot depth. I I I tried to answer it, but I missed what what he was
90:12 answer it, but I missed what what he was saying. Um but anyway, um he was also
90:15 saying. Um but anyway, um he was also asking about prices. Uh the median home
90:18 asking about prices. Uh the median home price in Coupney County is about
90:20 price in Coupney County is about $550,000
90:21 $550,000 right now. Um we're I talked with the
90:25 right now. Um we're I talked with the developer. He's targeting somewhere more
90:27 developer. He's targeting somewhere more around a median value of like $425,000.
90:31 around a median value of like $425,000. So well below the median price
90:33 So well below the median price regardless of what that actual number
90:34 regardless of what that actual number comes out to be. Um, also heard that
90:38 comes out to be. Um, also heard that this is not like Britain, but we did not
90:40 this is not like Britain, but we did not really hear any specific ways that this
90:43 really hear any specific ways that this is not like Britain. Um, and I also know
90:47 is not like Britain. Um, and I also know that that Maggie Lines had to raise an
90:49 that that Maggie Lines had to raise an additional $1.1 million to help bring
90:53 additional $1.1 million to help bring those price points down to to make them
90:57 those price points down to to make them achievable. So um you know Miracle on
91:00 achievable. So um you know Miracle on Britain had some special conditions of
91:02 Britain had some special conditions of its own and we are you know propping it
91:04 its own and we are you know propping it up as a a great example of what can be
91:06 up as a a great example of what can be done and we you know we'd like to
91:09 done and we you know we'd like to implement a lot of the ideas that we saw
91:11 implement a lot of the ideas that we saw there but um I don't know specifically
91:15 there but um I don't know specifically how we're not like Britain. Um single
91:18 how we're not like Britain. Um single family oh she was also concerned about
91:20 family oh she was also concerned about the mixed use. Um let me flip back to
91:23 the mixed use. Um let me flip back to that.
91:30 During annexation, we were conditioned not only to eight dwelling units per
91:32 not only to eight dwelling units per acre, but detached single family
91:34 acre, but detached single family residences only. And you know, that's
91:37 residences only. And you know, that's what we're proposing tonight. There
91:38 what we're proposing tonight. There won't ever be any twin homes, any
91:40 won't ever be any twin homes, any duplexes, any town homes, single family
91:43 duplexes, any town homes, single family residences only. We agreed to that
91:44 residences only. We agreed to that during annexation and continue to stand
91:47 during annexation and continue to stand by it.
91:49 by it. Um, what else? Let's see.
91:54 Um, what else? Let's see. Um,
91:55 Um, you know, uh, as far as the slot, Mr.
91:59 you know, uh, as far as the slot, Mr. Schlottau made a comment about the small
92:00 Schlottau made a comment about the small lots and I think I kind of discussed
92:02 lots and I think I kind of discussed how, you know, if we go to that, you
92:04 how, you know, if we go to that, you know, standard R2 4,000 foot size, then
92:07 know, standard R2 4,000 foot size, then we're raising a price point and we're
92:09 we're raising a price point and we're not fulfilling all of our objectives.
92:10 not fulfilling all of our objectives. So, that is another reason, you know,
92:12 So, that is another reason, you know, for for the product that we're
92:15 for for the product that we're presenting tonight. um uh a play
92:18 presenting tonight. um uh a play structure um you know while it's not in
92:21 structure um you know while it's not in in this um in this proposal if that
92:24 in this um in this proposal if that becomes the hanging point of this
92:26 becomes the hanging point of this project then I'm sure we would agree to
92:28 project then I'm sure we would agree to a play structure. So um are there any
92:31 a play structure. So um are there any other points that that you heard that I
92:33 other points that that you heard that I could address for you or any other
92:34 could address for you or any other questions that you've had?
92:36 questions that you've had? >> I have a question for you.
92:37 >> I have a question for you. >> Sure. So
92:40 >> Sure. So the concern I primary concern I think is
92:42 the concern I primary concern I think is the is the yard space that these
92:45 the is the yard space that these families are going to have.
92:46 families are going to have. >> Okay.
92:46 >> Okay. >> And the the tradeoff for the yard space
92:50 >> And the the tradeoff for the yard space is you know in this 30% or so
92:54 is you know in this 30% or so >> reduction in lot size and it's going to
92:56 >> reduction in lot size and it's going to be yard space. What's the what do you
92:59 be yard space. What's the what do you think the lot cost decreases by
93:01 think the lot cost decreases by increasing your density? And you know, I
93:04 increasing your density? And you know, I I would
93:04 I would >> I don't like really I don't like
93:05 >> I don't like really I don't like speaking relatively because it's kind of
93:07 speaking relatively because it's kind of misleading, I think, for folks. So,
93:09 misleading, I think, for folks. So, okay, if we had a dollar amount, if it's
93:11 okay, if we had a dollar amount, if it's a $425,000 house, uh getting this
93:14 a $425,000 house, uh getting this increased density, how much does that
93:17 increased density, how much does that has that decreased the price of the
93:19 has that decreased the price of the product
93:20 product >> by having the smaller lot?
93:22 >> by having the smaller lot? >> You know, is it 5,000? Is it 10? Is it
93:25 >> You know, is it 5,000? Is it 10? Is it 15?
93:26 15? >> And, you know, maybe we have some real
93:27 >> And, you know, maybe we have some real estate professionals in in the audience
93:29 estate professionals in in the audience who might be able to address that. I I
93:31 who might be able to address that. I I could I'm I'm an engineer.
93:33 could I'm I'm an engineer. >> I'm a realtor and I don't know.
93:36 >> I'm a realtor and I don't know. >> So all Yeah.
93:37 >> So all Yeah. >> Well, I think you probably have in the
93:38 >> Well, I think you probably have in the neighborhood of a $50,000 lot cost. So
93:40 neighborhood of a $50,000 lot cost. So if you increased your density by 30%,
93:44 if you increased your density by 30%, maybe you've saved 15,000 and so maybe
93:47 maybe you've saved 15,000 and so maybe the these houses cost 15,000 less. I
93:50 the these houses cost 15,000 less. I think that's reasonable.
93:51 think that's reasonable. >> Yeah. And I mean I don't know. I I can't
93:54 >> Yeah. And I mean I don't know. I I can't say one way or another. Um but you know
93:57 say one way or another. Um but you know I would say that you know that also
93:59 I would say that you know that also comes with the the loss of the open
94:01 comes with the the loss of the open space that that we're you know
94:03 space that that we're you know providing. So is there you know does
94:06 providing. So is there you know does that
94:08 that well it seems to me that there's a
94:10 well it seems to me that there's a bigger benefit by having this open space
94:14 bigger benefit by having this open space it's a benefit for everyone versus the
94:16 it's a benefit for everyone versus the 4,000 foot lot.
94:20 4,000 foot lot. But
94:26 >> thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
94:33 >> Is out the hearing and look at the >> Are we gonna have discussion?
94:36 >> Are we gonna have discussion? >> That's what we're going to do now.
94:39 >> That's what we're going to do now. Okay.
94:41 Okay. We can have discussion.
94:48 >> All right. Good afternoon, uh, commissioners. What's before you tonight
94:49 commissioners. What's before you tonight is Harvest Meadows PUD, uh, number 25-2.
94:53 is Harvest Meadows PUD, uh, number 25-2. We'll start with the criteria for the
94:54 We'll start with the criteria for the PUD review criteria first.
94:58 PUD review criteria first. Um
94:59 Um number one, the proposed PUD provides
95:01 number one, the proposed PUD provides for adequate utilities, services, and
95:03 for adequate utilities, services, and parking to service the proposed
95:04 parking to service the proposed development. Uh the first one is the
95:07 development. Uh the first one is the public water supply issue.
95:09 public water supply issue. >> It's all it's public. We have is it
95:11 >> It's all it's public. We have is it green acres? I believe
95:12 green acres? I believe >> these green acres that provided the bill
95:15 >> these green acres that provided the bill surf letter.
95:16 surf letter. >> Thank you. Um no issues with that one.
95:19 >> Thank you. Um no issues with that one. No big debate. Uh number two, same
95:21 No big debate. Uh number two, same question for the public wastewater
95:22 question for the public wastewater collection system
95:24 collection system >> for the city.
95:25 >> for the city. >> It's the city and that's been addressed
95:27 >> It's the city and that's been addressed and it's also I think the condition in
95:29 and it's also I think the condition in the staff report or condition with
95:32 the staff report or condition with regard to the guy road lift station. I
95:33 regard to the guy road lift station. I think that's in there but so that's
95:35 think that's in there but so that's taken care of as conditioned.
95:38 taken care of as conditioned. >> Thank you. Um next one is providing
95:42 >> Thank you. Um next one is providing adequate accommodations for other
95:43 adequate accommodations for other utilities necessary to support the
95:45 utilities necessary to support the proposed development.
95:52 So, I mean, they've they've dealt with the parking issue by making sure that
95:54 the parking issue by making sure that they're twocar garages and two cars in
95:57 they're twocar garages and two cars in the front just like every other single
95:59 the front just like every other single family residential subdivision in Post
96:01 family residential subdivision in Post Falls.
96:03 Falls. >> Um,
96:03 >> Um, >> that's a really that's a big improvement
96:06 >> that's a really that's a big improvement over what we had before,
96:07 over what we had before, >> right? Sorry, I think I jumped to D. You
96:09 >> right? Sorry, I think I jumped to D. You were talking about other utilities.
96:10 were talking about other utilities. >> Sorry, this one this one has to do with
96:12 >> Sorry, this one this one has to do with generally the easements, whether there's
96:14 generally the easements, whether there's sufficient easements.
96:15 sufficient easements. >> Yeah, they're sufficient 15t. Yeah,
96:17 >> Yeah, they're sufficient 15t. Yeah, these is
96:18 these is >> sufficient
96:20 >> sufficient >> sufficient to support both private and
96:22 >> sufficient to support both private and public uh roadways and the
96:23 public uh roadways and the infrastructure. I don't know that there
96:24 infrastructure. I don't know that there was much testimony opposing that one.
96:27 was much testimony opposing that one. >> Yeah. Right. If if the standard is 10 ft
96:29 >> Yeah. Right. If if the standard is 10 ft and they're providing 12 and a half ft
96:30 and they're providing 12 and a half ft from behind the sidewalk, that's more
96:31 from behind the sidewalk, that's more than adequate.
96:33 than adequate. >> Thank you. Now, now on the parking
96:35 >> Thank you. Now, now on the parking issue,
96:36 issue, >> u yes, that's more improved, vastly
96:40 >> u yes, that's more improved, vastly improved. Um, and by going with the
96:42 improved. Um, and by going with the twocar uh garages, that uh improves
96:47 twocar uh garages, that uh improves things greatly.
96:54 >> It is a very tight fit in terms of 16 foot wide driveway and a 16 foot wide
96:56 foot wide driveway and a 16 foot wide garage is is tight, but it is adequate,
97:00 garage is is tight, but it is adequate, >> right? It's it is tight. That's that's
97:03 >> right? It's it is tight. That's that's what our standard is, and that's and
97:05 what our standard is, and that's and that's every other subdivision in posts,
97:07 that's every other subdivision in posts, right?
97:08 right? >> Agreed.
97:09 >> Agreed. And this one engendered a lot of debate
97:12 And this one engendered a lot of debate last time um having you know sufficient
97:15 last time um having you know sufficient parking and the issues. It looks like
97:17 parking and the issues. It looks like the applicant has changed the proposal
97:18 the applicant has changed the proposal to address some of those needs. Um if
97:22 to address some of those needs. Um if there's any other discussion on that
97:24 there's any other discussion on that one, I'd encourage it.
97:26 one, I'd encourage it. Okay. Uh number two, the proposed PUD
97:29 Okay. Uh number two, the proposed PUD provides for an integrated
97:30 provides for an integrated transportation network that adequately
97:32 transportation network that adequately uh serves the development by providing
97:35 uh serves the development by providing for the continuation of arterial and
97:37 for the continuation of arterial and collector streets.
97:39 collector streets. consistent with the master uh plan for
97:41 consistent with the master uh plan for transportation.
97:43 transportation. >> Well, I mean the widening of Spokane
97:45 >> Well, I mean the widening of Spokane Street definitely takes care of item A
97:48 Street definitely takes care of item A and with regards to providing
97:51 and with regards to providing connectivity
97:53 connectivity um
97:55 um connecting with it Tennessee out to
97:58 connecting with it Tennessee out to Spokane Street provides connectivity
98:00 Spokane Street provides connectivity from that adjoining subdivision out
98:03 from that adjoining subdivision out which is consistent with the master
98:05 which is consistent with the master plan.
98:08 plan. There's improvement looking at B snow.
98:12 There's improvement looking at B snow. There's been improvement on that from
98:14 There's been improvement on that from the the last hearing also. And the the
98:17 the the last hearing also. And the the two public streets that are going
98:18 two public streets that are going through the project. So Tennessee Avenue
98:20 through the project. So Tennessee Avenue and Holstein Avenue, those are both a
98:23 and Holstein Avenue, those are both a dedication over over an acre each. Um
98:27 dedication over over an acre each. Um and that's coming off of costs that
98:31 and that's coming off of costs that could be
98:33 could be that could end up being a city cost. In
98:35 that could end up being a city cost. In other words, the developers putting in
98:37 other words, the developers putting in those streets, providing the land for
98:39 those streets, providing the land for those streets, that all goes back to
98:42 those streets, that all goes back to improving
98:43 improving our network, our traffic network. Um,
98:46 our network, our traffic network. Um, it's providing additional ways in and
98:48 it's providing additional ways in and out of the subdivision as a whole and
98:51 out of the subdivision as a whole and not at the cost of the city.
98:53 not at the cost of the city. >> I think that's pretty important.
98:56 >> I think that's pretty important. >> It does complete the puzzle in the area.
98:58 >> It does complete the puzzle in the area. Exactly.
99:00 Exactly. There was also some discussion under B
99:02 There was also some discussion under B on the modifications to the snow storage
99:05 on the modifications to the snow storage issue which was something the commission
99:07 issue which was something the commission was uh debating last time.
99:09 was uh debating last time. >> I don't know if there's any comments on
99:11 >> I don't know if there's any comments on that issue at this point.
99:13 that issue at this point. >> Well, they show that they increased
99:14 >> Well, they show that they increased their storage now.
99:16 their storage now. >> Yeah.
99:18 >> Yeah. >> Uh thank you. Uh let's go to 2C. Uh
99:21 >> Uh thank you. Uh let's go to 2C. Uh providing a pedestrian and bicycle
99:23 providing a pedestrian and bicycle system to provide adequate circulation
99:25 system to provide adequate circulation through the development into the open
99:27 through the development into the open space areas.
99:29 space areas. sidewalks will go in and then the um
99:31 sidewalks will go in and then the um multi-use trail on Spokane Street
99:35 multi-use trail on Spokane Street >> as well as the cond connection through
99:36 >> as well as the cond connection through the open space to the subdivision to
99:39 the open space to the subdivision to Spokane Street
99:40 Spokane Street >> of the bike system.
99:44 >> of the bike system. >> All right.
99:50 Criteria number three, the proposed PUD provides for enhanced community design
99:52 provides for enhanced community design by incorporating any significant
99:55 by incorporating any significant natural, scenic, or historical features.
99:58 natural, scenic, or historical features. >> I don't think there was anything noted.
100:00 >> I don't think there was anything noted. >> I'm not certain there was any testimony
100:02 >> I'm not certain there was any testimony on anything on that issue.
100:04 on anything on that issue. >> Nothing noted.
100:04 >> Nothing noted. >> Okay.
100:06 >> Okay. Uh integrating a mix of compatible land
100:08 Uh integrating a mix of compatible land uses in the development and buffering or
100:11 uses in the development and buffering or separating incompatible uses.
100:14 separating incompatible uses. Well, there's single family residential
100:15 Well, there's single family residential uses adjoining single family residential
100:18 uses adjoining single family residential uses. And so when we're speaking about
100:21 uses. And so when we're speaking about land use, we're not speaking about lot
100:23 land use, we're not speaking about lot size, but just strictly land use. And
100:25 size, but just strictly land use. And single family next to single family
100:28 single family next to single family >> um is the same.
100:30 >> um is the same. >> Yep.
100:32 >> Yep. >> And there are restrictions on the
100:33 >> And there are restrictions on the annexation for single family use only
100:36 annexation for single family use only for this development. So they are
100:38 for this development. So they are somewhat limited in that issue what they
100:40 somewhat limited in that issue what they could propose.
100:40 could propose. >> Single family detached.
100:42 >> Single family detached. >> Detached. Yes, sir.
100:43 >> Detached. Yes, sir. >> Yes.
100:44 >> Yes. Uh C, locating the proposed uses and lot
100:47 Uh C, locating the proposed uses and lot sizes in the manner which blends with
100:50 sizes in the manner which blends with the surrounding uses, the neighborhoods
100:52 the surrounding uses, the neighborhoods and the facilities.
100:59 >> Yeah. Again, I guess you know these are going to be detached single family
101:01 going to be detached single family homes. While they will be smaller, they
101:02 homes. While they will be smaller, they will kind of blend in with everything
101:04 will kind of blend in with everything else to serve a greater purpose in my
101:08 else to serve a greater purpose in my opinion.
101:09 opinion. >> And I I did do some math here. Um, so if
101:13 >> And I I did do some math here. Um, so if we take the area of the open space and
101:15 we take the area of the open space and divide it by the 85 lots, we get 608
101:19 divide it by the 85 lots, we get 608 square feet. If you add that to the 3377
101:22 square feet. If you add that to the 3377 average, you come out with 39.85 15
101:25 average, you come out with 39.85 15 square ft per lot shy of the 4,000
101:29 square ft per lot shy of the 4,000 minimum.
101:30 minimum. >> That that's what I was that's all my
101:32 >> That that's what I was that's all my scribbles here, too.
101:34 scribbles here, too. If you take just the open space, add
101:37 If you take just the open space, add that back to the net residential area,
101:42 that back to the net residential area, these homes are on 7.8 acres
101:45 these homes are on 7.8 acres at 4,000 square ft minimum lot size.
101:49 at 4,000 square ft minimum lot size. That's 85 acres or that's 85 units,
101:51 That's 85 acres or that's 85 units, >> right? So essentially, we're taking
101:54 >> right? So essentially, we're taking those 85 units and instead of spreading
101:56 those 85 units and instead of spreading them out, we're compacting them onto a
101:59 them out, we're compacting them onto a smaller portion of the land, but then in
102:01 smaller portion of the land, but then in exchange providing a bunch of open
102:03 exchange providing a bunch of open space.
102:04 space. >> Correct.
102:05 >> Correct. >> And I think part of the reason for that
102:06 >> And I think part of the reason for that is just the shape and the configuration
102:08 is just the shape and the configuration of the property itself.
102:10 of the property itself. >> Right. I don't know if they'd ever get
102:11 >> Right. I don't know if they'd ever get to 85 at 4,000 because of the
102:13 to 85 at 4,000 because of the configuration. They're kind of taking
102:15 configuration. They're kind of taking some of the wonky um area and using it
102:18 some of the wonky um area and using it for open space, which is smart. Um, but
102:22 for open space, which is smart. Um, but it does essentially meet that 4,000
102:26 it does essentially meet that 4,000 square foot if we're talking about a a
102:27 square foot if we're talking about a a gross land area minus the right of way.
102:33 gross land area minus the right of way. >> So, I guess
102:34 >> So, I guess >> minus right away and the private streets
102:36 >> minus right away and the private streets and Yep.
102:36 and Yep. >> Right.
102:38 >> Right. >> I would agree with that.
102:40 >> I would agree with that. >> Okay. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, the
102:41 >> Okay. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, the next one is the 10% open space
102:44 next one is the 10% open space requirement. I think we've addressed
102:45 requirement. I think we've addressed that one.
102:46 that one. >> They have met that. I want to talk about
102:47 >> They have met that. I want to talk about the recreational needs portion of that.
102:49 the recreational needs portion of that. And I do think that the addition of a
102:52 And I do think that the addition of a children's play structure in the open
102:54 children's play structure in the open space tract is necessary to meet the
102:57 space tract is necessary to meet the recreational needs simply because the
103:00 recreational needs simply because the lots are so small and the yards are so
103:02 lots are so small and the yards are so small that the recreational needs of
103:05 small that the recreational needs of kids in that neighborhood.
103:08 kids in that neighborhood. >> What about us old guys?
103:10 >> What about us old guys? >> How about botchi ball?
103:12 >> How about botchi ball? >> Oh
103:13 >> Oh >> yeah.
103:15 >> yeah. >> Pickle ball.
103:21 Do you guys have driver's licenses? >> Well, you do.
103:22 >> Well, you do. >> You're So, you're talking about adding
103:23 >> You're So, you're talking about adding that as a condition.
103:24 that as a condition. >> I am. I I think that that would be an
103:26 >> I am. I I think that that would be an appropriate condition. Um
103:28 appropriate condition. Um >> I would have to question that just a
103:29 >> I would have to question that just a little bit. Um only because I mean it's
103:32 little bit. Um only because I mean it's a house. If you're in an apartment, you
103:34 a house. If you're in an apartment, you have most of the time you have nothing.
103:36 have most of the time you have nothing. >> I would disagree.
103:38 >> I would disagree. >> Green space or something.
103:39 >> Green space or something. >> Mo most of our apartment complexes now
103:41 >> Mo most of our apartment complexes now have play structure.
103:43 have play structure. >> I just for I don't know. I just at this
103:45 >> I just for I don't know. I just at this time to put that on the developer that
103:47 time to put that on the developer that he has to I mean his requirement was
103:48 he has to I mean his requirement was green space. It wasn't
103:51 green space. It wasn't in for a PUD it's green space. It's not
103:54 in for a PUD it's green space. It's not required that they have um you know play
103:58 required that they have um you know play things or anything like that.
103:59 things or anything like that. >> It's the closest city park.
104:01 >> It's the closest city park. >> Yeah. And they have um you know they
104:02 >> Yeah. And they have um you know they have a little yard. It might not be big
104:04 have a little yard. It might not be big but at least there is a yard there and
104:06 but at least there is a yard there and then they have the green space they can
104:08 then they have the green space they can go to to do it. I just think at this
104:10 go to to do it. I just think at this late time to put it on the developer
104:13 late time to put it on the developer that he has to
104:15 that he has to I think it's a small ask. Um and and the
104:17 I think it's a small ask. Um and and the reason I say that is having costed some
104:19 reason I say that is having costed some of them out recently. Um they're not
104:22 of them out recently. Um they're not that expensive. Um I mean a place they
104:24 that expensive. Um I mean a place they can get really expensive if you really
104:25 can get really expensive if you really want to. Um but they don't have to be.
104:28 want to. Um but they don't have to be. And I'm not saying that um they have to
104:30 And I'm not saying that um they have to go with a super duper Razu um
104:34 go with a super duper Razu um children's play structure, but
104:37 children's play structure, but something better than just the open
104:40 something better than just the open field. I mean, if you drive through uh
104:42 field. I mean, if you drive through uh Greenside Vistas, they've got a little
104:44 Greenside Vistas, they've got a little common park out in the middle and the
104:47 common park out in the middle and the kids aren't using it hardly at all. Um,
104:51 kids aren't using it hardly at all. Um, put a play structure in it. Probably
104:53 put a play structure in it. Probably going to get some use. Um, I agree with
104:56 going to get some use. Um, I agree with that. I live in the Meadows and I drive
104:58 that. I live in the Meadows and I drive by where they have those play areas and
105:00 by where they have those play areas and there's kids there,
105:01 there's kids there, >> but that's an extra cost for the HOA,
105:03 >> but that's an extra cost for the HOA, too, to keep it maintained.
105:05 too, to keep it maintained. >> True. It is. It certainly is.
105:07 >> True. It is. It certainly is. Commissioners, my only comment on that,
105:08 Commissioners, my only comment on that, and I don't mean to weigh in on the
105:10 and I don't mean to weigh in on the debate, is we cities had other
105:12 debate, is we cities had other subdivisions where they've had a
105:13 subdivisions where they've had a requirement for some sort of play
105:15 requirement for some sort of play structure to be imposed. Uh sometimes
105:18 structure to be imposed. Uh sometimes what's happened is somebody has gone out
105:20 what's happened is somebody has gone out to Costco, bought a play structure, put
105:22 to Costco, bought a play structure, put it up there, and in two seasons it falls
105:24 it up there, and in two seasons it falls apart
105:25 apart >> and then the HOA gets and people get
105:27 >> and then the HOA gets and people get angry at the city for not maintaining
105:29 angry at the city for not maintaining it, which really wasn't the city's
105:30 it, which really wasn't the city's obligation in the first place. So, there
105:32 obligation in the first place. So, there is a balance there. I'm just cautioning
105:34 is a balance there. I'm just cautioning if you do want to make a motion that's
105:36 if you do want to make a motion that's certainly your prerogative to include
105:37 certainly your prerogative to include that as a condition um with it
105:40 that as a condition um with it recognizing the costs involved but um
105:43 recognizing the costs involved but um there are can be incidental effects as
105:45 there are can be incidental effects as well right and I understand that there's
105:47 well right and I understand that there's long-term ramifications of that and the
105:49 long-term ramifications of that and the long-term maintenance um I in this case
105:53 long-term maintenance um I in this case I think I mean and we did it before I
105:55 I think I mean and we did it before I think on by the meadows
105:57 think on by the meadows uh the by the meadows subdivision um
106:00 uh the by the meadows subdivision um there was a little open space did a PUB
106:03 there was a little open space did a PUB Well, and I don't have a problem
106:05 Well, and I don't have a problem developers willing to,
106:06 developers willing to, >> you know, go along with that on that
106:08 >> you know, go along with that on that thing, but I just
106:10 thing, but I just >> Good point though.
106:12 >> Good point though. >> It does seem like a bit of a reach for
106:14 >> It does seem like a bit of a reach for us to put that on the development.
106:15 us to put that on the development. >> Yeah, that's it.
106:23 >> Okay. Sorry. Uh, sorry about that. >> I I'll say one thing though, Chris. the
106:25 >> I I'll say one thing though, Chris. the uh
106:27 uh you know
106:30 you know the I think the the the the property I
106:36 the I think the the the the property I like the idea of what they're doing
106:38 like the idea of what they're doing here. I like the product. I like the
106:40 here. I like the product. I like the concept and I like the idea of
106:42 concept and I like the idea of affordable housing for people. I just
106:45 affordable housing for people. I just don't believe that this property is
106:47 don't believe that this property is going to achieve that. That's the
106:49 going to achieve that. That's the problem that I have with it. I don't I
106:51 problem that I have with it. I don't I don't believe that the people saving uh
106:54 don't believe that the people saving uh are going to be happy to if they have
106:56 are going to be happy to if they have the choice of this property and one down
106:58 the choice of this property and one down the road and the other one down the road
107:00 the road and the other one down the road has 4,000 foot lots and that they cost
107:04 has 4,000 foot lots and that they cost 440,000
107:06 440,000 and these are 425. I don't think this is
107:08 and these are 425. I don't think this is going to be a popular product. But
107:11 going to be a popular product. But that's not my call. It's the it's the
107:14 that's not my call. It's the it's the developers. It's their property. And so
107:17 developers. It's their property. And so I think it doesn't fit because there's
107:19 I think it doesn't fit because there's too many streets and they have too many
107:21 too many streets and they have too many lot costs for the uh for the for the for
107:25 lot costs for the uh for the for the for the number of lots. The costs are too
107:27 the number of lots. The costs are too high because of the number of
107:28 high because of the number of improvements they have to make. So I
107:30 improvements they have to make. So I don't think it's a very good fit. But um
107:34 don't think it's a very good fit. But um nonetheless, it's their property and we
107:36 nonetheless, it's their property and we do have to try some things to try to get
107:38 do have to try some things to try to get affordable housing. And so if they want
107:41 affordable housing. And so if they want to make a crack at it, my worry for the
107:43 to make a crack at it, my worry for the city long term is that it will be a
107:45 city long term is that it will be a unpopular
107:47 unpopular neighborhood that will become run down
107:49 neighborhood that will become run down and um won't be a success. I personally
107:53 and um won't be a success. I personally worry, but I'd be very happy to be wrong
107:57 worry, but I'd be very happy to be wrong on that. So I I really think it comes
107:59 on that. So I I really think it comes down to the developer though. It's their
108:02 down to the developer though. It's their their property.
108:04 their property. >> If you dig into the numbers, impact fees
108:07 >> If you dig into the numbers, impact fees are a huge
108:08 are a huge >> Yeah. That's going to be a much bigger
108:11 >> Yeah. That's going to be a much bigger >> way bigger
108:11 >> way bigger >> price determinant
108:15 >> price determinant than lot density by far.
108:17 than lot density by far. >> Yeah. This isn't the way to save the
108:19 >> Yeah. This isn't the way to save the money and it's not going to I don't
108:20 money and it's not going to I don't think be effective, but they can sure
108:22 think be effective, but they can sure give her a shot if they want to.
108:24 give her a shot if they want to. >> And if you know, if these are, let's
108:26 >> And if you know, if these are, let's say, a minimum of 1500 square foot
108:28 say, a minimum of 1500 square foot houses, I don't see how it's possible to
108:30 houses, I don't see how it's possible to get them under 500,000
108:33 get them under 500,000 >> in the current world.
108:34 >> in the current world. >> I have to imagine they run the numbers,
108:37 >> I have to imagine they run the numbers, but
108:45 All right. Um, appreciate uh the dialogue on that uh issue, gentlemen.
108:48 dialogue on that uh issue, gentlemen. And uh, Madame Commissioner, uh, number
108:50 And uh, Madame Commissioner, uh, number four, the PUD provides for timely
108:52 four, the PUD provides for timely development of the property and security
108:54 development of the property and security for the future completion by ensuring
108:56 for the future completion by ensuring that each development block contains the
108:57 that each development block contains the necessary elements to exist
108:59 necessary elements to exist independently from future blocks. Uh,
109:01 independently from future blocks. Uh, this one addresses some of the phased
109:03 this one addresses some of the phased development. And I think there's a
109:04 development. And I think there's a three-phaseed subdivision proposed
109:07 three-phaseed subdivision proposed complete in three phases.
109:08 complete in three phases. >> So, and that's condition number three
109:11 >> So, and that's condition number three that uh on the staff report and I would
109:13 that uh on the staff report and I would just add to that that uh it needs to be
109:16 just add to that that uh it needs to be completed in the three phases, but each
109:18 completed in the three phases, but each of those phases needs to include the
109:20 of those phases needs to include the common area that they show will be in
109:22 common area that they show will be in those phases. So, in other words, it's
109:24 those phases. So, in other words, it's not finishing phase one,
109:27 not finishing phase one, the homes, and then the open space is
109:29 the homes, and then the open space is left open and they're already into phase
109:31 left open and they're already into phase two. Would that be a subdivision
109:33 two. Would that be a subdivision condition then?
109:34 condition then? >> I agree with that.
109:36 >> I agree with that. >> I'm trying to figure out exactly what
109:38 >> I'm trying to figure out exactly what >> Just making sure that the open space
109:39 >> Just making sure that the open space goes.
109:40 goes. >> If you look at the Yeah, if you look at
109:41 >> If you look at the Yeah, if you look at the the phasing maps that he gave us or
109:44 the the phasing maps that he gave us or the plats that he gave us, it shows the
109:46 the plats that he gave us, it shows the common area for each phase.
109:48 common area for each phase. >> I just want to make sure that those are
109:49 >> I just want to make sure that those are done.
109:50 done. >> I think the last time we we kind of were
109:52 >> I think the last time we we kind of were we added a condition that's
109:53 we added a condition that's >> we did, but now it's different. Yeah,
109:55 >> we did, but now it's different. Yeah, but we could add the same condition that
109:57 but we could add the same condition that construction of phase three can't
109:59 construction of phase three can't commence until the completion of all
110:01 commence until the completion of all open spaces.
110:03 open spaces. >> So that way,
110:05 >> So that way, >> yeah, or just finish each phase or
110:07 >> yeah, or just finish each phase or something. The biggest concern is not
110:10 something. The biggest concern is not getting the common area done,
110:11 getting the common area done, >> right? I agree.
110:12 >> right? I agree. >> And just jumping into the next one.
110:15 >> And just jumping into the next one. >> So
110:15 >> So >> So how how are we going to address that
110:17 >> So how how are we going to address that wording wise would be good.
110:18 wording wise would be good. >> I mean the common area is part of each
110:21 >> I mean the common area is part of each phase development. So that's kind
110:25 phase development. So that's kind >> since we have the subdivision
110:26 >> since we have the subdivision application here. I think that's the
110:27 application here. I think that's the place to
110:28 place to >> yes
110:29 >> yes >> ensure it and I I think it probably is
110:31 >> ensure it and I I think it probably is insured by the
110:32 insured by the >> usually we put it in with the main
110:34 >> usually we put it in with the main governing dock. So in this would be the
110:35 governing dock. So in this would be the PUD. So you would sit there and say
110:39 PUD. So you would sit there and say >> so wording kind of matters. So if it's
110:41 >> so wording kind of matters. So if it's construction before um you can't go into
110:43 construction before um you can't go into construction prior to completion of
110:45 construction prior to completion of phase one and two that allows them when
110:48 phase one and two that allows them when they're going through phase one.
110:50 they're going through phase one. Theoretically they can start
110:52 Theoretically they can start construction before 100% completion of
110:54 construction before 100% completion of two. So the wording and how the
110:57 two. So the wording and how the semantics does play a role on when they
110:59 semantics does play a role on when they can start construction of phase two as
111:02 can start construction of phase two as part of it. The timing of the platting
111:03 part of it. The timing of the platting of phase one.
111:05 of phase one. >> Let's just keep it simple. is that the
111:07 >> Let's just keep it simple. is that the open space is considered subdivision
111:10 open space is considered subdivision infrastructure
111:11 infrastructure to be completed
111:14 to be completed as as part of each phase. So
111:19 as as part of each phase. So it's basically I mean it's just like the
111:21 it's basically I mean it's just like the swailes or the sidewalks or anything
111:24 swailes or the sidewalks or anything like that. It's just the open space has
111:26 like that. It's just the open space has is part of it.
111:27 is part of it. >> One thing I don't want though is to hold
111:29 >> One thing I don't want though is to hold bond or shy for phase one and two and
111:32 bond or shy for phase one and two and have the argument that they can start
111:34 have the argument that they can start construction on phase three. phase
111:36 construction on phase three. phase three. Ideally, you'd have them actually
111:38 three. Ideally, you'd have them actually completed on phase one and two before
111:41 completed on phase one and two before they can start construction on phase two
111:44 they can start construction on phase two on phase three. Sorry.
111:46 on phase three. Sorry. >> Yeah. I don't
111:48 >> Yeah. I don't >> except for the fact that like if if
111:49 >> except for the fact that like if if they're going through and paving roads,
111:51 they're going through and paving roads, >> there's got to be an economy of scale.
111:53 >> there's got to be an economy of scale. >> Yeah. You want to let them pave the
111:54 >> Yeah. You want to let them pave the roads.
111:55 roads. >> Well, there there's all of that and then
111:56 >> Well, there there's all of that and then there's the fact that if they're paving
111:58 there's the fact that if they're paving in November, you're not going to put
111:59 in November, you're not going to put hydro seating down.
112:00 hydro seating down. >> Right.
112:01 >> Right. >> Right. So that's the
112:03 >> Right. So that's the >> So I my question would be can we direct
112:06 >> So I my question would be can we direct staff to just include that to make sure
112:08 staff to just include that to make sure that the way the phasing is done
112:11 that the way the phasing is done >> because I'm not an expert in that.
112:13 >> because I'm not an expert in that. >> We had a lessons learned. Yeah.
112:14 >> We had a lessons learned. Yeah. >> In the community where
112:17 >> In the community where basically there was a park that was not
112:20 basically there was a park that was not completed because it was done as part of
112:22 completed because it was done as part of phase three and
112:26 phase three and >> and developers done.
112:28 >> and developers done. >> Well, sometimes they do walk away.
112:30 >> Well, sometimes they do walk away. >> Right. That's right. And so, one reason
112:32 >> Right. That's right. And so, one reason or another,
112:32 or another, >> having a hook in there to where um they
112:36 >> having a hook in there to where um they will they, you know, they can if they
112:38 will they, you know, they can if they walk away, you know, odds are they're
112:40 walk away, you know, odds are they're not going to walk away, you know,
112:42 not going to walk away, you know, >> you know, with with the right conditions
112:44 >> you know, with with the right conditions or if they do, at least the the
112:45 or if they do, at least the the community there has their open space,
112:47 community there has their open space, right?
112:47 right? >> And then you don't have an HOA trying to
112:49 >> And then you don't have an HOA trying to figure out how to complete their open
112:51 figure out how to complete their open space through some sort of bond or shity
112:53 space through some sort of bond or shity that was posted by some other party.
112:56 that was posted by some other party. >> Agreed.
112:57 >> Agreed. >> Right. And so, where do you stick that
112:59 >> Right. And so, where do you stick that caveat? You know,
113:00 caveat? You know, >> we really would like it phase by phase
113:02 >> we really would like it phase by phase because if they start phase two, they
113:05 because if they start phase two, they could sell out one and two before one's
113:08 could sell out one and two before one's open space is even completed.
113:10 open space is even completed. >> But where to start? Is that a time of
113:12 >> But where to start? Is that a time of plat? Is it a time of construction? They
113:14 plat? Is it a time of construction? They have completely two different
113:15 have completely two different applications.
113:17 applications. I mean, if it's so if it's part of the
113:19 I mean, if it's so if it's part of the constru infrastructure for the
113:21 constru infrastructure for the subdivision,
113:23 subdivision, then the way the city bonding process
113:25 then the way the city bonding process works is that
113:27 works is that we they the way it works would be is
113:31 we they the way it works would be is that if they don't complete it, they
113:32 that if they don't complete it, they have to bond for it and that they're not
113:35 have to bond for it and that they're not allowed subdivision completion until the
113:38 allowed subdivision completion until the bond goes to warranty, which means that
113:41 bond goes to warranty, which means that they're not allowed CO until it's either
113:43 they're not allowed CO until it's either building permits or CO until Um,
113:47 building permits or CO until Um, >> we generally don't hold the builder
113:49 >> we generally don't hold the builder often times separate from the person
113:51 often times separate from the person doing the subdivision and platting,
113:52 doing the subdivision and platting, >> right? So holding the the CEO up, you're
113:55 >> right? So holding the the CEO up, you're holding the wrong person hostage for an
113:57 holding the wrong person hostage for an obligation to the person developing the
114:00 obligation to the person developing the lots. And you're also holding a bond
114:03 lots. And you're also holding a bond that the developer is on the hook for
114:06 that the developer is on the hook for for one and a half times the cost of the
114:08 for one and a half times the cost of the remaining stuff remaining, which I mean
114:11 remaining stuff remaining, which I mean it it's it kind of sucks that if they
114:13 it it's it kind of sucks that if they don't do it that it puts a city on the
114:15 don't do it that it puts a city on the hook, but that that's probably the
114:17 hook, but that that's probably the appropriate hook to have in them so that
114:20 appropriate hook to have in them so that you can go after their bond and
114:23 you can go after their bond and >> except for the tract is on a private. So
114:25 >> except for the tract is on a private. So we usually don't take bond money and
114:27 we usually don't take bond money and improve private lots,
114:29 improve private lots, >> right? which why I phrased it the way I
114:30 >> right? which why I phrased it the way I did to to consider the open space a
114:33 did to to consider the open space a public part of the public
114:34 public part of the public infrastructure. I mean just to allow
114:36 infrastructure. I mean just to allow that is that Chris is that well
114:38 that is that Chris is that well >> out of bounds there.
114:39 >> out of bounds there. >> I think what we previously did to allow
114:41 >> I think what we previously did to allow them enough flexibility to control their
114:43 them enough flexibility to control their development is we said phases one and
114:46 development is we said phases one and two shall be complete before you start
114:47 two shall be complete before you start phase three. That means complete phases
114:50 phase three. That means complete phases one and two. So if they need to get all
114:52 one and two. So if they need to get all their open space I mean that was what
114:54 their open space I mean that was what was previously suggested. This this is
114:55 was previously suggested. This this is the same proposal more or less. That's
114:58 the same proposal more or less. That's fair enough with that.
114:59 fair enough with that. >> And I think that addresses most of your
115:01 >> And I think that addresses most of your concerns without
115:03 concerns without requiring them to complete all of phase
115:05 requiring them to complete all of phase one before moving on to phase two
115:06 one before moving on to phase two because they do need some flexibility in
115:08 because they do need some flexibility in ability to sell homes to pay for that
115:10 ability to sell homes to pay for that infrastructure. I I assume.
115:11 infrastructure. I I assume. >> Y absolutely.
115:12 >> Y absolutely. >> So that would be my recommendation,
115:14 >> So that would be my recommendation, commissioners. Um but it's it would be
115:17 commissioners. Um but it's it would be >> so that we'd be adding that to condition
115:19 >> so that we'd be adding that to condition number three.
115:20 number three. >> Uh that would be a modification and I
115:21 >> Uh that would be a modification and I think that was previously proposed by uh
115:23 think that was previously proposed by uh Mr. Manley in the last round. So, I
115:25 Mr. Manley in the last round. So, I would I would adopt that language. Okay.
115:30 would I would adopt that language. Okay. Um All right. Uh number 4 B, ensuring
115:34 Um All right. Uh number 4 B, ensuring that each building in the development
115:35 that each building in the development lot has sufficient access around the
115:37 lot has sufficient access around the structure to allow for continual
115:38 structure to allow for continual maintenance of the building and access
115:40 maintenance of the building and access for emergency uh services.
115:43 for emergency uh services. >> That's done through setbacks.
115:45 >> That's done through setbacks. >> I think the setbacks have addressed some
115:47 >> I think the setbacks have addressed some of that. I'm not sure there was much
115:48 of that. I'm not sure there was much testimony to the to the contrary on that
115:50 testimony to the to the contrary on that issue,
115:51 issue, >> right? They're just standard R2
115:53 >> right? They're just standard R2 setbacks.
115:54 setbacks. >> Yeah. and meeting the city city
115:56 >> Yeah. and meeting the city city requirements. Sure.
115:58 requirements. Sure. >> Uh and finally, ensuring that the
115:59 >> Uh and finally, ensuring that the funding mechanism exists to adequately
116:01 funding mechanism exists to adequately maintain the common areas that are not
116:02 maintain the common areas that are not publicly maintained.
116:04 publicly maintained. >> I think this is where we talk about the
116:07 >> I think this is where we talk about the um
116:08 um >> and this is on condition number 11,
116:10 >> and this is on condition number 11, >> right? I think this
116:11 >> right? I think this >> I would just change this wording. So
116:13 >> I would just change this wording. So right now
116:15 right now I would change it to read something
116:16 I would change it to read something along these lines. The homeowners
116:18 along these lines. The homeowners association for the project shall be
116:20 association for the project shall be required to maintain all common areas
116:24 required to maintain all common areas including rightofway frontage adjacent
116:25 including rightofway frontage adjacent to open space tracks, private roads,
116:28 to open space tracks, private roads, streets, alleyways
116:30 streets, alleyways uh including paving, landscaping,
116:32 uh including paving, landscaping, irrigation rem and snow removal and the
116:36 irrigation rem and snow removal and the HOA shall provide a funding mechanism
116:39 HOA shall provide a funding mechanism for capital repair replacement in the
116:41 for capital repair replacement in the future.
116:43 future. >> I think we need to add streets and alley
116:45 >> I think we need to add streets and alley private streets and alleys. I did.
116:47 private streets and alleys. I did. >> You did put private streets. Okay. Okay.
116:50 >> You did put private streets. Okay. Okay. >> I just I'm definitely post.
116:52 >> I just I'm definitely post. >> All right. Thank you.
116:54 >> All right. Thank you. >> Um
116:57 >> Um >> yeah, that's that's simple.
117:00 >> yeah, that's that's simple. >> Okay.
117:01 >> Okay. >> In the at the end of the day, we can't
117:03 >> In the at the end of the day, we can't force
117:05 force we're not enforcing the CCNRs,
117:06 we're not enforcing the CCNRs, >> right?
117:07 >> right? >> But we can try to educate these home
117:10 >> But we can try to educate these home buyers. My biggest concern is when we
117:11 buyers. My biggest concern is when we have first-time home buyers stretching
117:13 have first-time home buyers stretching to get to these purchase prices, whether
117:16 to get to these purchase prices, whether whatever the price is, and they're in
117:18 whatever the price is, and they're in there five years, developers gone,
117:21 there five years, developers gone, street needs a new slurry coat, and
117:24 street needs a new slurry coat, and here's your bill for $50,000,
117:26 here's your bill for $50,000, >> right? Special assessment time.
117:28 >> right? Special assessment time. >> It doesn't work. Well, I you know, I
117:31 >> It doesn't work. Well, I you know, I understand that, but at the same time,
117:32 understand that, but at the same time, is is that not something that should be
117:35 is is that not something that should be in our requirements when somebody's
117:37 in our requirements when somebody's coming in to get a PUD, they're told
117:38 coming in to get a PUD, they're told ahead of time, if you have private
117:40 ahead of time, if you have private streets, this is what this is one of the
117:43 streets, this is what this is one of the >> it has to be done.
117:45 >> it has to be done. >> No, it isn't. That's what I'm saying.
117:46 >> No, it isn't. That's what I'm saying. How do we just throw it on a developer
117:49 How do we just throw it on a developer right now? It shouldn't it be instead of
117:50 right now? It shouldn't it be instead of that
117:51 that >> because we have the option to do it when
117:52 >> because we have the option to do it when it's a PUD?
117:55 it's a PUD? I don't know that we that's what I'm
117:57 I don't know that we that's what I'm questioning because it's
117:59 questioning because it's >> you just pick out a person one PUD and
118:01 >> you just pick out a person one PUD and say okay we're going to do it to you
118:02 say okay we're going to do it to you because you have private streets but we
118:04 because you have private streets but we haven't done it before.
118:05 haven't done it before. >> We've done it on like the last five
118:07 >> We've done it on like the last five approvals
118:08 approvals >> we put it in there.
118:09 >> we put it in there. >> Commissioners I I appreciate the
118:12 >> Commissioners I I appreciate the comment. I I believe it warrants a
118:14 comment. I I believe it warrants a larger discussion as to making folks
118:17 larger discussion as to making folks more aware on the front end if they're
118:18 more aware on the front end if they're going to propose trip yeah
118:19 going to propose trip yeah >> private streets and infrastructure to
118:21 >> private streets and infrastructure to have them understand upfront what some
118:23 have them understand upfront what some of those obligations are at least the
118:24 of those obligations are at least the city's concerns to avoid
118:27 city's concerns to avoid >> the public maintaining that private
118:29 >> the public maintaining that private infrastructure in the future when it's
118:30 infrastructure in the future when it's inevitably going to fail in the future.
118:33 inevitably going to fail in the future. >> Well, yeah, and I totally agree with
118:34 >> Well, yeah, and I totally agree with that. But I think it should that be an
118:36 that. But I think it should that be an upfront thing that they should know
118:37 upfront thing that they should know before you know when they come in for
118:38 before you know when they come in for the to apply for a PUD or something. is
118:41 the to apply for a PUD or something. is one of your conditions.
118:42 one of your conditions. >> So, I think that needs to go back to
118:44 >> So, I think that needs to go back to staff level and we need to take a look
118:45 staff level and we need to take a look at the code and see if it's going to We
118:48 at the code and see if it's going to We are doing a subdivision update right now
118:50 are doing a subdivision update right now as we speak. Um, I will bring it through
118:52 as we speak. Um, I will bring it through the admin's channels, but uh I I mean I
118:55 the admin's channels, but uh I I mean I I think it warrants a larger discussion.
118:57 I think it warrants a larger discussion. >> I think everybody understands it except
118:59 >> I think everybody understands it except for the buyer. That's the person that
119:02 for the buyer. That's the person that needs to understand it. I don't know how
119:04 needs to understand it. I don't know how you convey it to the buyer.
119:06 you convey it to the buyer. So having been involved in similar
119:09 So having been involved in similar projects,
119:11 projects, you also run into on the back end FHA,
119:15 you also run into on the back end FHA, HUD, VA requirements and a lot of those
119:19 HUD, VA requirements and a lot of those secondary
119:21 secondary markets when they look at HOAs, they're
119:24 markets when they look at HOAs, they're going to look at the capital reserve
119:26 going to look at the capital reserve fund.
119:33 We don't at by code require it, but if especially if you're building affordable
119:34 especially if you're building affordable housing, it's got to be be in there.
119:37 housing, it's got to be be in there. >> So, you're saying that they wouldn't
119:39 >> So, you're saying that they wouldn't fund the loan for the buyer if it's not
119:42 fund the loan for the buyer if it's not sufficient?
119:42 sufficient? >> They won't.
119:45 >> They won't. >> I do know that Oregon State Code and
119:47 >> I do know that Oregon State Code and Washington State Code have
119:49 Washington State Code have >> provisions for
119:50 >> provisions for >> most of things. I don't I I don't think
119:53 >> most of things. I don't I I don't think Idaho State Code does.
119:55 Idaho State Code does. >> Bunch of hippies, right? I know if you
119:57 >> Bunch of hippies, right? I know if you get any kind of like tax credit
119:59 get any kind of like tax credit financing for a project,
120:00 financing for a project, >> those those capital reserve requirements
120:02 >> those those capital reserve requirements are huge.
120:08 >> All right. >> Probably a separate issue we need to try
120:09 >> Probably a separate issue we need to try to figure out how to address general.
120:11 to figure out how to address general. >> Like I said, I like I think I think we
120:13 >> Like I said, I like I think I think we have the ability as as a commission to
120:15 have the ability as as a commission to make suggestions to the code and
120:16 make suggestions to the code and revisions where we see them appropriate
120:17 revisions where we see them appropriate and that's probably the better channel
120:19 and that's probably the better channel rather than doing this on the fly for
120:21 rather than doing this on the fly for each each hearing and then imposing
120:23 each each hearing and then imposing those. But I do
120:25 those. But I do >> I do want it changed for this one for
120:26 >> I do want it changed for this one for the conditions.
120:27 the conditions. >> Sure.
120:27 >> Sure. >> I think it sets him up for success and
120:30 >> I think it sets him up for success and it and it doesn't hurt the developer. It
120:32 it and it doesn't hurt the developer. It all it does is it just ensures that
120:34 all it does is it just ensures that everybody knows upfront that there are
120:37 everybody knows upfront that there are expenses.
120:39 expenses. Um because driving down the street the
120:42 Um because driving down the street the the normal person doesn't realize that
120:43 the normal person doesn't realize that that blue street sign means it's not
120:45 that blue street sign means it's not maintained by the city and that the city
120:49 maintained by the city and that the city plows aren't going to drive by and that
120:50 plows aren't going to drive by and that in 20 years the city isn't going to
120:53 in 20 years the city isn't going to repave it.
120:54 repave it. >> Yeah.
120:55 >> Yeah. >> So
121:00 >> so we've uh concluded on the PUD criteria. My recommendation is let's go
121:02 criteria. My recommendation is let's go through the subdivision criteria and
121:04 through the subdivision criteria and then uh open it up for uh further debate
121:06 then uh open it up for uh further debate in motion if that's all right with the
121:08 in motion if that's all right with the commissioners.
121:09 commissioners. >> Y sounds good.
121:10 >> Y sounds good. >> So on subdivision 25-4, this is the
121:13 >> So on subdivision 25-4, this is the request for the 85 lots in the R2 zone
121:16 request for the 85 lots in the R2 zone for Harvest Meadows. Uh criteria number
121:19 for Harvest Meadows. Uh criteria number one. I think we have satisfied
121:22 one. I think we have satisfied uh it is determining whether adequate
121:24 uh it is determining whether adequate supply for water supply has been made. I
121:26 supply for water supply has been made. I think we have addressed that. So we need
121:28 think we have addressed that. So we need not revisit that at this time. Same with
121:31 not revisit that at this time. Same with number two, adequate provisions in their
121:33 number two, adequate provisions in their subdivision code for the public sewage
121:35 subdivision code for the public sewage system and that can service the uh
121:38 system and that can service the uh proposed sewer flows. We have the city
121:40 proposed sewer flows. We have the city of Post Falls as well on this issue.
121:43 of Post Falls as well on this issue. >> Correct.
121:43 >> Correct. >> Uh number three, proposed streets are
121:46 >> Uh number three, proposed streets are consistent with the transportation
121:47 consistent with the transportation element of the comprehensive plan.
121:50 element of the comprehensive plan. Um we've had some discussion on that
121:53 Um we've had some discussion on that one. I don't know if there's any further
121:54 one. I don't know if there's any further debate on this issue. No, I think we
121:56 debate on this issue. No, I think we talked about it with regards to the PUD.
122:00 talked about it with regards to the PUD. So it Spokane Street widing improvements
122:03 So it Spokane Street widing improvements meet the transportation master plan and
122:06 meet the transportation master plan and the providing the connectivity to the
122:07 the providing the connectivity to the joining residential streets completes
122:10 joining residential streets completes that hole in the residential grid.
122:19 >> Thank you commissioners. Uh, number four,
122:20 four, topographical or hazardous issues have
122:24 topographical or hazardous issues have been identified. I don't recall much
122:27 been identified. I don't recall much testimony on that one other than it
122:28 testimony on that one other than it being over the aquifer, which is our
122:30 being over the aquifer, which is our standard response.
122:32 standard response. >> Uh, the area proposed number five for
122:35 >> Uh, the area proposed number five for the subdivision is zoned for the use um
122:37 the subdivision is zoned for the use um the R2 uh zoning and the use conforms to
122:40 the R2 uh zoning and the use conforms to the other requirements found in the
122:41 the other requirements found in the code.
122:42 code. >> Yes.
122:42 >> Yes. >> Yeah. R2 is an allowable zoning district
122:46 >> Yeah. R2 is an allowable zoning district >> as modified by the PUD.
122:48 >> as modified by the PUD. >> Yes. And on this one, there is that
122:50 >> Yes. And on this one, there is that notation that if the PED were approved,
122:52 notation that if the PED were approved, then the lot sizes and the other uh uses
122:54 then the lot sizes and the other uh uses would conform to our other requirements
122:56 would conform to our other requirements of the code.
122:57 of the code. >> Otherwise, it would not
122:59 >> Otherwise, it would not >> true.
123:05 >> Um then finally, uh adequate plans to ensure the community will bear no more
123:07 ensure the community will bear no more than its fair share costs of uh fees or
123:10 than its fair share costs of uh fees or off-site mitigation services.
123:14 off-site mitigation services. And this is the impact fees that we've
123:16 And this is the impact fees that we've talked about
123:17 talked about >> for public safety, parks, streets,
123:21 >> for public safety, parks, streets, >> as well as like street dedications and
123:23 >> as well as like street dedications and street improvements that they're
123:24 street improvements that they're actually doing within the project too.
123:27 actually doing within the project too. >> Yeah. And on the frontages
123:29 >> Yeah. And on the frontages >> or and on the frontage street.
123:31 >> or and on the frontage street. >> Exactly.
123:33 >> Exactly. >> So, okay. Thank you, commissioners.
123:40 Anybody have any other further discussion or
123:43 have any other further discussion or comments?
123:45 comments? >> I do. I do too. Go ahead.
123:47 >> I do. I do too. Go ahead. >> Well, essentially, we approved this a
123:50 >> Well, essentially, we approved this a while back. It's just been massaged in a
123:54 while back. It's just been massaged in a few different ways. The last time the
123:56 few different ways. The last time the PUD came in, I voted against it. Um, but
123:59 PUD came in, I voted against it. Um, but this is right back to one that we
124:00 this is right back to one that we approved.
124:02 approved. the for the concerns for the people that
124:04 the for the concerns for the people that don't want it there.
124:07 don't want it there. This really is our two light. I mean,
124:09 This really is our two light. I mean, and I brought that up at that other
124:11 and I brought that up at that other meeting. It is so close to it. I mean,
124:14 meeting. It is so close to it. I mean, yeah, you don't want it there at all.
124:16 yeah, you don't want it there at all. Neither do I. I live a quarter mile from
124:17 Neither do I. I live a quarter mile from there, but it's it's it's there. We need
124:21 there, but it's it's it's there. We need housing. Um I don't see any problems
124:24 housing. Um I don't see any problems with that. Uh it's it's not that far off
124:26 with that. Uh it's it's not that far off from R1. Um, I've never been in one of
124:30 from R1. Um, I've never been in one of these meetings where so many people are
124:32 these meetings where so many people are in favor of a project. So, the
124:35 in favor of a project. So, the developers got a lot of friends.
124:38 developers got a lot of friends. So, uh, I would say I mean for me it's
124:44 So, uh, I would say I mean for me it's kind of went back to what we've already
124:46 kind of went back to what we've already approved.
124:52 >> Chris, um, so in the conditions,
124:56 um, so in the conditions, uh, one of One of the conditions,
124:58 uh, one of One of the conditions, condition number four, a reduction of
125:00 condition number four, a reduction of minimum lot size from 4,000 square feet
125:02 minimum lot size from 4,000 square feet to 2,800 square feet, not to exceed 7.35
125:05 to 2,800 square feet, not to exceed 7.35 lots per acre. I'd like to change that
125:07 lots per acre. I'd like to change that to not to exceed 85 lots because I have
125:11 to not to exceed 85 lots because I have no idea still what we're applying the
125:14 no idea still what we're applying the lot. What which acreage are we applying
125:15 lot. What which acreage are we applying it to?
125:17 it to? >> I think that makes sense.
125:18 >> I think that makes sense. >> It just drives me nuts.
125:20 >> It just drives me nuts. >> It takes the math out of it.
125:22 >> It takes the math out of it. >> Yes. And I don't think there's any issue
125:24 >> Yes. And I don't think there's any issue with that because it's essentially the
125:26 with that because it's essentially the same number. depending on which acreage
125:28 same number. depending on which acreage you're using.
125:34 >> I think that's the only thing I have. >> Sounds good to me.
125:47 Mr. Shver? Um, excluding tracks. Excluding the open space tracks.
125:49 Excluding the open space tracks. >> No.
125:50 >> No. >> Yes.
125:51 >> Yes. >> 85 lots excluding
125:52 >> 85 lots excluding >> 85 building lots.
125:53 >> 85 building lots. >> Oh, sorry. Yes. Yes. 85. There's a
125:56 >> Oh, sorry. Yes. Yes. 85. There's a distinction in our code between tracks
125:57 distinction in our code between tracks and lots and I I like to not perfect.
126:13 All right, there's nothing else. Entertain a motion.
126:25 >> Chris has got it. wrote all the edits down.
126:26 down. >> Okay,
126:26 >> Okay, >> Chris, you got this one.
126:27 >> Chris, you got this one. >> So, what are we going to start with? Are
126:28 >> So, what are we going to start with? Are we going to start with the subdivision
126:30 we going to start with the subdivision or do we start with the PUD or do we
126:32 or do we start with the PUD or do we approve them simultaneously?
126:34 approve them simultaneously? >> I think you can do them both through one
126:37 >> I think you can do them both through one fail swoop. Um um you can take a vote on
126:40 fail swoop. Um um you can take a vote on the PUD first would probably be my
126:42 the PUD first would probably be my preference. Um and then the conditions
126:44 preference. Um and then the conditions can apply to both. Do that.
126:48 can apply to both. Do that. So, two votes. Sure.
126:52 So, two votes. Sure. So just start with PUD then.
126:55 So just start with PUD then. >> Okay. So how do how do we want to make
126:57 >> Okay. So how do how do we want to make that motion?
127:03 >> My suggestion uh commissioners is take a vote on the PUD and then subject to the
127:05 vote on the PUD and then subject to the conditions as described in
127:08 conditions as described in >> so so the conditions themselves are for
127:09 >> so so the conditions themselves are for the PUD not for the subdivision
127:12 the PUD not for the subdivision because it to me it looks like these
127:14 because it to me it looks like these these approval criteria
127:17 these approval criteria are for both. They're mixed.
127:30 make one super motion >> and I'm sorry for the confusion. Um,
127:32 >> and I'm sorry for the confusion. Um, let's just have the conditions apply to
127:34 let's just have the conditions apply to both and I'll farad it out on the back
127:36 both and I'll farad it out on the back end in the in the final report.
127:38 end in the in the final report. >> All right.
127:39 >> All right. >> So, take a take a motion on the PUB
127:41 >> So, take a take a motion on the PUB first subject to the conditions as
127:43 first subject to the conditions as described in the motion on the
127:44 described in the motion on the subdivision.
127:45 subdivision. >> Then the following.
127:46 >> Then the following. >> Does that work?
127:47 >> Does that work? >> Okay. Thank you. Uh let's see if we can
127:50 >> Okay. Thank you. Uh let's see if we can try this. This might need some
127:52 try this. This might need some amendment. I make a motion to approve uh
127:55 amendment. I make a motion to approve uh the Harvest Meadows PUB
128:00 the Harvest Meadows PUB file number PUD25-2
128:04 file number PUD25-2 finding that it meets the approval
128:05 finding that it meets the approval criteria in Postf Falls Municipal Code
128:07 criteria in Postf Falls Municipal Code and I'm assuming that's uh section
128:09 and I'm assuming that's uh section 17.12.060
128:12 17.12.060 060.
128:14 060. And as outlined here in our
128:15 And as outlined here in our deliberation, subject to the conditions
128:19 deliberation, subject to the conditions that will be
128:21 that will be introduced in the related subdivision
128:29 and uh and contained in the staff report and direct staff to prepare a written
128:32 and direct staff to prepare a written reasoned decision.
128:43 I second >> and a second.
128:44 >> and a second. >> Do we do we need to amend any of those
128:47 >> Do we do we need to amend any of those conditions?
128:48 conditions? >> We're going to amend them
128:49 >> We're going to amend them >> with the subdivision.
128:50 >> with the subdivision. >> The subdivision.
128:52 >> The subdivision. >> Okay. Since they're going to be for
128:53 >> Okay. Since they're going to be for both, do we need to amend them for both?
128:56 both, do we need to amend them for both? >> They're going to be amended here in a
128:58 >> They're going to be amended here in a moment.
128:58 moment. >> Okay.
128:59 >> Okay. >> Commissioner, I think we'll go through
129:00 >> Commissioner, I think we'll go through them and make the amendments and apply
129:01 them and make the amendments and apply them to both.
129:02 them to both. >> Okay. So,
129:03 >> Okay. So, >> unless you want to go through them
129:04 >> unless you want to go through them twice.
129:05 twice. >> No.
129:08 >> No. >> Okay. I have a motion and a second on
129:10 >> Okay. I have a motion and a second on the PUD. Can we have roll call, please?
129:12 the PUD. Can we have roll call, please? >> Carrie,
129:13 >> Carrie, >> yes. Kimble,
129:14 >> yes. Kimble, >> yes.
129:15 >> yes. >> Stephenson,
129:16 >> Stephenson, >> yes.
129:16 >> yes. >> Schlottower,
129:17 >> Schlottower, >> yeah.
129:18 >> yeah. >> Shriber,
129:18 >> Shriber, >> yes.
129:19 >> yes. >> Wilhham,
129:19 >> Wilhham, >> yes.
129:20 >> yes. >> Okay. Motion is approved.
129:27 >> Okay. You want me to take a shot at this this with the amendments?
129:28 this with the amendments? >> Yes, please.
129:30 >> Yes, please. I move to approve
129:34 I move to approve Harvest Meadow subdivision file number
129:37 Harvest Meadow subdivision file number SUBDD-25-4
129:42 finding that it meets the approval criteria in Post Falls municipal code
129:44 criteria in Post Falls municipal code 17.12.060
129:50 and as outlined in our deliberation subject to the conditions
129:53 subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Those
129:54 contained in the staff report. Those conditions are conditions 1 through 12.
129:58 conditions are conditions 1 through 12. We are amending
130:00 We are amending uh with the amendments to condition
130:03 uh with the amendments to condition number three. Condition number three is
130:05 number three. Condition number three is the proposed subdivision must be
130:06 the proposed subdivision must be completed in three phases or less. Uh
130:09 completed in three phases or less. Uh we'd like to add to that
130:12 we'd like to add to that what was the recommended wording there
130:14 what was the recommended wording there again because that one I didn't write
130:15 again because that one I didn't write down. Sorry.
130:16 down. Sorry. >> I think phases one and two are completed
130:19 >> I think phases one and two are completed fully completed including the common
130:20 fully completed including the common area before three. Is that correct?
130:22 area before three. Is that correct? >> Yes sir.
130:23 >> Yes sir. >> Okay. So phase phase one and two are com
130:26 >> Okay. So phase phase one and two are com are fully completed prior to
130:28 are fully completed prior to commencement on phase three.
130:31 commencement on phase three. >> Well one and two with common areas
130:34 >> Well one and two with common areas >> common one and two with common areas.
130:37 >> common one and two with common areas. >> Uh condition number 4A
130:40 >> Uh condition number 4A and this is in regards to the reduction
130:42 and this is in regards to the reduction in minimum lot size from 4,000 to 2,000
130:44 in minimum lot size from 4,000 to 2,000 foot. Simply going to change that from
130:47 foot. Simply going to change that from not to exceed 7.3 lots per acre. We're
130:50 not to exceed 7.3 lots per acre. We're gonna change that to not to exceed 85
130:53 gonna change that to not to exceed 85 lots not including the common tracks.
130:57 lots not including the common tracks. Okay. Uh see
131:00 Okay. Uh see the last one is condition number 11
131:05 the last one is condition number 11 and we're amending condition number 11
131:07 and we're amending condition number 11 to read as the homeowners association
131:09 to read as the homeowners association for the project shall be required to
131:12 for the project shall be required to maintain all common areas including
131:14 maintain all common areas including rightofway frontage adjacent to open
131:16 rightofway frontage adjacent to open space tracks.
131:18 space tracks. private roads, streets, and alleyways,
131:22 private roads, streets, and alleyways, including paving, landscaping,
131:24 including paving, landscaping, irrigation, and snow removal, and
131:28 irrigation, and snow removal, and provide a funding mechanism for capital
131:31 provide a funding mechanism for capital repair replacement in the future.
131:37 And I think that's it. Are we going to add a play structure or not?
131:45 >> I would like that. >> Let's add that as condition 13.
131:52 That developer shall include a play structure in one of the common area open
131:56 structure in one of the common area open space tracks.
131:59 space tracks. >> Okay.
132:01 >> Okay. >> Okay. We have a second
132:02 >> Okay. We have a second >> motion and a second. Roll call, please.
132:05 >> motion and a second. Roll call, please. >> Carrie,
132:06 >> Carrie, >> yes. Kimble,
132:07 >> yes. Kimble, >> yes.
132:09 >> yes. >> Stephenson,
132:09 >> Stephenson, >> yes.
132:10 >> yes. >> Sean Hower,
132:11 >> Sean Hower, >> yes.
132:12 >> yes. >> Shriber,
132:12 >> Shriber, >> yes.
132:13 >> yes. >> Wilham,
132:13 >> Wilham, >> yes.
132:14 >> yes. >> All right, that is approved.
132:18 >> All right, that is approved. All right, we're going to take five
132:20 All right, we're going to take five minutes. We've been going at it for over
132:23 minutes. We've been going at it for over two hours now.
132:25 two hours now. You got to
138:37 Call the meeting back to order. Next on the agenda tonight, uh, public
138:39 Next on the agenda tonight, uh, public hearing for Echo Estates and
138:55 Good evening, planning commission. My name is Justin Souder, and tonight we
138:57 name is Justin Souder, and tonight we have the Echo Estates annexation file
139:00 have the Echo Estates annexation file number A NX-24-5.
139:08 The property owner is Eagle Crest Land LLC and the applicant is Olsson
139:09 LLC and the applicant is Olsson Engineering. And the applicant is
139:11 Engineering. And the applicant is requesting that the planning and zoning
139:14 requesting that the planning and zoning commission forward a recommendation to
139:16 commission forward a recommendation to the city council for a medium density
139:18 the city council for a medium density residential zoning on approximately 9.72
139:22 residential zoning on approximately 9.72 acres as part of an annexation request
139:24 acres as part of an annexation request into the city of Post Falls.
139:27 into the city of Post Falls. And again, this is just a forward
139:29 And again, this is just a forward recommendation to the city council. So
139:31 recommendation to the city council. So there will not actually be a decision on
139:32 there will not actually be a decision on it tonight. Just so everyone knows,
139:36 it tonight. Just so everyone knows, here is the project location. In the red
139:39 here is the project location. In the red square here, you can see it is just
139:41 square here, you can see it is just north of Echo Drive. We have Maguire
139:44 north of Echo Drive. We have Maguire Road right here running north and south.
139:47 Road right here running north and south. And then we have Corbin Road over here.
139:50 And then we have Corbin Road over here. And then it's at the terminus of
139:52 And then it's at the terminus of Okonogan Avenue, which this is the
139:54 Okonogan Avenue, which this is the Gabrio Estates right here. So hopefully
139:57 Gabrio Estates right here. So hopefully that gives you an idea of where we're
139:59 that gives you an idea of where we're talking about.
140:01 talking about. As you can see here in the black hatch
140:04 As you can see here in the black hatch square, this property does not have a
140:07 square, this property does not have a zoning designation at this time. And the
140:10 zoning designation at this time. And the properties to the north, south, and the
140:12 properties to the north, south, and the west are all within the county. There's
140:14 west are all within the county. There's also some properties to the east that
140:16 also some properties to the east that are within the county. And then again,
140:18 are within the county. And then again, we have the Gabrio Estates, which is R1
140:21 we have the Gabrio Estates, which is R1 single family residential.
140:23 single family residential. We also have some R2 medium residential
140:26 We also have some R2 medium residential to the northeast of this property site.
140:28 to the northeast of this property site. And the applicant again is requesting
140:30 And the applicant again is requesting that their property would also have a
140:32 that their property would also have a zoning designation of R2.
140:42 Uh go back one second here. If you can see it is actually two different
140:43 see it is actually two different parcels. There's one parcel here and
140:46 parcels. There's one parcel here and then this is another parcel.
140:53 So currently each lot is being used for a single family home. It is over the
140:55 a single family home. It is over the Wrath Drum Prairie aquifer. The uh east
140:59 Wrath Drum Prairie aquifer. The uh east east greenacres irrigation district will
141:01 east greenacres irrigation district will supply the water and the city of Post
141:03 supply the water and the city of Post Falls will provide the waste water. We
141:05 Falls will provide the waste water. We have adequate capacity. We also have a
141:08 have adequate capacity. We also have a will serve letter from the irrigation
141:10 will serve letter from the irrigation district. As far as traffic, Echo Drive
141:13 district. As far as traffic, Echo Drive is a local residential roadway and
141:15 is a local residential roadway and additional rights of way and easements
141:17 additional rights of way and easements would need to be provided as part of the
141:19 would need to be provided as part of the annexation.
141:27 There are here is the review criteria for a zone change. There's three of
141:29 for a zone change. There's three of them. We'll start with one. So, is the
141:31 them. We'll start with one. So, is the proposed zoning district consistent with
141:33 proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map and focus area
141:36 the future land use map and focus area contained in the currently adopted
141:38 contained in the currently adopted postfalls comprehensive plan?
141:41 postfalls comprehensive plan? Here we on the left we have a graphic of
141:45 Here we on the left we have a graphic of the future land use designation. It is
141:47 the future land use designation. It is medium density residential. That is
141:50 medium density residential. That is exactly what the applicant is requesting
141:51 exactly what the applicant is requesting as well. It is also within the west
141:54 as well. It is also within the west prairie focused area. That's the graphic
141:56 prairie focused area. That's the graphic on the right. And the proposed um
141:59 on the right. And the proposed um annexation. This area in the focus area
142:01 annexation. This area in the focus area is expected to develop as some portion
142:04 is expected to develop as some portion of residential. So the zoning request is
142:06 of residential. So the zoning request is also uh consistent with the focus area.
142:10 also uh consistent with the focus area. As we can see here, the implementing
142:12 As we can see here, the implementing zoning districts are R2, R3, RM, and
142:15 zoning districts are R2, R3, RM, and SC4. And so R2 falls within that area.
142:20 SC4. And so R2 falls within that area. planning manager John is actually going
142:22 planning manager John is actually going to talk a little more about the future
142:24 to talk a little more about the future land use designation and specifically
142:26 land use designation and specifically this area of town.
142:28 this area of town. >> Yeah. So back when we did the comp plan
142:31 >> Yeah. So back when we did the comp plan in 2020 we did look we had a special
142:34 in 2020 we did look we had a special workshop. This is one of those areas. We
142:35 workshop. This is one of those areas. We had three areas. This is one of them. So
142:38 had three areas. This is one of them. So we took into consideration and I have
142:41 we took into consideration and I have highlighted up there the medium density
142:42 highlighted up there the medium density trailer park. You got to the west you
142:45 trailer park. You got to the west you have the commercial industrial corridor
142:47 have the commercial industrial corridor along Seltis Way and then you also have
142:50 along Seltis Way and then you also have a Meuire on the east side. You got a mix
142:53 a Meuire on the east side. You got a mix of you got the LDS church, you got a
142:55 of you got the LDS church, you got a multif family site, you have some
142:56 multif family site, you have some industrial facilities. I think you have
142:58 industrial facilities. I think you have an auto auction yard out there. And so
143:02 an auto auction yard out there. And so what we looked at is how does this
143:04 what we looked at is how does this transition when you trans go going 20
143:08 transition when you trans go going 20 years in the future? If you're planning
143:09 years in the future? If you're planning 20 years out in the comprehensive plan
143:10 20 years out in the comprehensive plan and this area is in our exclusive tier
143:12 and this area is in our exclusive tier and you're making some base assumptions
143:15 and you're making some base assumptions that this more than likely is going to
143:18 that this more than likely is going to evolve in time and has an increased
143:20 evolve in time and has an increased likelihood of having annexation
143:21 likelihood of having annexation requests,
143:23 requests, how would you transition away from those
143:26 how would you transition away from those uses on Seltis Way going northbound
143:29 uses on Seltis Way going northbound towards the railroad tracks? And so the
143:32 towards the railroad tracks? And so the concept through the workshop that we did
143:34 concept through the workshop that we did through that public outreach is what you
143:35 through that public outreach is what you see there is that you'd have that
143:38 see there is that you'd have that business commercial along the north side
143:40 business commercial along the north side of Selttheast way. That's that pink. And
143:43 of Selttheast way. That's that pink. And then you would mitigate some of those
143:45 then you would mitigate some of those impacts with the R3
143:50 impacts with the R3 not the R3 the higher density
143:53 not the R3 the higher density zoning designation and in transition to
143:56 zoning designation and in transition to the medium density zoning designation.
143:58 the medium density zoning designation. And then that blue that you see there,
144:00 And then that blue that you see there, that's a that transitional use because
144:02 that's a that transitional use because it's unknown how and what would may be
144:04 it's unknown how and what would may be developed in that medium density or in
144:08 developed in that medium density or in the higher density. And then then once
144:09 the higher density. And then then once it does, you give you an insight on how
144:11 it does, you give you an insight on how that may transition to the railroad
144:14 that may transition to the railroad corridor. But just wanted to give you a
144:17 corridor. But just wanted to give you a little bit of h how the current
144:19 little bit of h how the current condition is and why it's there as part
144:21 condition is and why it's there as part of this uh request.
144:33 Moving on to the second review criteria which states is the proposed zoning
144:35 which states is the proposed zoning district consistent with the goals and
144:37 district consistent with the goals and policies contained in the current
144:39 policies contained in the current adopted postfalls comprehensive plan
144:41 adopted postfalls comprehensive plan that are relevant to the area under
144:43 that are relevant to the area under consideration. So the product site is
144:45 consideration. So the product site is within the West Prairie focus area which
144:48 within the West Prairie focus area which is called out in our current
144:49 is called out in our current comprehensive plan and as an area for
144:52 comprehensive plan and as an area for future mixed residential uses between
144:54 future mixed residential uses between Meuire Road and Corbin Road.
144:56 Meuire Road and Corbin Road. Specifically, this project site falls
144:58 Specifically, this project site falls right in between those. The annexation
145:00 right in between those. The annexation request is consistent with goal one of
145:02 request is consistent with goal one of the comprehensive plan which seeks to
145:05 the comprehensive plan which seeks to grow and sustain a balanced resilient
145:07 grow and sustain a balanced resilient economy for Postf Falls providing
145:09 economy for Postf Falls providing community prosperity and fiscal health.
145:12 community prosperity and fiscal health. So the R2 zone can deliver attainable
145:15 So the R2 zone can deliver attainable housing choices in the form of cottage
145:17 housing choices in the form of cottage homes, tiny homes, twin homes, or town
145:20 homes, tiny homes, twin homes, or town homes. Diversifying the housing stock
145:22 homes. Diversifying the housing stock within Postf Falls and diversifying the
145:25 within Postf Falls and diversifying the housing stock may assist in sustaining a
145:27 housing stock may assist in sustaining a balanced and resilient economy for Postf
145:30 balanced and resilient economy for Postf Falls. The recent 2025 housing needs
145:33 Falls. The recent 2025 housing needs analysis report encourages the
145:34 analysis report encourages the diversification of housing types to meet
145:37 diversification of housing types to meet community needs.
145:40 community needs. And then there are also several factors
145:41 And then there are also several factors that need to be considered when applying
145:43 that need to be considered when applying a new zone designation and these are
145:45 a new zone designation and these are outlined in policy 2. So we need to
145:48 outlined in policy 2. So we need to consider future land use mapping,
145:50 consider future land use mapping, compatibility with surrounding land
145:51 compatibility with surrounding land uses, infrastructure and service plans,
145:54 uses, infrastructure and service plans, existing and future traffic patterns and
145:56 existing and future traffic patterns and goals and policies of the comprehensive
145:58 goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. We've already touched on the fact
146:00 plan. We've already touched on the fact that the pro proposed zoning designation
146:03 that the pro proposed zoning designation is consistent with the future land use
146:05 is consistent with the future land use designation and is compatible with some
146:08 designation and is compatible with some of the surrounding land uses. And now
146:10 of the surrounding land uses. And now we're going through the goals and
146:11 we're going through the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. As
146:13 policies of the comprehensive plan. As far as infrastructure, sanitary sewer is
146:16 far as infrastructure, sanitary sewer is within Okonagan Avenue and is within a
146:19 within Okonagan Avenue and is within a shared sewer service basin that allows
146:22 shared sewer service basin that allows flows to collect to the closest lift
146:23 flows to collect to the closest lift station. In this case, that would be the
146:25 station. In this case, that would be the Montro lift station, which has capacity
146:28 Montro lift station, which has capacity for the requested zone and is in
146:30 for the requested zone and is in conformance with the city's water
146:32 conformance with the city's water reclamation plan. For future traffic
146:35 reclamation plan. For future traffic patterns, a future subdivision would
146:37 patterns, a future subdivision would have access via Echo Drive, which is
146:40 have access via Echo Drive, which is again south to the project site, and
146:42 again south to the project site, and then to the east to Gabrio Estates
146:44 then to the east to Gabrio Estates through Okonogan Avenue. That would
146:47 through Okonogan Avenue. That would provide access to Maguire. And then from
146:49 provide access to Maguire. And then from Echo Estate, from Echo Drive, you could
146:51 Echo Estate, from Echo Drive, you could get to Corbin off to the west or to
146:53 get to Corbin off to the west or to Maguire to the east. And Echo Drive
146:56 Maguire to the east. And Echo Drive would be designed based on a local
146:58 would be designed based on a local residential collector standard, which
147:00 residential collector standard, which means additional rights of way of
147:02 means additional rights of way of dedication would be required with the
147:04 dedication would be required with the annexation, and that would be for
147:06 annexation, and that would be for sidewalks, drainage, and utility
147:08 sidewalks, drainage, and utility easements.
147:14 The annexation request is also consistent with goal seven of the
147:15 consistent with goal seven of the comprehensive plan which seeks to
147:18 comprehensive plan which seeks to establish types and quantities of land
147:20 establish types and quantities of land uses and postfalls supporting community
147:22 uses and postfalls supporting community needs and the city's long-term sust and
147:25 needs and the city's long-term sust and the city's long-term sustainability.
147:27 the city's long-term sustainability. So, the R2 land use designation may help
147:30 So, the R2 land use designation may help with community needs and long-term
147:31 with community needs and long-term sustainability by providing the
147:33 sustainability by providing the different housing types we talked about
147:35 different housing types we talked about and that are discussed in the housing
147:36 and that are discussed in the housing needs report as well as policy 15 here
147:39 needs report as well as policy 15 here in the comprehensive plan. And that all
147:42 in the comprehensive plan. And that all encourages the diversification of the
147:43 encourages the diversification of the housing.
147:46 housing. Annexation of the subject site with the
147:47 Annexation of the subject site with the zoning request would help provide land
147:49 zoning request would help provide land for future housing needs, the medium
147:51 for future housing needs, the medium density residential in an area that is
147:54 density residential in an area that is projected to be annexed into the city.
147:57 projected to be annexed into the city. Upon subdivision development, roadway
147:59 Upon subdivision development, roadway and pedestrian improvements would be
148:01 and pedestrian improvements would be required and completed, allowing for the
148:03 required and completed, allowing for the continuity of roadways and help create
148:06 continuity of roadways and help create further pedestrian connections through
148:07 further pedestrian connections through sidewalks and trails, which is also
148:10 sidewalks and trails, which is also encouraged here by policy 33.
148:19 The final review criteria is does the proposed zoning district create a
148:20 proposed zoning district create a demonstrable adverse impact upon the
148:22 demonstrable adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political
148:24 delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public service
148:27 subdivision providing public service within the city and there have been no
148:29 within the city and there have been no identified demonstrable adverse impacts
148:31 identified demonstrable adverse impacts upon the delivery of services at this
148:34 upon the delivery of services at this time.
148:38 Here's a list of the agencies that were notified
148:40 notified and we received comments back from four
148:42 and we received comments back from four agencies. They were either remain
148:45 agencies. They were either remain neutral or comment at time of
148:47 neutral or comment at time of development or had no comments.
148:53 Here's that review criteria once more just for your reference.
148:56 just for your reference. And then finally, the site itself. And
148:58 And then finally, the site itself. And then just as uh I want to mention again
149:00 then just as uh I want to mention again that the recommendation tonight will be
149:03 that the recommendation tonight will be sent to city council for further
149:04 sent to city council for further deliberation and a final decision. So
149:08 deliberation and a final decision. So that concludes my presentation. I'm
149:10 that concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer questions and John
149:12 available to answer questions and John can also help answer any questions.
149:15 can also help answer any questions. >> Is there any other land out there that's
149:16 >> Is there any other land out there that's pending city council annexation or I
149:20 pending city council annexation or I feel like we've seen a bunch of stuff
149:22 feel like we've seen a bunch of stuff out there.
149:23 out there. >> Midway that far. Is it north?
149:25 >> Midway that far. Is it north? >> It just had Painted Rock recently.
149:28 >> It just had Painted Rock recently. >> Yeah. Midway
149:28 >> Yeah. Midway >> which is on the corner of Midway and
149:30 >> which is on the corner of Midway and Magguire.
149:31 Magguire. >> Correct.
149:31 >> Correct. >> And then to the west of that was Lingar.
149:34 >> And then to the west of that was Lingar. >> It's right above the word Midway. That
149:35 >> It's right above the word Midway. That was Lingar.
149:36 was Lingar. >> Both R2.
149:38 >> Both R2. >> Painted Rock was R2.
149:39 >> Painted Rock was R2. >> Yes. Yep.
149:41 >> Yes. Yep. >> Okay.
149:43 >> Okay. I I just couldn't remember off the top
149:44 I I just couldn't remember off the top of my head.
149:44 of my head. >> Yeah. Gabriel Estates there. Well, you
149:47 >> Yeah. Gabriel Estates there. Well, you weren't here then for John.
149:50 weren't here then for John. >> Gabriel Estates went before city council
149:52 >> Gabriel Estates went before city council for R2 and they got turned down I think
149:55 for R2 and they got turned down I think twi I think twice.
149:57 twi I think twice. >> I think they came to DNZ. They got
150:00 >> I think they came to DNZ. They got forwarded a zoning recommendation of R2.
150:03 forwarded a zoning recommendation of R2. Right.
150:04 Right. >> When it went to city council they
150:05 >> When it went to city council they approved it as an R1.
150:07 approved it as an R1. >> R1.
150:09 >> R1. Correct.
150:10 Correct. >> Then they came in with for a reasonzone,
150:12 >> Then they came in with for a reasonzone, right? For a portion they but they
150:13 right? For a portion they but they didn't go they didn't got what they
150:15 didn't go they didn't got what they withdrew. They were going to there was
150:17 withdrew. They were going to there was three lots that was adjacent to that's
150:19 three lots that was adjacent to that's right
150:20 right >> the northern R2 that they were wanting
150:22 >> the northern R2 that they were wanting to they were desiring or contemplating
150:25 to they were desiring or contemplating going to R2 and they decided not to
150:27 going to R2 and they decided not to pursue that any further.
150:30 pursue that any further. >> So it started R2 here ended up R1 on G
150:34 >> So it started R2 here ended up R1 on G >> ultimately.
150:35 >> ultimately. >> Yeah.
150:36 >> Yeah. >> So lots going on. So, the two up up on
150:38 >> So lots going on. So, the two up up on Midway where they're waiting to go
150:40 Midway where they're waiting to go before council.
150:41 before council. >> No, they've been approved.
150:42 >> No, they've been approved. >> They were approved
150:42 >> They were approved >> at at R2.
150:45 >> at at R2. >> Cool. Thank you.
150:55 Okay. Thank you. Invite the applicant up.
151:08 Good evening, commissioners. Jeremy Truzulli. I'm a land use consultant uh
151:10 Truzulli. I'm a land use consultant uh collaborating with Olsson Engineering
151:12 collaborating with Olsson Engineering this evening on behalf of Ryan Stoker um
151:16 this evening on behalf of Ryan Stoker um Eaglerest Land LLC.
151:20 Eaglerest Land LLC. I felt that the staff report was
151:22 I felt that the staff report was incredibly comprehensive and for this
151:25 incredibly comprehensive and for this recommendation to city council is uh
151:27 recommendation to city council is uh only for the zoning designation. Um, but
151:32 only for the zoning designation. Um, but I'm going to go over and give you a
151:33 I'm going to go over and give you a little background towards the end here,
151:35 little background towards the end here, um, on how we arrived here and invite
151:37 um, on how we arrived here and invite some discussion and that'll explain
151:40 some discussion and that'll explain itself when I get to that point. Um, the
151:43 itself when I get to that point. Um, the three very more or less simple yes or no
151:46 three very more or less simple yes or no questions uh, with regard to our review
151:49 questions uh, with regard to our review criteria. Um, is the proposal consistent
151:53 criteria. Um, is the proposal consistent with the future land use map um, and the
151:56 with the future land use map um, and the focus area?
151:58 focus area? It's relatively simple to answer. Um
152:02 It's relatively simple to answer. Um Oh, you don't have a presentation.
152:05 Oh, you don't have a presentation. Perfect. Thank you. Um
152:10 Perfect. Thank you. Um so the property designation in the
152:13 so the property designation in the future land use map is R2 um or rather
152:16 future land use map is R2 um or rather is medium density residential. R2 is an
152:19 is medium density residential. R2 is an appropriate implementing zoning
152:20 appropriate implementing zoning district. And then future guidance is
152:23 district. And then future guidance is usually uh in the focus area which again
152:27 usually uh in the focus area which again a lot of this is just redundant from the
152:29 a lot of this is just redundant from the staff report so I'll move very quickly.
152:30 staff report so I'll move very quickly. The focus area we're down there in the
152:33 The focus area we're down there in the southeast corner of the west prairie. Um
152:36 southeast corner of the west prairie. Um this is kind of I did bring the proposal
152:39 this is kind of I did bring the proposal midway about an eighth of a mile north
152:41 midway about an eighth of a mile north of this a couple of months ago. So this
152:44 of this a couple of months ago. So this presentation is very much a carbon copy
152:46 presentation is very much a carbon copy of that because we're so incredibly
152:48 of that because we're so incredibly close. The West Perry focus area uh that
152:52 close. The West Perry focus area uh that applies to this request is highlighted
152:54 applies to this request is highlighted here in yellow. That mixed residential
152:56 here in yellow. That mixed residential is envisioned between Maguire and Corbin
152:58 is envisioned between Maguire and Corbin Road. Uh putting some of those higher
153:01 Road. Uh putting some of those higher densities near the commercial corridors
153:02 densities near the commercial corridors in Arterial. And as we're shifting
153:05 in Arterial. And as we're shifting further south towards that Seltis
153:07 further south towards that Seltis corridor, you would anticipate that the
153:09 corridor, you would anticipate that the densities would get a little higher down
153:11 densities would get a little higher down there. And as the staff report pointed
153:13 there. And as the staff report pointed out, perhaps even some medium to high
153:16 out, perhaps even some medium to high density to buffer between single family
153:19 density to buffer between single family residences and those
153:20 residences and those commercial/industrial uses. So we think
153:23 commercial/industrial uses. So we think that this uh aligns
153:26 that this uh aligns uh seamlessly with the comprehensive
153:28 uh seamlessly with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map as well
153:29 plan and the future land use map as well as the focus area.
153:32 as the focus area. And then the comp plan does talk about
153:35 And then the comp plan does talk about adjacent areas and neighboring
153:37 adjacent areas and neighboring properties. Um, if you do look at the
153:39 properties. Um, if you do look at the Montro subdivision, it's very close to
153:42 Montro subdivision, it's very close to here. Um, Okonagan has become sort of an
153:44 here. Um, Okonagan has become sort of an extension. Um, as we're seeing some of
153:47 extension. Um, as we're seeing some of that medium density residential develop
153:49 that medium density residential develop out Midway. Um, some of you guys did ask
153:54 out Midway. Um, some of you guys did ask about that. Those were both the one the
153:56 about that. Those were both the one the painted rock and the one that I
153:57 painted rock and the one that I presented were both approved R2. Um and
154:01 presented were both approved R2. Um and there were a couple of guardrails put on
154:03 there were a couple of guardrails put on by city council uh that they would
154:05 by city council uh that they would remain single family residences up there
154:08 remain single family residences up there which was all agreed to. So this same
154:11 which was all agreed to. So this same pattern is kind of uh working its way in
154:14 pattern is kind of uh working its way in this little uh odd shape between the
154:17 this little uh odd shape between the tracks Corbin and Maguire.
154:21 tracks Corbin and Maguire. Um in the staff report uh they did point
154:24 Um in the staff report uh they did point out goals and policies that I also
154:26 out goals and policies that I also agreed with. Uh, one thing I did notice
154:28 agreed with. Uh, one thing I did notice in the staff report regarding policy 38
154:32 in the staff report regarding policy 38 is that their staff comment points out
154:34 is that their staff comment points out that per the Westbury focus area of the
154:37 that per the Westbury focus area of the comp plan, the infrastructure to support
154:38 comp plan, the infrastructure to support urban development is mostly not in place
154:41 urban development is mostly not in place at this time, but has been planned for
154:43 at this time, but has been planned for since the most recent comp plan update.
154:46 since the most recent comp plan update. Um, as staff did clarify, this actual
154:49 Um, as staff did clarify, this actual area here south of the tracks um is
154:52 area here south of the tracks um is adequately served by uh city
154:55 adequately served by uh city infrastructure. So, I think the comp
154:57 infrastructure. So, I think the comp plan speaks more to the West Prairie
154:59 plan speaks more to the West Prairie Focus area um along Pleasant View, which
155:02 Focus area um along Pleasant View, which is very true. North of the tracks, we
155:04 is very true. North of the tracks, we have no pipe in the ground out there and
155:07 have no pipe in the ground out there and uh the infrastructure is not available
155:09 uh the infrastructure is not available at this time.
155:12 at this time. Impact and delivery of services. No. Um
155:15 Impact and delivery of services. No. Um dozens of agencies are notified during
155:18 dozens of agencies are notified during this process and and no demonstrable
155:20 this process and and no demonstrable adverse impacts were noted. Um, so what
155:24 adverse impacts were noted. Um, so what I wanted to point out and and allude to
155:27 I wanted to point out and and allude to was there was a subdivision that was
155:30 was there was a subdivision that was applied for concurrently with this
155:31 applied for concurrently with this annexation.
155:33 annexation. Um,
155:35 Um, our developer has developed all around
155:38 our developer has developed all around the community these little five and 10
155:40 the community these little five and 10 acre infill pieces, uh, adjacent pieces.
155:43 acre infill pieces, uh, adjacent pieces. They're kind of his bread and butter. He
155:45 They're kind of his bread and butter. He does them very well. He's provided a lot
155:48 does them very well. He's provided a lot of different uh lot sizes, a lot of
155:50 of different uh lot sizes, a lot of different final housing products all
155:52 different final housing products all throughout this community. Um,
155:56 throughout this community. Um, and his thought after meeting with many
155:59 and his thought after meeting with many of the neighbors, and he did go out and
156:00 of the neighbors, and he did go out and knock on a bunch of doors, um, they
156:04 knock on a bunch of doors, um, they thought bigger lots was, uh, what they
156:06 thought bigger lots was, uh, what they would prefer if this was to get annexed.
156:09 would prefer if this was to get annexed. Um, and then John and I got talking and
156:14 Um, and then John and I got talking and we kind of agreed that
156:18 we kind of agreed that we would sort of have to invert all of
156:20 we would sort of have to invert all of the arguments I made for the Midway
156:22 the arguments I made for the Midway project to ask for an R1 zoning
156:25 project to ask for an R1 zoning designation and ultimately it is not in
156:28 designation and ultimately it is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan
156:30 conformance with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. Although
156:33 and the future land use map. Although Mr. Stoker said I'd be fine with R1. I
156:37 Mr. Stoker said I'd be fine with R1. I can make eight, nine, t, thousand square
156:39 can make eight, nine, t, thousand square foot lots out here work, but we don't
156:42 foot lots out here work, but we don't want to paint ourselves into a corner,
156:45 want to paint ourselves into a corner, get in front of council and say we uh
156:48 get in front of council and say we uh are doing the will of the neighbors that
156:51 are doing the will of the neighbors that says they would prefer if it is to get
156:55 says they would prefer if it is to get annexed and it if it does get approved
156:57 annexed and it if it does get approved for development, larger lots would be
157:00 for development, larger lots would be something that we would prefer and then
157:02 something that we would prefer and then have city council say, but it's not in
157:05 have city council say, but it's not in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
157:07 conformance with the comprehensive plan. Um, and that's sort of the discussion
157:10 Um, and that's sort of the discussion I'm inviting this evening to see how we
157:15 I'm inviting this evening to see how we how we handle that. We had proposed, I
157:18 how we handle that. We had proposed, I shouldn't say proposed. There are three
157:21 shouldn't say proposed. There are three to four designs currently floating
157:23 to four designs currently floating around with the development team. Some
157:25 around with the development team. Some of them it's all larger lots. Mr. Stoker
157:28 of them it's all larger lots. Mr. Stoker said, "I can make that work, but it's
157:31 said, "I can make that work, but it's not in conformity with the future land
157:33 not in conformity with the future land use map." He said, "Okay, I'd like to do
157:35 use map." He said, "Okay, I'd like to do these twin homes." A concept that's
157:37 these twin homes." A concept that's something nobody else in town is trying.
157:40 something nobody else in town is trying. Um, and most people see twin homes kind
157:42 Um, and most people see twin homes kind of stacked in there like cordwood. Well,
157:45 of stacked in there like cordwood. Well, except between structures. He's
157:47 except between structures. He's proposing
157:48 proposing 15 foot side, no, sorry, 30 feet between
157:52 15 foot side, no, sorry, 30 feet between structures. So, yes, 15 foot sideyard
157:54 structures. So, yes, 15 foot sideyard setbacks,
157:56 setbacks, deeper lots so that half of a twin home
158:00 deeper lots so that half of a twin home could have a shop on that lot. It's a
158:02 could have a shop on that lot. It's a unique idea. Not a whole lot of people
158:04 unique idea. Not a whole lot of people doing it. There's a thought, well, we
158:07 doing it. There's a thought, well, we give up a little bit in the home,
158:08 give up a little bit in the home, meaning it's cheaper to build because
158:10 meaning it's cheaper to build because we're we're building four walls for two
158:14 we're we're building four walls for two residences. Party wall becomes the
158:17 residences. Party wall becomes the property line. You give up a little in
158:19 property line. You give up a little in the home, but maybe you get yourself a
158:21 the home, but maybe you get yourself a little 20 by30 shop in the back. Um,
158:25 little 20 by30 shop in the back. Um, so they're spread out a lot more so that
158:27 so they're spread out a lot more so that you can have a drive aisle that goes all
158:29 you can have a drive aisle that goes all the way back to the shop. And then we
158:31 the way back to the shop. And then we have some hybrid version of both of
158:32 have some hybrid version of both of those. There's a couple versions
158:34 those. There's a couple versions floating around out there.
158:37 floating around out there. Uh my client can make any one of those
158:40 Uh my client can make any one of those or any combination of those work. Um
158:43 or any combination of those work. Um like I said, he's developed all around
158:45 like I said, he's developed all around the city. Um we're looking for feedback.
158:48 the city. Um we're looking for feedback. We're looking to hear what the the uh
158:51 We're looking to hear what the the uh neighbors might want to read into the
158:53 neighbors might want to read into the public record tonight. your discussion
158:55 public record tonight. your discussion could be incredibly helpful as we move
158:57 could be incredibly helpful as we move to council and ask for approval of this,
159:01 to council and ask for approval of this, what the appropriate zoning is and what
159:02 what the appropriate zoning is and what those appropriate guard rails could be.
159:04 those appropriate guard rails could be. And with that, I stand for any
159:06 And with that, I stand for any questions.
159:07 questions. >> Did you say there's no twin homes here?
159:11 >> Did you say there's no twin homes here? Did you say there was no twin homes
159:12 Did you say there was no twin homes here?
159:13 here? >> I'm sorry.
159:14 >> I'm sorry. >> Did you on this proposal?
159:15 >> Did you on this proposal? >> Oh, I thought you said in the area twin
159:17 >> Oh, I thought you said in the area twin homes. There's
159:18 homes. There's >> Oh, no. No. There's twin homes due
159:19 >> Oh, no. No. There's twin homes due north.
159:20 north. >> Yeah.
159:20 >> Yeah. >> Twin homes with a shop, though.
159:22 >> Twin homes with a shop, though. >> Oh.
159:23 >> Oh. That's the unique
159:24 That's the unique >> component. And I kind of turn my head
159:27 >> component. And I kind of turn my head and say I can't think of anywhere where
159:29 and say I can't think of anywhere where somebody
159:30 somebody >> has done a twin home because usually
159:32 >> has done a twin home because usually then they're 10 feet between structure,
159:34 then they're 10 feet between structure, right? And they just stack them up,
159:35 right? And they just stack them up, right?
159:36 right? >> Envision 30 feet between structure with
159:39 >> Envision 30 feet between structure with a 15 foot driveway that goes to the
159:42 a 15 foot driveway that goes to the backyard and then makes a 90 into a
159:44 backyard and then makes a 90 into a shop. And because we're not proposing
159:48 shop. And because we're not proposing the subdivision, I didn't want to muddy
159:49 the subdivision, I didn't want to muddy the waters by bringing those slides, but
159:52 the waters by bringing those slides, but here I am muddying the waters by telling
159:54 here I am muddying the waters by telling you that.
159:55 you that. >> But do but then do you come back later
159:57 >> But do but then do you come back later and go, well, no, we just want to do R2
160:01 and go, well, no, we just want to do R2 multifamily.
160:02 multifamily. >> No, I'm single family. I mean, Mr.
160:05 >> No, I'm single family. I mean, Mr. Stoker is going to speak tonight. Okay.
160:07 Stoker is going to speak tonight. Okay. >> He's got excellent history and
160:09 >> He's got excellent history and development in the city. If the council
160:11 development in the city. If the council says we want these to be owner occupied,
160:14 says we want these to be owner occupied, no problem. Put it in the CCNRs. Um they
160:18 no problem. Put it in the CCNRs. Um they want um single family out here. No
160:21 want um single family out here. No rental units, no duplexes. We're not
160:24 rental units, no duplexes. We're not proposing duplexes. Twin home is not a
160:26 proposing duplexes. Twin home is not a duplex. Each unit can be sold fee simple
160:29 duplex. Each unit can be sold fee simple and get a mortgage on it. All those
160:31 and get a mortgage on it. All those guardrails are on the table. Um, and if
160:34 guardrails are on the table. Um, and if they simply say, "We want standalone
160:37 they simply say, "We want standalone freestanding homes on 9,000 square foot
160:40 freestanding homes on 9,000 square foot lots," he's going to say, "I'm good with
160:42 lots," he's going to say, "I'm good with that as well." We thought, and again,
160:46 that as well." We thought, and again, having done this a bunch in
160:47 having done this a bunch in collaborating with Mr. Manley, it was
160:50 collaborating with Mr. Manley, it was like
160:51 like R1 is not it's it's not in alignment
160:55 R1 is not it's it's not in alignment with the comp plan. Oddly enough, it's a
160:57 with the comp plan. Oddly enough, it's a less intense use, but it does not meet
160:59 less intense use, but it does not meet the the review criteria. It's kind of a
161:02 the the review criteria. It's kind of a weird little pickle to be in,
161:05 weird little pickle to be in, >> if that makes sense.
161:07 >> if that makes sense. >> Well, you can there minimum lot sizes
161:11 >> Well, you can there minimum lot sizes and so you could build an R1 product in
161:14 and so you could build an R1 product in R2, right?
161:15 R2, right? >> We certainly could.
161:16 >> We certainly could. >> So, I don't really see the issue,
161:17 >> So, I don't really see the issue, >> but it was when requesting the zoning
161:19 >> but it was when requesting the zoning designation because my client was like,
161:22 designation because my client was like, "Well, let's just go for R1 then." And
161:25 "Well, let's just go for R1 then." And R1 technically is not. So, we could do
161:28 R1 technically is not. So, we could do R2 and then if it gets approved, he
161:30 R2 and then if it gets approved, he could decide to just go ahead and put 9
161:32 could decide to just go ahead and put 9 10,000 square foot lots. That's
161:34 10,000 square foot lots. That's completely accurate.
161:37 completely accurate. >> Yeah, you don't have to build to the
161:38 >> Yeah, you don't have to build to the maximum density. So,
161:41 maximum density. So, >> if that's really the case, that sounds
161:44 >> if that's really the case, that sounds nice because I see if that turning into
161:47 nice because I see if that turning into R2 multifamilies, all those five acre
161:50 R2 multifamilies, all those five acre lots are just going to fall like
161:52 lots are just going to fall like dominoes.
161:54 dominoes. I wouldn't like to see all that multif
161:56 I wouldn't like to see all that multif family there. We we're proposing zero
161:59 family there. We we're proposing zero multifamily
162:00 multifamily >> and the uh technically you can't do the
162:04 >> and the uh technically you can't do the closest thing you can to get to multif
162:05 closest thing you can to get to multif family is town homes but you can't do
162:07 family is town homes but you can't do multif family in the R2.
162:08 multif family in the R2. >> Town homes are single family attached
162:10 >> Town homes are single family attached product.
162:11 product. >> So we removed multif family as an option
162:14 >> So we removed multif family as an option in R2 I think about three years ago.
162:17 in R2 I think about three years ago. >> Well isn't I mean twin homes Well I
162:20 >> Well isn't I mean twin homes Well I guess it's not you own you own each
162:21 guess it's not you own you own each side.
162:22 side. >> Yep. They're all MLS, single family
162:25 >> Yep. They're all MLS, single family >> owned, zero lot line.
162:26 >> owned, zero lot line. >> Well, feedbackwise, I think you can see
162:29 >> Well, feedbackwise, I think you can see that we
162:31 that we are a little reluctant to exceed the the
162:34 are a little reluctant to exceed the the uh R2 requirements. And so, if you can
162:37 uh R2 requirements. And so, if you can meet or exceed R2 requirements in the
162:39 meet or exceed R2 requirements in the future for a subdivision hearing, I
162:41 future for a subdivision hearing, I think that uh
162:43 think that uh we'll all get along just fine. Yeah, it
162:46 we'll all get along just fine. Yeah, it was the point of if the subdivision was
162:50 was the point of if the subdivision was uh you know adjacent to this
162:53 uh you know adjacent to this application,
162:56 application, city council could say, "Well, this
162:58 city council could say, "Well, this isn't an R2 product that you're
163:00 isn't an R2 product that you're designing in the subdivision and you're
163:02 designing in the subdivision and you're asking for R2." I just trying to be uh
163:06 asking for R2." I just trying to be uh preemptive here and not box ourselves in
163:10 preemptive here and not box ourselves in and get denied on a technicality, I
163:12 and get denied on a technicality, I guess, is what I'm trying to state. Any
163:19 other questions? >> No.
163:21 >> No. >> Thank you.
163:23 >> Thank you. >> Any public testimony?
163:36 >> He doesn't have as many friends. >> I think there was some written
163:38 >> I think there was some written testimony, too, that was submitted
163:39 testimony, too, that was submitted already.
163:41 already. It's in package.
163:42 It's in package. >> Yeah, there was two letters in the
163:43 >> Yeah, there was two letters in the packet.
163:49 Uh, wishing to speak in favor. Ryan Stroker.
164:03 >> Yeah, I'm Ryan Stoker. I live at 224 Eaglerest Drive in Celane. Um, like
164:07 Eaglerest Drive in Celane. Um, like Jeremy said, uh, I went out over a
164:09 Jeremy said, uh, I went out over a couple weekends back in March, April and
164:13 couple weekends back in March, April and tried to meet with as many neighbors as
164:14 tried to meet with as many neighbors as I could. In general, they were, uh, they
164:18 I could. In general, they were, uh, they didn't want any development in the area.
164:20 didn't want any development in the area. Um, I showed them three different
164:23 Um, I showed them three different options. Uh, one was the twin home
164:25 options. Uh, one was the twin home option, and I particularly like the shop
164:28 option, and I particularly like the shop because I'm envisioning when I was
164:30 because I'm envisioning when I was younger, I had toys. I needed a place to
164:33 younger, I had toys. I needed a place to put the toys and the garage just didn't
164:36 put the toys and the garage just didn't work well for that. Um, I also showed
164:39 work well for that. Um, I also showed them single family uh lots, basically
164:42 them single family uh lots, basically about 5,000 square foot lots. I have had
164:45 about 5,000 square foot lots. I have had offers from like Dr. Horton and LAR to
164:48 offers from like Dr. Horton and LAR to purchase those lots. Um, I've told them
164:52 purchase those lots. Um, I've told them no at this time. Um, I've also showed
164:56 no at this time. Um, I've also showed them an option that was 10,000 square
164:58 them an option that was 10,000 square foot lots. What I've primarily done in
165:01 foot lots. What I've primarily done in the past is I have work with about four
165:03 the past is I have work with about four builders that I build larger shop lots
165:07 builders that I build larger shop lots and then sell those lots to them to
165:09 and then sell those lots to them to build on. So some of the subdivisions
165:12 build on. So some of the subdivisions are like um Aerolleaf Estates, Tranquil
165:16 are like um Aerolleaf Estates, Tranquil Meadows, Quiet Ridge, Fair Estates,
165:19 Meadows, Quiet Ridge, Fair Estates, Birdie Glenn, and Ashler Ranch. Um so
165:23 Birdie Glenn, and Ashler Ranch. Um so I'm willing to be flexible. I would
165:26 I'm willing to be flexible. I would wouldn't mind at all doing the 10,000
165:28 wouldn't mind at all doing the 10,000 square foot lots that builds right into
165:30 square foot lots that builds right into my business model, but when I saw this,
165:32 my business model, but when I saw this, I wanted to be compatible with the R2. I
165:35 I wanted to be compatible with the R2. I kind of like the twin homes look of it
165:38 kind of like the twin homes look of it instead of really small single family
165:40 instead of really small single family homes where the market's at today.
165:42 homes where the market's at today. Probably the single family homes end up
165:44 Probably the single family homes end up being better on the small lots. And if I
165:48 being better on the small lots. And if I we were to be approved for that, I would
165:50 we were to be approved for that, I would probably turn and look to sell those
165:53 probably turn and look to sell those lots to somebody like Dr. Horton or
165:55 lots to somebody like Dr. Horton or Lenar, they're going to build um a less
165:59 Lenar, they're going to build um a less expensive home than the semi-custom
166:02 expensive home than the semi-custom builders I normally work with. They're
166:05 builders I normally work with. They're going to be a little higher end on that
166:07 going to be a little higher end on that end. Um I'd like to hear from the
166:09 end. Um I'd like to hear from the neighbors out there what they're looking
166:11 neighbors out there what they're looking for and then if you have any questions
166:13 for and then if you have any questions for me, I'm more than happy to answer.
166:16 for me, I'm more than happy to answer. >> All right. Thank you.
166:17 >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
166:24 >> Melissa Morris. And while she's speaking, she has
166:26 And while she's speaking, she has photos. So, I'll pass this around and
166:27 photos. So, I'll pass this around and all the commission members, you guys can
166:29 all the commission members, you guys can look at that.
166:36 >> Good evening. My name is Melissa Morris. I am here as a resident of Post Falls
166:38 I am here as a resident of Post Falls and an invested citizen who resides at
166:40 and an invested citizen who resides at the terminus of Okonogan Avenue. I also
166:43 the terminus of Okonogan Avenue. I also want to mention no one knocked on my
166:45 want to mention no one knocked on my door. I'm here to formally oppose the
166:48 door. I'm here to formally oppose the proposed annexation and what was
166:51 proposed annexation and what was supposed to be the R2 zoning of the
166:53 supposed to be the R2 zoning of the property adjacent to mine. While I do
166:56 property adjacent to mine. While I do understand the city's need to plan for
166:58 understand the city's need to plan for growth, this proposal fails to meet the
167:00 growth, this proposal fails to meet the standards previously upheld in recent
167:03 standards previously upheld in recent annexations and does not serve the best
167:05 annexations and does not serve the best interest of this particular community.
167:09 interest of this particular community. This annexation lacks the financial
167:11 This annexation lacks the financial upside that justified past approvals. In
167:14 upside that justified past approvals. In the Painted Rock annexation, Council
167:17 the Painted Rock annexation, Council Member Weslin stated, "There is no
167:19 Member Weslin stated, "There is no financial downside, only a financial
167:22 financial downside, only a financial upside because we are not having to
167:24 upside because we are not having to purchase the right of way." This current
167:26 purchase the right of way." This current proposal offers no such infrastructure
167:28 proposal offers no such infrastructure benefit, nor does it align with the
167:31 benefit, nor does it align with the city's stated goals of sustainable
167:33 city's stated goals of sustainable development.
167:35 development. Furthermore, the R2 zoning designation
167:38 Furthermore, the R2 zoning designation raises serious concerns. While
167:40 raises serious concerns. While developers claim R2 zoning supports
167:43 developers claim R2 zoning supports starter homes, the reality is far more
167:45 starter homes, the reality is far more complex. R2 zoning establishes higher
167:49 complex. R2 zoning establishes higher residential density and crowding,
167:51 residential density and crowding, compromising pedestrian safety and
167:53 compromising pedestrian safety and overall walkability.
167:55 overall walkability. I've provided the pictures of the
167:57 I've provided the pictures of the neighboring Wildflower Meadows community
167:59 neighboring Wildflower Meadows community as part of such crowding. In the
168:02 as part of such crowding. In the pictures, you will see streets are
168:03 pictures, you will see streets are narrow because vehicles are parked on
168:05 narrow because vehicles are parked on both sides and sidewalks cannot be
168:08 both sides and sidewalks cannot be utilized because vehicles are parked
168:09 utilized because vehicles are parked there, too. R2 zoning strains public
168:13 there, too. R2 zoning strains public services without demonstrable benefit,
168:16 services without demonstrable benefit, violating the city's own review
168:18 violating the city's own review criteria. I have also provided pictures
168:20 criteria. I have also provided pictures of my own neighborhood in which the city
168:23 of my own neighborhood in which the city will not hold the landowner accountable
168:25 will not hold the landowner accountable for maintaining the vacant lots. I can,
168:28 for maintaining the vacant lots. I can, if requested, provide additional
168:30 if requested, provide additional pictures as proof of the city not
168:32 pictures as proof of the city not holding landers accountable for land
168:35 holding landers accountable for land maintenance immediately outside of my
168:37 maintenance immediately outside of my neighborhood as well. R2 zoning
168:40 neighborhood as well. R2 zoning encourages transient residency,
168:42 encourages transient residency, undermining neighborhood stability and a
168:45 undermining neighborhood stability and a sense of community. When residents cycle
168:47 sense of community. When residents cycle in and out, there is less incentive to
168:50 in and out, there is less incentive to invest in the community, whether that's
168:52 invest in the community, whether that's maintaining property, participating in
168:55 maintaining property, participating in local events, or looking out for one
168:57 local events, or looking out for one another. Over time, this turnover
168:59 another. Over time, this turnover weakens the social fabric. Finally, R2
169:03 weakens the social fabric. Finally, R2 zoning reduces green space and disrupts
169:06 zoning reduces green space and disrupts the rural character of adjacent
169:07 the rural character of adjacent properties. This has been stated by
169:09 properties. This has been stated by postfall citizens time and time again in
169:12 postfall citizens time and time again in similar proposals. I speak from
169:14 similar proposals. I speak from experience. If you were a member of this
169:17 experience. If you were a member of this committee a few years back, you were
169:18 committee a few years back, you were sold a bill of goods by a fast-talking
169:21 sold a bill of goods by a fast-talking developer who made promises to you that
169:23 developer who made promises to you that he couldn't keep. That developer
169:26 he couldn't keep. That developer promised thoughtful development, a
169:28 promised thoughtful development, a boutique community, and an exciting new
169:30 boutique community, and an exciting new development for the city of Post Falls.
169:33 development for the city of Post Falls. Unfortunately, you and the community
169:34 Unfortunately, you and the community received a broken commitment from a
169:36 received a broken commitment from a developer who failed to deliver, a
169:39 developer who failed to deliver, a developer who lied, and a developer who
169:41 developer who lied, and a developer who should be investigated for fraud. We
169:44 should be investigated for fraud. We were told one thing but given another. I
169:47 were told one thing but given another. I urge you not to repeat this mistake. In
169:50 urge you not to repeat this mistake. In a recent city council meeting, council
169:52 a recent city council meeting, council member Stig leader stated, "Experts in
169:55 member Stig leader stated, "Experts in the industry are saying this is
169:56 the industry are saying this is important. Citizens are not speaking up
169:59 important. Citizens are not speaking up for this. Citizen voices are not just
170:02 for this. Citizen voices are not just anecdotal. Citizen voices are essential
170:05 anecdotal. Citizen voices are essential data points in the evaluation of
170:07 data points in the evaluation of community impact. I come to you tonight
170:09 community impact. I come to you tonight as one of many people publicly speaking
170:12 as one of many people publicly speaking up for this and respectfully oppose this
170:15 up for this and respectfully oppose this proposal. I can only hope that you hear
170:17 proposal. I can only hope that you hear citizens tonight. Thank you.
170:19 citizens tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.
170:42 name for the record, please. >> My name is Debbie Vodka. Um, do you need
170:45 >> My name is Debbie Vodka. Um, do you need to know where my house is or
170:48 to know where my house is or >> echo? I'm on echo. So, um, I'm thankful
170:52 >> echo? I'm on echo. So, um, I'm thankful to have the opportunity to speak with
170:53 to have the opportunity to speak with you and I really hope that you do listen
170:56 you and I really hope that you do listen to the public's um, concerns and the
170:59 to the public's um, concerns and the reasons why we oppose this. I been up
171:02 reasons why we oppose this. I been up here before. So, um I think growth is
171:06 here before. So, um I think growth is good for most of the towns if it's done
171:08 good for most of the towns if it's done slowly and with good plans of keeping
171:10 slowly and with good plans of keeping this place a desirable um area to live
171:13 this place a desirable um area to live and raise a family.
171:16 and raise a family. Um we shouldn't have roads that are full
171:18 Um we shouldn't have roads that are full of traffic and water treatment plants
171:21 of traffic and water treatment plants that you can smell for miles away. Um,
171:25 that you can smell for miles away. Um, existing homeowners should not have to
171:28 existing homeowners should not have to reduce
171:30 reduce their val or developers shouldn't have
171:32 their val or developers shouldn't have the ability to reduce our home's value
171:34 the ability to reduce our home's value by overbuilding and kind of building
171:37 by overbuilding and kind of building less quality homes. Our home, our street
171:39 less quality homes. Our home, our street has pretty quality homes on it. Um, I
171:43 has pretty quality homes on it. Um, I think Post Falls is
171:46 think Post Falls is changing too fast. the um
171:50 changing too fast. the um safe, quiet neighborhoods are no longer
171:53 safe, quiet neighborhoods are no longer really out there. Um they're becoming
171:57 really out there. Um they're becoming pretty dangerous with all the traffic
171:59 pretty dangerous with all the traffic and just
172:01 and just people from other um areas moving in. Uh
172:05 people from other um areas moving in. Uh it is still somewhat affordable, I
172:08 it is still somewhat affordable, I think, compared to Washington. I mean, I
172:10 think, compared to Washington. I mean, I have people that I know that are moving
172:11 have people that I know that are moving over here. Um, I think that we have
172:15 over here. Um, I think that we have quite a bit of affordable housing at
172:17 quite a bit of affordable housing at this time, which I know, um,
172:23 this time, which I know, um, the multifamily is considered
172:25 the multifamily is considered affordable, but it's still pretty much
172:27 affordable, but it's still pretty much out of reach for most people that are
172:29 out of reach for most people that are locals and their income isn't what out
172:33 locals and their income isn't what out ofstate people have. Um,
172:36 ofstate people have. Um, it seems developers are just wanting to
172:40 it seems developers are just wanting to make a profit instead of really caring
172:42 make a profit instead of really caring about the area. The the way that they're
172:45 about the area. The the way that they're developing it, it's not looking that
172:47 developing it, it's not looking that great as far as I'm concerned. Um,
172:50 great as far as I'm concerned. Um, anyway, Echo is a very small, narrow
172:53 anyway, Echo is a very small, narrow road. There's no street lights where it
172:56 road. There's no street lights where it intersects with Meuire. It's very
172:58 intersects with Meuire. It's very narrow. There's not room for hardly two
173:00 narrow. There's not room for hardly two cars.
173:02 cars. And so that will not change if this gets
173:05 And so that will not change if this gets approved.
173:06 approved. And there are a lot of people that still
173:09 And there are a lot of people that still walk our street even though we don't
173:11 walk our street even though we don't have sidewalks. But it's because they
173:14 have sidewalks. But it's because they say this is just a nice quiet street.
173:16 say this is just a nice quiet street. It's very um
173:19 It's very um beautiful just because it's not
173:21 beautiful just because it's not overdeveloped and overpop populated. So,
173:24 overdeveloped and overpop populated. So, I would just ask that you consider to
173:26 I would just ask that you consider to keep some of Post Falls
173:28 keep some of Post Falls with uh options for the people that do
173:31 with uh options for the people that do want to have land, that want to come
173:33 want to have land, that want to come here and have animals or grow
173:36 here and have animals or grow gardens, vineyards, whatever. Um the
173:39 gardens, vineyards, whatever. Um the single family homes are probably a
173:42 single family homes are probably a better fit for this um street with some
173:45 better fit for this um street with some goodiz lots because that would um it
173:49 goodiz lots because that would um it would give families that option to have
173:51 would give families that option to have that kind of a home. And once you give
173:53 that kind of a home. And once you give this land away to the hodge podge
173:55 this land away to the hodge podge developers, there's no going back and
173:58 developers, there's no going back and then this area will no longer be a
174:00 then this area will no longer be a desirable place to live. So, thank you.
174:03 desirable place to live. So, thank you. >> Thank you.
174:12 >> See, Barbara Bron Bron
174:14 Bron Bron >> Rono
174:14 >> Rono >> Rancho did you want to speak?
174:17 >> Rancho did you want to speak? Okay, you didn't mark
174:29 >> Thank you for letting me uh voice my concerns. You've seen our property on
174:32 concerns. You've seen our property on multiple um council meetings. We are
174:38 multiple um council meetings. We are north
174:40 north of the proposed subdivision that's going
174:44 of the proposed subdivision that's going in and we are west of the sub the
174:49 in and we are west of the sub the subdivision that was put in on Midway
174:52 subdivision that was put in on Midway and Maguire.
174:54 and Maguire. And your decisions impact me daily. Um
174:59 And your decisions impact me daily. Um with that subdivision on Midway and
175:02 with that subdivision on Midway and Maguire, we drove through at 4:00. I
175:05 Maguire, we drove through at 4:00. I counted 70 vehicles there. It's not a
175:08 counted 70 vehicles there. It's not a complete subdivision, but uh there's so
175:12 complete subdivision, but uh there's so many people congested there and the
175:14 many people congested there and the street is now very normal, very narrow
175:17 street is now very normal, very narrow because everybody parks in the street
175:19 because everybody parks in the street along with their
175:21 along with their uh access ways. But uh my concern with
175:25 uh access ways. But uh my concern with this subdivision is that it's for R2
175:28 this subdivision is that it's for R2 instead of an R1. I would like to see
175:32 instead of an R1. I would like to see single family homes
175:34 single family homes and it would um be very
175:40 and it would um be very continuous of the other places that are
175:43 continuous of the other places that are 5 acre lots bringing it down to single
175:46 5 acre lots bringing it down to single family and extending the single family
175:51 family and extending the single family road of was that Okonogan
175:54 road of was that Okonogan there to the the east. Um,
176:03 at some point you guys are going to have to put in a stoplight there at Corbin
176:05 to put in a stoplight there at Corbin just to go with more traffic and uh the
176:11 just to go with more traffic and uh the usage
176:22 let's see. Currently we experience a lot of
176:24 Currently we experience a lot of unlicensed vehicles running on Midway. I
176:27 unlicensed vehicles running on Midway. I could see that happening on Echo. If you
176:30 could see that happening on Echo. If you call the the police department, they say
176:32 call the the police department, they say it's part of the county sheriff should
176:36 it's part of the county sheriff should be patrolling that. I would like to see
176:38 be patrolling that. I would like to see more um
176:42 more um police presence just to monitor some of
176:45 police presence just to monitor some of the the things that we're living with.
176:49 the the things that we're living with. We are not in the city, but we sure are
176:53 We are not in the city, but we sure are impacted by the city. and uh
176:58 impacted by the city. and uh we've lived on this property since 1990.
177:02 we've lived on this property since 1990. We're lifelong residents of Idaho
177:06 We're lifelong residents of Idaho and just want to keep the small town
177:09 and just want to keep the small town feel as much as possible. I think people
177:11 feel as much as possible. I think people take more
177:13 take more personal pride in a single family home
177:15 personal pride in a single family home than they do a twolex or forplex or
177:19 than they do a twolex or forplex or whatever we're calling them today,
177:21 whatever we're calling them today, whether it's a townhouse,
177:23 whether it's a townhouse, a condo. Um,
177:26 a condo. Um, I do appreciate that. Um,
177:31 I do appreciate that. Um, you took the time to listen to my
177:32 you took the time to listen to my concerns. Thank you.
177:34 concerns. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you,
177:44 >> Kathy Lesnner. Lesser. >> Leer. Sorry about that.
178:18 My name is Kathy Blesner. I live on Echo. I live to the west of this
178:22 Echo. I live to the west of this development.
178:23 development. I strongly oppose anything other than R1
178:27 I strongly oppose anything other than R1 with one home to an acre.
178:33 At first, I was going to tell you I would totally disown it because of the
178:36 would totally disown it because of the way that the builder talked to me
178:40 way that the builder talked to me when I addressed the concerns of the
178:42 when I addressed the concerns of the road and how narrow it was. He said,
178:45 road and how narrow it was. He said, "Oh, well, I have to make it wider down
178:48 "Oh, well, I have to make it wider down on that end. So, the road's going to jog
178:50 on that end. So, the road's going to jog in and come back out and then we're
178:52 in and come back out and then we're tiny." I said, "What about our end of
178:54 tiny." I said, "What about our end of the road?" I don't care about your end
178:55 the road?" I don't care about your end of the road. I don't have to worry about
178:57 of the road. I don't have to worry about that. You do.
179:03 and he told me that he wanted to put in 48 double residences.
179:06 48 double residences. That time I said to him, "You're talking
179:09 That time I said to him, "You're talking about adding 200 more vehicles on this
179:12 about adding 200 more vehicles on this road."
179:14 road." Less than a month ago
179:17 Less than a month ago coming going west on Echo, I encountered
179:22 coming going west on Echo, I encountered a semi,
179:24 a semi, a car carrier.
179:26 a car carrier. He couldn't get over. I had to go down
179:29 He couldn't get over. I had to go down into the rideway and to the ditch so
179:32 into the rideway and to the ditch so that he could get across.
179:35 that he could get across. I can't imagine what 200 more cars is
179:39 I can't imagine what 200 more cars is going to do to us. I encountered three
179:42 going to do to us. I encountered three ladies walking on our road yesterday
179:43 ladies walking on our road yesterday morning who were appalled at what this
179:48 morning who were appalled at what this developer wanted to do. They called it
179:51 developer wanted to do. They called it their freedom road. They were free from
179:55 their freedom road. They were free from crossroads. They could walk a great
179:57 crossroads. They could walk a great distance back and forth. The landscape
180:00 distance back and forth. The landscape was beautiful because everybody most
180:02 was beautiful because everybody most everybody has trees.
180:05 everybody has trees. It's a nice quiet area. I asked that you
180:09 It's a nice quiet area. I asked that you strongly do not allow an R2 in there and
180:13 strongly do not allow an R2 in there and take away. We raise cattle.
180:16 take away. We raise cattle. Occasionally, we don't like it. They get
180:19 Occasionally, we don't like it. They get out. We have had neighbors let our cows
180:23 out. We have had neighbors let our cows out who did not like our cows.
180:26 out who did not like our cows. The odor bothered them.
180:29 The odor bothered them. What's going to happen when I get five
180:31 What's going to happen when I get five acres down? People don't like the odor
180:33 acres down? People don't like the odor of my animals.
180:36 of my animals. So, please think about that. I also
180:39 So, please think about that. I also think about the aquafer.
180:41 think about the aquafer. How long is a aquafer going to hold up
180:44 How long is a aquafer going to hold up with all these homes that want to be
180:46 with all these homes that want to be built in our area?
180:48 built in our area? The city has trouble. They may have the
180:51 The city has trouble. They may have the capacity for the sewer treatment plant,
180:53 capacity for the sewer treatment plant, but the odor they can't control.
180:56 but the odor they can't control. I have a beautiful deck that half the
180:58 I have a beautiful deck that half the time in the summer, I can't sit out
181:01 time in the summer, I can't sit out there because the strong is too bad. The
181:03 there because the strong is too bad. The smell of it is so strong that you can't
181:06 smell of it is so strong that you can't sit out there.
181:09 sit out there. So, please
181:11 So, please take into consideration the people that
181:12 take into consideration the people that have lived there for years. Me and my
181:15 have lived there for years. Me and my husband purchased the property in ' 92,
181:17 husband purchased the property in ' 92, the end of ' 92, moved in in 93.
181:21 the end of ' 92, moved in in 93. We would like to stay the way that we
181:24 We would like to stay the way that we are. We don't need all these multif
181:26 are. We don't need all these multif family houses in there.
181:29 family houses in there. Thank you for your time.
181:30 Thank you for your time. >> Thank you.
181:41 >> Wishing to speak in opposition. Wayne Plant.
181:55 I'm Wayne Plant. I live 2447 West Echo Drive. Bobby knows my place.
181:59 Drive. Bobby knows my place. And uh
182:01 And uh I'll tell you, uh it's just total mess
182:04 I'll tell you, uh it's just total mess out there. I know Keagan Road, which
182:07 out there. I know Keagan Road, which they want to run in there to this new
182:09 they want to run in there to this new project. Uh
182:12 project. Uh that developer left a mess all along my
182:16 that developer left a mess all along my fence line
182:18 fence line and when they put it in they tore up the
182:21 and when they put it in they tore up the corner post there right on uh Maguire.
182:24 corner post there right on uh Maguire. Never fixed that. They were going to
182:27 Never fixed that. They were going to they never even cleaned up the the fence
182:29 they never even cleaned up the the fence along there that supposed to stop you
182:32 along there that supposed to stop you know the trash from blowing in that
182:33 know the trash from blowing in that plastic fence they put up.
182:41 The whole thing is this new project. If it goes like they
182:44 this new project. If it goes like they show this
182:46 show this uh flap they gave you. Uh
182:51 uh flap they gave you. Uh fire.
182:53 fire. The houses are too damn close together.
182:57 The houses are too damn close together. If you look at what's happening in
182:58 If you look at what's happening in California and those got yards between
183:02 California and those got yards between them. We've had 60 mph, 70 mph winds
183:06 them. We've had 60 mph, 70 mph winds there on Meuire where I live. I had a
183:09 there on Meuire where I live. I had a tree that was this big around. It
183:12 tree that was this big around. It snapped it like a twig and dropped it
183:13 snapped it like a twig and dropped it right across the pole line or pole power
183:17 right across the pole line or pole power line, excuse me.
183:19 line, excuse me. And uh all these factors got to be taken
183:22 And uh all these factors got to be taken in consideration, you know, and and like
183:25 in consideration, you know, and and like the lady said before me, you know, the
183:27 the lady said before me, you know, the traffic down echo is getting tremendous.
183:30 traffic down echo is getting tremendous. People don't want to go down Maguire
183:33 People don't want to go down Maguire and or go down Selt's and turn north on
183:36 and or go down Selt's and turn north on Meguire with the traffic light. They
183:38 Meguire with the traffic light. They don't want to wait. So they turn on
183:40 don't want to wait. So they turn on Corbin and they go down Echo and then
183:43 Corbin and they go down Echo and then they go north and it's become a real
183:46 they go north and it's become a real traffic. It's 35 miles an hour. midways
183:50 traffic. It's 35 miles an hour. midways 25
183:51 25 and u you know it's just getting worse.
183:55 and u you know it's just getting worse. You know if they put as many houses in
183:58 You know if they put as many houses in there as they want you know you're
184:00 there as they want you know you're looking at the average person now has
184:03 looking at the average person now has four cars
184:06 four cars in a single domain. You know if they're
184:09 in a single domain. You know if they're going to do anything I'd like to see R1
184:11 going to do anything I'd like to see R1 period. I mean, I gotta look at those
184:14 period. I mean, I gotta look at those army army army barracks north of me
184:17 army army army barracks north of me there that they put in on Midway
184:20 there that they put in on Midway and uh you know, I realize there's more
184:23 and uh you know, I realize there's more money in apartments than there is
184:27 money in apartments than there is R1 single family homes, you know, but
184:30 R1 single family homes, you know, but the reason we bought there and I've been
184:32 the reason we bought there and I've been there since ' 89. Uh it's a quiet area.
184:37 there since ' 89. Uh it's a quiet area. You got room to do things. I used to
184:39 You got room to do things. I used to have cattle. I don't anymore but you
184:43 have cattle. I don't anymore but you know I mean uh
184:46 know I mean uh that was the reason post I moved to Post
184:49 that was the reason post I moved to Post Falls
184:50 Falls but the whole scenario has changed so
184:52 but the whole scenario has changed so radically it's unbelievable I guess us
184:55 radically it's unbelievable I guess us old farts are just resistant to to
184:58 old farts are just resistant to to change you know what I mean but if we're
185:02 change you know what I mean but if we're going to change let's do it right you
185:05 going to change let's do it right you know
185:08 know thank you thank
185:13 For the record, full disclosure, I probably only talked to Mr. Plant four
185:15 probably only talked to Mr. Plant four or five times in my life. My family's a
185:18 or five times in my life. My family's a hundred years in this town. I know most
185:20 hundred years in this town. I know most everybody. So,
185:24 everybody. So, >> uh, wishing to speak in opposition.
185:26 >> uh, wishing to speak in opposition. Glenn Whipple.
185:33 It says see attached pictures, but I don't see any pictures.
185:34 don't see any pictures. >> You got them. All right.
185:37 >> You got them. All right. >> Okay, cool. That works.
185:39 >> Okay, cool. That works. >> Just the road we live on. I don't know
185:41 >> Just the road we live on. I don't know if you guys been around there or not.
185:50 >> We can pass them around. Not >> You can take that one. I saw it. Yeah,
186:00 >> Thank you, sir. >> Want to sell
186:08 Glenn Whipple? Um,
186:10 Um, my wife and I own the and live in the
186:13 my wife and I own the and live in the adjacent property to the west of the
186:15 adjacent property to the west of the proposed annexation.
186:18 proposed annexation. Uh, we bought the property 36 years ago.
186:21 Uh, we bought the property 36 years ago. Um,
186:23 Um, to be out of the city to be in the
186:25 to be out of the city to be in the county zoned area, the only and only one
186:29 county zoned area, the only and only one home acreage in that area. That's what
186:32 home acreage in that area. That's what we wanted to be in. We built our forever
186:35 we wanted to be in. We built our forever home, raised our family. uh plan to live
186:38 home, raised our family. uh plan to live here and keep it in the family in the
186:41 here and keep it in the family in the future.
186:42 future. Our neighbors still raise cattle, other
186:45 Our neighbors still raise cattle, other livestock, and uh farm for fruits and
186:49 livestock, and uh farm for fruits and vegetables. None of us want to leave the
186:51 vegetables. None of us want to leave the area. We like it there pretty good. By
186:55 area. We like it there pretty good. By cookie cutting in um city zoning in the
187:00 cookie cutting in um city zoning in the middle of our properties, it will take
187:01 middle of our properties, it will take away our way of life and why we bought
187:04 away our way of life and why we bought it here. It also will depreciate our
187:07 it here. It also will depreciate our homes and our land.
187:15 The years of construction noise and dust alone will be unbearable
187:19 noise and dust alone will be unbearable as well as the noise over a hundred
187:22 as well as the noise over a hundred families and a couple hundred more
187:24 families and a couple hundred more vehicles up and down Echo Drive.
187:28 vehicles up and down Echo Drive. This is a narrow street. Uh many people
187:31 This is a narrow street. Uh many people enjoy walking every day along that alley
187:34 enjoy walking every day along that alley or the street there.
187:37 or the street there. With approximately 120 families on the
187:41 With approximately 120 families on the adjacent Wildflower Meadows, 18 families
187:45 adjacent Wildflower Meadows, 18 families on adjacent Gabriel Estates and the
187:48 on adjacent Gabriel Estates and the recently approved Painted Rock
187:49 recently approved Painted Rock development nearby would add another 20
187:53 development nearby would add another 20 families. The proposed Echo Estates
187:56 families. The proposed Echo Estates would add an additional 102 families.
188:00 would add an additional 102 families. That's approximately total of 260
188:02 That's approximately total of 260 families with no plans for parks for the
188:06 families with no plans for parks for the kids or anything to play in. So, they're
188:09 kids or anything to play in. So, they're just going to be out in the streets.
188:12 just going to be out in the streets. And I don't understand the comprehensive
188:14 And I don't understand the comprehensive plan
188:16 plan um why we're not involved in that or get
188:20 um why we're not involved in that or get any notices on it. I guess it was done
188:22 any notices on it. I guess it was done five years ago. Um and how they can kind
188:25 five years ago. Um and how they can kind of take over what they want to do with
188:27 of take over what they want to do with our land all through there. I'm just not
188:29 our land all through there. I'm just not sure how that all operates. I don't get
188:31 sure how that all operates. I don't get any notices or anything. So, I don't
188:34 any notices or anything. So, I don't know. Maybe we can figure something out
188:36 know. Maybe we can figure something out so we can maybe get some of this changed
188:39 so we can maybe get some of this changed or let us know what we can do.
188:41 or let us know what we can do. >> I'll add real quick there. We're in the
188:43 >> I'll add real quick there. We're in the process of updating that. There was a
188:45 process of updating that. There was a there's been many many workshops and you
188:49 there's been many many workshops and you know, I've gotten emails and mailings on
188:51 know, I've gotten emails and mailings on that. So, we can definitely can probably
188:53 that. So, we can definitely can probably talk to the city staff and obviously we
188:55 talk to the city staff and obviously we got your information here. So,
188:56 got your information here. So, >> it's on our website. It's on the
188:58 >> it's on our website. It's on the website, too.
188:58 website, too. >> We keep all of our notices on our city
189:00 >> We keep all of our notices on our city website. So, every five years, we try to
189:03 website. So, every five years, we try to update it. And so, this is the fifth
189:05 update it. And so, this is the fifth year, and we were just starting the
189:07 year, and we were just starting the public process. There's going to be more
189:09 public process. There's going to be more public input opportunities. So, now is
189:12 public input opportunities. So, now is the time to get involved for sure.
189:13 the time to get involved for sure. >> Yeah. Oh, definitely. I don't know how
189:15 >> Yeah. Oh, definitely. I don't know how it worked before. I didn't get any
189:16 it worked before. I didn't get any notice on anything going on, but
189:18 notice on anything going on, but hopefully I'll try to stay on top of it
189:20 hopefully I'll try to stay on top of it and see what's going on.
189:23 and see what's going on. Uh after after recently researching, I
189:26 Uh after after recently researching, I found that currently hundreds of
189:28 found that currently hundreds of apartments for rent, approximately 80
189:30 apartments for rent, approximately 80 homes and duplexes or town houses that
189:34 homes and duplexes or town houses that are under $500,000 for sale right now.
189:37 are under $500,000 for sale right now. Um while there are very few homes at a
189:40 Um while there are very few homes at a million and above, our home and few more
189:44 million and above, our home and few more of the homes on the street are valued
189:46 of the homes on the street are valued approximately 1 million or better.
189:49 approximately 1 million or better. There are a lot of people financially
189:51 There are a lot of people financially looking for priced to homes like this as
189:54 looking for priced to homes like this as well. So, we don't want to just take
189:56 well. So, we don't want to just take over with a bunch of duplexes and stuff.
189:59 over with a bunch of duplexes and stuff. Um,
190:01 Um, I hope you'll uh take all this into
190:03 I hope you'll uh take all this into consideration and and not approving this
190:06 consideration and and not approving this development and keeping our way of life
190:08 development and keeping our way of life the way it is. I know you're here for
190:10 the way it is. I know you're here for the people and the people don't want
190:12 the people and the people don't want this. I hope you decide not to pass
190:15 this. I hope you decide not to pass this. Thank you.
190:17 this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.
190:38 >> Uh Jeremy Tzulli once again. Um, so I know because we did pull the subdivision
190:40 know because we did pull the subdivision kind of created this whole kurfuffle,
190:43 kind of created this whole kurfuffle, but we're not um we've pulled the
190:46 but we're not um we've pulled the subdivision
190:48 subdivision explicitly for this reason to get this
190:50 explicitly for this reason to get this feedback. So, a lot of the the comments
190:52 feedback. So, a lot of the the comments here um during public testimony are not
190:56 here um during public testimony are not applicable to the question that is
190:58 applicable to the question that is before us, which is
191:00 before us, which is um if the city council decides to
191:03 um if the city council decides to approve annexation is R2 the appropriate
191:07 approve annexation is R2 the appropriate zoning designation. It aligns with the
191:09 zoning designation. It aligns with the comprehensive plan. It aligns with the
191:11 comprehensive plan. It aligns with the future land use map. It aligns with the
191:14 future land use map. It aligns with the focus area. It is a piece of property
191:17 focus area. It is a piece of property that is one quarter of a mile from the
191:20 that is one quarter of a mile from the city's major east west commercial
191:22 city's major east west commercial industrial corridor literally 1250 ft.
191:27 industrial corridor literally 1250 ft. Um if the commission thought that R1 was
191:32 Um if the commission thought that R1 was more appropriate and wanted to make a
191:34 more appropriate and wanted to make a recommendation to council uh for R1, as
191:37 recommendation to council uh for R1, as we've pointed out, we have no problem
191:40 we've pointed out, we have no problem with that either. Uh Mr. Stoker can make
191:42 with that either. Uh Mr. Stoker can make both work. So, a lot of the comments
191:46 both work. So, a lot of the comments with regard to, you know, 102 families,
191:49 with regard to, you know, 102 families, I don't that the math doesn't check out.
191:52 I don't that the math doesn't check out. We would on 48 lots, 48 residences was
191:56 We would on 48 lots, 48 residences was the one version that had the highest
191:59 the one version that had the highest density of any that we were even
192:00 density of any that we were even floating around here. And they were all
192:02 floating around here. And they were all going to be single family, not rentals.
192:04 going to be single family, not rentals. Um,
192:06 Um, 30 feet between structures is what I
192:08 30 feet between structures is what I mentioned. and that is reflective on one
192:10 mentioned. and that is reflective on one of the subdivision um uh versions that's
192:14 of the subdivision um uh versions that's out there.
192:17 out there. Um
192:19 Um and again, a lot of these comments I
192:21 and again, a lot of these comments I think apply more to a subdivision
192:24 think apply more to a subdivision request and not the request that's
192:25 request and not the request that's before us, which is what is the
192:28 before us, which is what is the appropriate zoning designation.
192:30 appropriate zoning designation. Um
192:33 Um we're fine with R1. We think R2 is what
192:35 we're fine with R1. We think R2 is what fits uh the guiding documents. Uh the
192:38 fits uh the guiding documents. Uh the adopted master transportation plan has
192:40 adopted master transportation plan has no issue supporting traffic for R2 in
192:44 no issue supporting traffic for R2 in this area as well as other city
192:46 this area as well as other city infrastructure. So with that,
192:50 infrastructure. So with that, we respectfully uh request R2
192:54 we respectfully uh request R2 recommendation uh to city council. And
192:57 recommendation uh to city council. And if there are any other questions, I can
192:58 if there are any other questions, I can clear them up right now.
193:09 All right, close out the hearing and we'll look at
193:11 close out the hearing and we'll look at the review criteria. And just as a
193:14 the review criteria. And just as a reminder, we're just looking at zoning
193:16 reminder, we're just looking at zoning recommendation that will be forwarded to
193:19 recommendation that will be forwarded to city council
193:21 city council for and then they'll determine on
193:23 for and then they'll determine on annexation and then at some point in the
193:25 annexation and then at some point in the future possibly a subdivision will come
193:28 future possibly a subdivision will come forward. But tonight is just the zoning
193:29 forward. But tonight is just the zoning recommendation on uh
193:32 recommendation on uh for uh that'll be forwarded to city
193:34 for uh that'll be forwarded to city council.
193:35 council. >> Thank you, commissioners. Um just a
193:37 >> Thank you, commissioners. Um just a point of clarification, Mr. Kimell, I
193:40 point of clarification, Mr. Kimell, I know there was some testimony from a
193:42 know there was some testimony from a Whipple. It's you're not associated with
193:44 Whipple. It's you're not associated with the Whipple adjacent subdivision. No
193:46 the Whipple adjacent subdivision. No owners, sorry. I just make sure that
193:48 owners, sorry. I just make sure that that was on the record in case there was
193:49 that was on the record in case there was any question. Thank you.
193:51 any question. Thank you. >> All right. Echo Estates annexation
193:53 >> All right. Echo Estates annexation number 24-25
193:56 number 24-25 an R2 zone request R1 adjacent uh
194:00 an R2 zone request R1 adjacent uh property in the city limits. Um number
194:03 property in the city limits. Um number one is the proposed zoning district
194:05 one is the proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map
194:08 consistent with the future land use map and the focused area focus area
194:10 and the focused area focus area contained in the currently adopted
194:12 contained in the currently adopted comprehensive plan.
194:14 comprehensive plan. >> That this is the big question. our comp.
194:18 >> That this is the big question. our comp. So we're as planning commission, we're
194:20 So we're as planning commission, we're bound to the comp plan at least to a
194:22 bound to the comp plan at least to a certain extent and our comp plan shows
194:24 certain extent and our comp plan shows this as medium density residential.
194:28 this as medium density residential. So the R2 zone is an implementing zone.
194:31 So the R2 zone is an implementing zone. The R2 zone does not allow apartments or
194:34 The R2 zone does not allow apartments or duplexes or multif family. It's single
194:36 duplexes or multif family. It's single family.
194:37 family. >> Wait a minute. I want to ask a question.
194:39 >> Wait a minute. I want to ask a question. Duplexes are in R2.
194:41 Duplexes are in R2. >> Yes. Okay.
194:42 >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. But not not apartments.
194:45 >> Okay. But not not apartments. >> Yeah.
194:47 >> Yeah. Um
194:48 Um but at the same time the R2 zone
194:53 but at the same time the R2 zone uh is supposed to be used for
194:55 uh is supposed to be used for residential development where
194:57 residential development where residentially designated areas are
194:59 residentially designated areas are readily serviced by collector and
195:01 readily serviced by collector and arterial streets.
195:03 arterial streets. So while I would agree that this meets
195:06 So while I would agree that this meets the land use designation in the comp
195:10 the land use designation in the comp plan, the R2 does,
195:13 plan, the R2 does, I'm not sure that Echo Drive can support
195:15 I'm not sure that Echo Drive can support it. Granted,
195:17 it. Granted, when this project gets developed,
195:19 when this project gets developed, they're going to be widening Echo,
195:21 they're going to be widening Echo, but they're only going to widen the
195:22 but they're only going to widen the north side
195:24 north side and they're not widening all the way out
195:26 and they're not widening all the way out to Meguire, nor out to Corbin. And we
195:28 to Meguire, nor out to Corbin. And we can't control that because those parcels
195:30 can't control that because those parcels aren't part of this, but boy, we're
195:33 aren't part of this, but boy, we're putting ourselves in a pinch.
195:36 putting ourselves in a pinch. >> I agree with that completely. that road
195:38 >> I agree with that completely. that road there,
195:40 there, the city will say it's the right uh
195:43 the city will say it's the right uh width and stuff, but if two cars are
195:45 width and stuff, but if two cars are coming, you're walking in the ditch and
195:47 coming, you're walking in the ditch and there's areas where it's slanted down
195:50 there's areas where it's slanted down there. If you're having a hard time
195:52 there. If you're having a hard time walking, you might be rolling down that
195:54 walking, you might be rolling down that if two cars are blasting by.
195:57 if two cars are blasting by. That road, I don't think, is ready for
196:00 That road, I don't think, is ready for this. And and what I'm seeing in the
196:03 this. And and what I'm seeing in the transportation plan is that it's only
196:05 transportation plan is that it's only designated to be a local residential
196:07 designated to be a local residential street, not an artiller arterial or a
196:09 street, not an artiller arterial or a collector. So it's it's never even going
196:12 collector. So it's it's never even going to be that width is my concern.
196:15 to be that width is my concern. >> I think maybe after it was developed,
196:18 >> I think maybe after it was developed, >> but developed to local residential
196:20 >> but developed to local residential street.
196:22 street. >> Well, things change. I mean,
196:23 >> Well, things change. I mean, >> sure.
196:25 >> sure. I mean, I've just seen how many times
196:26 I mean, I've just seen how many times did we see stuff when 41 was going
196:28 did we see stuff when 41 was going things got denied, denied, and denied.
196:31 things got denied, denied, and denied. And the reason was 41's not done. And
196:33 And the reason was 41's not done. And then I saw even stuff when 41 was done.
196:35 then I saw even stuff when 41 was done. It still got denied.
196:36 It still got denied. >> Okay.
196:36 >> Okay. >> So, no, good point.
196:37 >> So, no, good point. >> I can see both. I can see it both ways,
196:39 >> I can see both. I can see it both ways, though.
196:40 though. >> It's definitely a narrow road, but do
196:43 >> It's definitely a narrow road, but do you wait for that one corner to get
196:45 you wait for that one corner to get done?
196:45 done? >> I don't know.
196:46 >> I don't know. >> And then come What about you know? Well,
196:49 >> And then come What about you know? Well, I mean the reality is that there's an
196:50 I mean the reality is that there's an existing rideway there and that existing
196:55 existing rideway there and that existing rideway is likely wide enough to pass,
196:58 rideway is likely wide enough to pass, you know, for a widening project that
197:02 you know, for a widening project that although it may not be at the full
197:04 although it may not be at the full width, full eventual width, um it's
197:07 width, full eventual width, um it's enough to make it safe and safer.
197:10 enough to make it safe and safer. >> Okay. Um and with regards to the future
197:14 >> Okay. Um and with regards to the future land use map and as you correctly
197:15 land use map and as you correctly pointed out uh R2 is an implementing
197:18 pointed out uh R2 is an implementing zone um and it's also the least
197:22 zone um and it's also the least >> least dense
197:22 >> least dense >> dense of all of the implementing zones
197:25 >> dense of all of the implementing zones >> right
197:26 >> right >> uh it's the least impactful. So if we're
197:29 >> uh it's the least impactful. So if we're looking at com our future land use map
197:32 looking at com our future land use map and being consistent with it that would
197:35 and being consistent with it that would be the least impactful and the least
197:36 be the least impactful and the least dense. Um and then as you look at the
197:40 dense. Um and then as you look at the focus area,
197:43 focus area, the focus area speaks to um more density
197:48 the focus area speaks to um more density closer to Seltis Way and then further as
197:51 closer to Seltis Way and then further as you go further away getting less dense
197:53 you go further away getting less dense and
197:55 and um this is also in that I mean one could
197:58 um this is also in that I mean one could make the argument that an R3 would be an
198:01 make the argument that an R3 would be an appropriate zone here even though um
198:05 appropriate zone here even though um it's kind of this weird wonky place in
198:07 it's kind of this weird wonky place in our comprehensive plan,
198:08 our comprehensive plan, >> right?
198:09 >> right? >> The fact that they're asking for R2
198:13 >> The fact that they're asking for R2 and that gives them the flexibility to
198:16 and that gives them the flexibility to do anything that that they could do an
198:18 do anything that that they could do an R1 subdivision in an R2. They could do,
198:21 R1 subdivision in an R2. They could do, you know, they could do a lot of those
198:22 you know, they could do a lot of those things. And I guess that's really up to
198:24 things. And I guess that's really up to city council as to if they want to do
198:27 city council as to if they want to do anything
198:28 anything if if it's up to I mean they're the
198:31 if if it's up to I mean they're the ultimate deciding factor, but if we're
198:33 ultimate deciding factor, but if we're going by what the zone our code says and
198:37 going by what the zone our code says and our our review criteria,
198:39 our our review criteria, then it does meet the future land use
198:43 then it does meet the future land use map and focus area as currently adopted.
198:50 Yeah, I think these these hearings are are tricky for me because literally you
198:53 are tricky for me because literally you go right next you got all this
198:54 go right next you got all this transitional stuff. So what is that
198:55 transitional stuff. So what is that going to actually be developed? Will it
198:57 going to actually be developed? Will it be developed? Who knows? Um but to Ray's
199:00 be developed? Who knows? Um but to Ray's point, you know, R2, you could do R1 in
199:03 point, you know, R2, you could do R1 in there, but you're not going to go in
199:04 there, but you're not going to go in there and put 150 apartments either
199:08 there and put 150 apartments either because it's not allowed. So, it does
199:10 because it's not allowed. So, it does limit the density and it is the least
199:14 limit the density and it is the least dense zoning you could put in that area.
199:24 Anything else to add? So, it sounds like there's some debate
199:26 So, it sounds like there's some debate um obviously whether or not annexation
199:30 um obviously whether or not annexation is or is not a good idea isn't before us
199:32 is or is not a good idea isn't before us as a body. Um the real question is is
199:36 as a body. Um the real question is is the proposed district of R2 consistent
199:40 the proposed district of R2 consistent with the fluke
199:42 with the fluke is my acronym.
199:43 is my acronym. >> Um
199:44 >> Um >> and it sounds like it generally the the
199:46 >> and it sounds like it generally the the R2 is the commission can always
199:48 R2 is the commission can always recommend something else.
199:50 recommend something else. >> Um but it's ultimately up to the city
199:52 >> Um but it's ultimately up to the city council. So I think we've got enough
199:53 council. So I think we've got enough debate on that issue at least to move on
199:55 debate on that issue at least to move on to the next criteria unless there's
199:56 to the next criteria unless there's something else.
199:58 something else. Okay. is a difficult position because
200:01 Okay. is a difficult position because >> for the owner of the property this is
200:04 >> for the owner of the property this is these are the rules they're given.
200:05 these are the rules they're given. >> Yeah.
200:06 >> Yeah. >> So the property owner their hands are
200:09 >> So the property owner their hands are you know fairly well tied on what they
200:12 you know fairly well tied on what they want to become part of the city. They've
200:13 want to become part of the city. They've got to follow the rules.
200:14 got to follow the rules. >> Yeah. These are the parameters that are
200:15 >> Yeah. These are the parameters that are set parameters they have. I'm
200:17 set parameters they have. I'm sympathetic to the I'm not usually very
200:19 sympathetic to the I'm not usually very sympathetic to the neighboring property
200:21 sympathetic to the neighboring property owners. But in this case where the where
200:23 owners. But in this case where the where it's not someone who moved into phase
200:24 it's not someone who moved into phase three doesn't want phase four. You know,
200:27 three doesn't want phase four. You know, these are are uh folks that have been
200:29 these are are uh folks that have been here for a long time. The unfortunate
200:31 here for a long time. The unfortunate thing is that they live in areas that
200:33 thing is that they live in areas that are
200:35 are uh transitional in nature. Uh had to be
200:39 uh transitional in nature. Uh had to be that way when we wrote the comprehensive
200:41 that way when we wrote the comprehensive plan and so
200:44 plan and so it's kind of unfortunate an unfortunate
200:47 it's kind of unfortunate an unfortunate necessity
200:48 necessity >> and they're caught up in it. I I feel
200:51 >> and they're caught up in it. I I feel for him on that.
200:52 for him on that. >> Yeah. And we have the comprehensive plan
200:53 >> Yeah. And we have the comprehensive plan as this giant, you know, thing that
200:56 as this giant, you know, thing that guides the decisions working within
200:57 guides the decisions working within those frameworks and working down to the
200:59 those frameworks and working down to the individual level. That's why we have the
201:01 individual level. That's why we have the comprehensive plan
201:02 comprehensive plan >> put forth and that that needs to be
201:04 >> put forth and that that needs to be changed and we try to re revise that in
201:06 changed and we try to re revise that in the future.
201:07 the future. >> But
201:08 >> But >> well, the guiding principle is to buffer
201:11 >> well, the guiding principle is to buffer highintensity areas with
201:14 highintensity areas with with uh higher density zoning. So we do
201:17 with uh higher density zoning. So we do that everywhere. That's kind of the
201:18 that everywhere. That's kind of the guiding principle. you're starting out
201:21 guiding principle. you're starting out with commercial
201:22 with commercial >> that's guiding this entire process is
201:24 >> that's guiding this entire process is that principle and I don't know that
201:26 that principle and I don't know that it's flawed. I don't know. I think it's
201:27 it's flawed. I don't know. I think it's probably a good principle. So,
201:34 >> I appreciate the debate. Thank you, commissioners. Uh let's go to number
201:36 commissioners. Uh let's go to number two. Is the proposed zoning district uh
201:38 two. Is the proposed zoning district uh the R2 consistent with the goals and
201:41 the R2 consistent with the goals and policies contained in the currently
201:43 policies contained in the currently adopted plan? Uh there's been some goals
201:46 adopted plan? Uh there's been some goals and policies cited, but I would invite
201:48 and policies cited, but I would invite any further comment on that one. The
201:50 any further comment on that one. The transportation issue uh uh may be an
201:53 transportation issue uh uh may be an issue if there's some goals or policies
201:55 issue if there's some goals or policies that inform on that one.
201:57 that inform on that one. >> Well, how about water?
201:59 >> Well, how about water? >> Can we talk about water for a second?
202:01 >> Can we talk about water for a second? >> You're welcome to talk about water.
202:02 >> You're welcome to talk about water. >> Yeah.
202:04 >> Yeah. >> Spokesman's review.
202:08 >> Spokesman's review. >> Stretches of water flow dangerously low.
202:10 >> Stretches of water flow dangerously low. You can walk across the river almost
202:13 You can walk across the river almost down there. We always take it for
202:15 down there. We always take it for granted that we have water everywhere.
202:18 granted that we have water everywhere. Today in the Celane press, uh Emily
202:23 Today in the Celane press, uh Emily Fitzgerald, they say
202:27 Fitzgerald, they say our aquifer is doing all right with the
202:29 our aquifer is doing all right with the caveat that we don't know what the
202:32 caveat that we don't know what the future holds. I mean, this not might not
202:34 future holds. I mean, this not might not be appropriate right now, but for
202:36 be appropriate right now, but for generations down the road, I think in
202:38 generations down the road, I think in one of those meetings, you said that in
202:40 one of those meetings, you said that in 20 years it'll be a 100,000 people in
202:43 20 years it'll be a 100,000 people in Post Falls. Are we setting them up for
202:46 Post Falls. Are we setting them up for dry lands? Uh, and I know that doesn't
202:50 dry lands? Uh, and I know that doesn't really pertain tonight, but we always
202:52 really pertain tonight, but we always take it for granted that we've got all
202:54 take it for granted that we've got all kinds of water for everything. We don't
202:57 kinds of water for everything. We don't >> Well, it does speak to policy 72, but
202:59 >> Well, it does speak to policy 72, but what I will say is that, you know, both
203:02 what I will say is that, you know, both of those articles are largely bunk and
203:05 of those articles are largely bunk and and I'm going to say that because, you
203:07 and I'm going to say that because, you know, I'm an engineer. I work
203:09 know, I'm an engineer. I work >> you walk across the river,
203:10 >> you walk across the river, >> right? And about 100 yards downstream
203:12 >> right? And about 100 yards downstream from there,
203:13 from there, >> the aquifer is recharging the river
203:15 >> the aquifer is recharging the river >> and above that spot, it's all just flow
203:18 >> and above that spot, it's all just flow from the dam.
203:19 from the dam. >> Well, I've been here 67 years and I've
203:22 >> Well, I've been here 67 years and I've never been able to walk across the
203:23 never been able to walk across the river. Well, the reality is is that
203:25 river. Well, the reality is is that we're pumping less now out of the
203:28 we're pumping less now out of the aquafer than we were 30 or 40 years ago
203:30 aquafer than we were 30 or 40 years ago because of all the peak flow out of the
203:32 because of all the peak flow out of the irrigation of every single one of the
203:35 irrigation of every single one of the irrigation districts. And I know this
203:38 irrigation districts. And I know this because East Green Acres irrigation
203:40 because East Green Acres irrigation district records show that they're
203:43 district records show that they're pumping less now than they were 30 years
203:46 pumping less now than they were 30 years ago because of all the wheel lines and
203:48 ago because of all the wheel lines and all the hand lines that I used to move
203:51 all the hand lines that I used to move as a kid and you probably did too,
203:52 as a kid and you probably did too, Bobby.
203:54 Bobby. um those were running 24/7 all the way
203:56 um those were running 24/7 all the way through June, July and August. And the
204:00 through June, July and August. And the reality is is that our aquifer is fed by
204:05 reality is is that our aquifer is fed by the entire almost the entirety of
204:07 the entire almost the entirety of western Montana. So our aquifer is fed
204:10 western Montana. So our aquifer is fed through the bottom of of or through Lake
204:13 through the bottom of of or through Lake Pere.
204:14 Pere. So Bay View is leaking at Bay View and
204:17 So Bay View is leaking at Bay View and it feeds our entire aquifer and there's
204:19 it feeds our entire aquifer and there's over a billion gallons a day crossing
204:22 over a billion gallons a day crossing the the state line today.
204:24 the the state line today. And when
204:27 And when our our draw down on the aquifer for
204:31 our our draw down on the aquifer for every single well out there has not
204:33 every single well out there has not changed in the last 20 years. So the
204:36 changed in the last 20 years. So the aquifer level has not changed and
204:39 aquifer level has not changed and there's evidence to that across the
204:41 there's evidence to that across the board. And so while I appreciate
204:45 board. And so while I appreciate the concern because it's a valid
204:47 the concern because it's a valid concern, it's just that the reality is
204:50 concern, it's just that the reality is is that unlike many many many places in
204:53 is that unlike many many many places in the world, we are incredibly blessed
204:56 the world, we are incredibly blessed with what we have and our aquifer is f
205:00 with what we have and our aquifer is f it it provides high quality
205:03 it it provides high quality um high quantity water. it deserves to
205:06 um high quantity water. it deserves to be protected.
205:08 be protected. And um but
205:11 And um but the chicken little sky is falling
205:13 the chicken little sky is falling argument for me falls on completely deaf
205:16 argument for me falls on completely deaf ears because it's not supported by the
205:18 ears because it's not supported by the science.
205:19 science. >> Well, our weather is changing.
205:22 >> Well, our weather is changing. Phoenix, Arizona, they're going dry.
205:25 Phoenix, Arizona, they're going dry. Those rivers are are drying up. Uh that
205:29 Those rivers are are drying up. Uh that dam down in Nevada, uh where all that's
205:32 dam down in Nevada, uh where all that's backed up has dried up. uh Salt Lake
205:35 backed up has dried up. uh Salt Lake City.
205:36 City. >> Okay, that's
205:37 >> Okay, that's >> has dried up.
205:38 >> has dried up. >> Yeah, but that's those are all first of
205:40 >> Yeah, but that's those are all first of all, those are all those places you
205:42 all, those are all those places you listed were dry. Anyhow,
205:44 listed were dry. Anyhow, >> I'm saying it's possible,
205:45 >> I'm saying it's possible, >> but I'm just saying that's not part of
205:47 >> but I'm just saying that's not part of our
205:47 our >> thing for commission.
205:48 >> thing for commission. >> I said that while I was saying this,
205:50 >> I said that while I was saying this, too.
205:51 too. >> Okay,
205:52 >> Okay, >> so back to reorienting back where we
205:55 >> so back to reorienting back where we need to finish tonight. Uh number two,
205:57 need to finish tonight. Uh number two, we're just trying to decide whether the
205:58 we're just trying to decide whether the proposed zoning districts of R2 is
206:00 proposed zoning districts of R2 is consistent with our goals and policies.
206:02 consistent with our goals and policies. I was I was going to say policy two
206:04 I was I was going to say policy two jumps out and we've talked about this a
206:05 jumps out and we've talked about this a lot just the future land use map u being
206:08 lot just the future land use map u being compatible with the surrounding areas
206:09 compatible with the surrounding areas talking about infrastructure traffic
206:11 talking about infrastructure traffic patterns so I think that applies uh
206:15 patterns so I think that applies uh specifically to this again also policy
206:17 specifically to this again also policy six which encourages residential
206:20 six which encourages residential development patterns that feature
206:22 development patterns that feature intercon connected grid networks even
206:24 intercon connected grid networks even though this is not a subdivision it's
206:25 though this is not a subdivision it's set up for interconnection to the east
206:30 set up for interconnection to the east um
206:32 um as well as policy 14 following
206:35 as well as policy 14 following annexation procedures established by
206:37 annexation procedures established by Idaho statute
206:39 Idaho statute um and policy 15 which is probably the
206:41 um and policy 15 which is probably the one of the most important ones here is
206:42 one of the most important ones here is ensuring adequate land is available for
206:44 ensuring adequate land is available for future housing needs
206:47 future housing needs >> and if you get into the sub area we look
206:50 >> and if you get into the sub area we look at the west prairie and that's that um
206:53 at the west prairie and that's that um the policy there is mixed residential
206:55 the policy there is mixed residential envisioned between Meguire and Corbin
206:57 envisioned between Meguire and Corbin with higher densities near commercial
206:59 with higher densities near commercial corridors and arterials. And if you look
207:02 corridors and arterials. And if you look at our land use plan, uh our our future
207:05 at our land use plan, uh our our future land use map, this property is on the
207:08 land use map, this property is on the north side of Echo Drive, and it's
207:10 north side of Echo Drive, and it's essentially serving as a buffer for the
207:12 essentially serving as a buffer for the high density residential that is
207:13 high density residential that is proposed for the south side of Cor side
207:16 proposed for the south side of Cor side of Echo, which then backs up into the
207:18 of Echo, which then backs up into the commercial and industrial on Seltis. So,
207:21 commercial and industrial on Seltis. So, we're trying to do that tiered buffer
207:23 we're trying to do that tiered buffer approach where you've got commercial,
207:25 approach where you've got commercial, then high density, then medium density,
207:27 then high density, then medium density, and then into single family.
207:30 and then into single family. Um, and right now the way the West
207:32 Um, and right now the way the West Prairie sub area is set up, we don't
207:36 Prairie sub area is set up, we don't even have the option necessarily of R1
207:39 even have the option necessarily of R1 unless we want to go outside of the
207:41 unless we want to go outside of the direction of the plan.
207:49 >> Okay. Thank you, commissioners. Uh and finally, number three is uh does
207:52 Uh and finally, number three is uh does the proposed zoning district create a
207:53 the proposed zoning district create a demonstraable adverse impact upon the
207:55 demonstraable adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political
207:57 delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services within
208:00 subdivision providing services within the city?
208:02 the city? >> Nothing's been identified
208:18 I think the one thing I'll add is all the comments tonight, you know, we've
208:19 the comments tonight, you know, we've definitely heard that
208:22 definitely heard that we have to when we make these type of
208:24 we have to when we make these type of decisions, we have to kind of go what's
208:25 decisions, we have to kind of go what's going on the count plan here.
208:28 going on the count plan here. So if we say R1 I think and I'm will
208:31 So if we say R1 I think and I'm will speak for myself and others can chime in
208:33 speak for myself and others can chime in you're a quarter mile away from Seltis
208:36 you're a quarter mile away from Seltis and you have to have to build in that
208:37 and you have to have to build in that buffer between commercial area and then
208:39 buffer between commercial area and then you as you go to residential as we've
208:41 you as you go to residential as we've talked about before and I think we tried
208:44 talked about before and I think we tried that before and it got switched over
208:46 that before and it got switched over with city council. So my preference
208:49 with city council. So my preference would be R2. It sounds like the
208:51 would be R2. It sounds like the developer would be open to many
208:54 developer would be open to many different types of developments, even
208:56 different types of developments, even larger houses and lots. Um, there's
208:59 larger houses and lots. Um, there's definitely not any type of apartments
209:01 definitely not any type of apartments going in here and highdensity stuff, but
209:04 going in here and highdensity stuff, but that's for another day and another
209:05 that's for another day and another conversation. You know, whatever
209:08 conversation. You know, whatever recommendation we have tonight will
209:09 recommendation we have tonight will ultimately go to city council. If they
209:12 ultimately go to city council. If they approve the annexation, at some point in
209:14 approve the annexation, at some point in the future, it'll probably come back to
209:15 the future, it'll probably come back to us as a subdivision. So this is just
209:18 us as a subdivision. So this is just step one
209:19 step one >> and there really is no decision. I just
209:21 >> and there really is no decision. I just want to make that clear tonight. There
209:22 want to make that clear tonight. There is no decision.
209:23 is no decision. >> Yeah. Just a recommendation.
209:24 >> Yeah. Just a recommendation. >> All it is a recommendation.
209:26 >> All it is a recommendation. >> Yeah.
209:26 >> Yeah. >> And council will they have a lot more
209:29 >> And council will they have a lot more room to
209:32 room to condition it and augment this
209:35 condition it and augment this than I think the commission does right
209:37 than I think the commission does right now when I think they're more stuck by
209:41 now when I think they're more stuck by the review criteria and being consistent
209:43 the review criteria and being consistent to the comprehensive plan. And then
209:45 to the comprehensive plan. And then yeah, that's basically what I was
209:47 yeah, that's basically what I was saying. Yeah, R2 fits.
209:49 saying. Yeah, R2 fits. >> I mean, I know it's it's not popular for
209:52 >> I mean, I know it's it's not popular for everyone out there. Um, the reality is
209:54 everyone out there. Um, the reality is is that we are bound by state code and
209:57 is that we are bound by state code and our comprehensive plan. And right now,
210:00 our comprehensive plan. And right now, we're undergoing we're redoing our
210:02 we're undergoing we're redoing our comprehensive plan. This is the perfect
210:04 comprehensive plan. This is the perfect time. It is the foundational document
210:06 time. It is the foundational document for all of our land use decisions. And
210:08 for all of our land use decisions. And so because we're redoing it right now,
210:10 so because we're redoing it right now, you folks have the chance to get in and
210:14 you folks have the chance to get in and speak your and voice your opinion and
210:16 speak your and voice your opinion and make the change so that the
210:18 make the change so that the comprehensive plan can change the way
210:21 comprehensive plan can change the way you want it to be. But your voice
210:22 you want it to be. But your voice doesn't get heard unless you show up and
210:25 doesn't get heard unless you show up and you make your comments known. And
210:28 you make your comments known. And although you're making them here tonight
210:30 although you're making them here tonight for this, it's not the forum that it
210:33 for this, it's not the forum that it needs to be to make that comprehensive
210:35 needs to be to make that comprehensive plan change. when we have uh we have on
210:39 plan change. when we have uh we have on our website we have there's a whole
210:40 our website we have there's a whole bunch of documents out there for you to
210:42 bunch of documents out there for you to make comments on. It's open comment
210:45 make comments on. It's open comment period right now. Please go do that.
210:47 period right now. Please go do that. It's incredibly important.
211:02 >> No, that's what we're trying to say. This is a recommendation for the
211:06 This is a recommendation for the annexation. We're not making any
211:07 annexation. We're not making any decision on the annexation. The city
211:09 decision on the annexation. The city council does that at a different time.
211:12 council does that at a different time. >> This is just zoning, not annexation.
211:14 >> This is just zoning, not annexation. >> It's it's simpler than that. If what
211:17 >> It's it's simpler than that. If what we're saying tonight is if the city
211:19 we're saying tonight is if the city should decide to annex the property, we
211:22 should decide to annex the property, we have no say in that whatsoever. If the
211:24 have no say in that whatsoever. If the city decides to annex the property,
211:28 city decides to annex the property, what's the proper zoning? And what we
211:30 what's the proper zoning? And what we have to decide is is the zoning they're
211:32 have to decide is is the zoning they're asking for what our code dictates. It's
211:36 asking for what our code dictates. It's very cut and dry actually.
211:38 very cut and dry actually. >> So, okay, we can't have this back and
211:41 >> So, okay, we can't have this back and forth because we got to have everything
211:42 forth because we got to have everything on on record, please. So,
211:46 on on record, please. So, >> all right. With that being said, and any
211:48 >> all right. With that being said, and any more any other comments? Well, I agree
211:51 more any other comments? Well, I agree with um the the engineer that presented
211:54 with um the the engineer that presented this would go both ways on this and the
211:58 this would go both ways on this and the uh the developer did too on what he
212:01 uh the developer did too on what he wants to build and they said they're a
212:03 wants to build and they said they're a little apprehensive thinking that
212:05 little apprehensive thinking that because this is comprehensive plan R2
212:08 because this is comprehensive plan R2 area that they might not get R1. I think
212:10 area that they might not get R1. I think we should recommend R1
212:13 we should recommend R1 and if the city council wants to go back
212:15 and if the city council wants to go back to R2, let them
212:19 to R2, let them because it's going to get annexed.
212:28 Anybody like to make a motion or we got some more comments.
212:30 some more comments. >> I'll make a motion.
212:33 >> I'll make a motion. Well, I think that the the developer was
212:35 Well, I think that the the developer was worried about
212:38 worried about them just kicking it out completely if
212:40 them just kicking it out completely if we make it an R1 and not giving them the
212:42 we make it an R1 and not giving them the option to do the R2. This way, if they
212:44 option to do the R2. This way, if they go in with R2, they have and they get
212:46 go in with R2, they have and they get approved, they have that option of being
212:48 approved, they have that option of being able to do R1,
212:50 able to do R1, >> an R1 type product.
212:51 >> an R1 type product. >> Yeah. Yeah,
212:52 >> Yeah. Yeah, >> definitely.
212:54 >> definitely. >> I'd say make it easy and give it to them
212:55 >> I'd say make it easy and give it to them right now.
212:57 right now. But if the like
213:00 But if the like if the city council says it doesn't go
213:02 if the city council says it doesn't go in align with our comprehensive plan
213:08 kicked out. >> Just just a question. How would it go to
213:12 >> Just just a question. How would it go to recommend R2
213:14 recommend R2 zoning with a minimum lot size that of X
213:19 zoning with a minimum lot size that of X that's equivalent to R1 as a condition?
213:24 that's equivalent to R1 as a condition? Well, I think we've made recommendations
213:27 Well, I think we've made recommendations before with some guidance.
213:29 before with some guidance. >> We can't really make a condition at this
213:31 >> We can't really make a condition at this point, I wouldn't think. But
213:32 point, I wouldn't think. But >> no, you're just basically and and the
213:33 >> no, you're just basically and and the council was going to deliberate over all
213:35 council was going to deliberate over all this again.
213:36 this again. >> Yeah.
213:36 >> Yeah. >> They're going to look at the
213:37 >> They're going to look at the recommendation for R2 zoning as being
213:40 recommendation for R2 zoning as being consistent with the plan or an R1 zoning
213:42 consistent with the plan or an R1 zoning as being inconsistent with a
213:43 as being inconsistent with a comprehensive plan and may wonder what
213:45 comprehensive plan and may wonder what the reasoning is be behind it. And so
213:48 the reasoning is be behind it. And so I'll try to capture that in the reason
213:49 I'll try to capture that in the reason decision, however the vote goes. Um, I
213:53 decision, however the vote goes. Um, I generally don't know that if we have
213:56 generally don't know that if we have some recommendations as to limiting it
213:58 some recommendations as to limiting it in an annexation agreement to an R1 type
214:02 in an annexation agreement to an R1 type of a product or anything else how much
214:04 of a product or anything else how much that will sway or influence their
214:07 that will sway or influence their decision. I tend to leave that for them
214:09 decision. I tend to leave that for them to work out. So, I mean, you can you can
214:12 to work out. So, I mean, you can you can make the recommendation. Uh, our goal
214:14 make the recommendation. Uh, our goal here is just to make a recommendation as
214:16 here is just to make a recommendation as to the appropriate zoning. for any
214:17 to the appropriate zoning. for any anything extra. I would just consider
214:19 anything extra. I would just consider that to be surplusage to some degree.
214:23 that to be surplusage to some degree. Sorry.
214:25 Sorry. So I think there's some differing
214:28 So I think there's some differing opinions on this. So I think instead of
214:30 opinions on this. So I think instead of going down one road and it not passing
214:34 going down one road and it not passing or whatever, you know, my opinion would
214:36 or whatever, you know, my opinion would be R2. I think others agree. I think
214:40 be R2. I think others agree. I think Bobby, he can speak for himself, but I
214:42 Bobby, he can speak for himself, but I think he would like R1. But I would like
214:44 think he would like R1. But I would like to at least put the motion forward
214:46 to at least put the motion forward that's going to make the recommendation
214:49 that's going to make the recommendation for the correct zone that's going to go
214:51 for the correct zone that's going to go forward and not us have it a
214:54 forward and not us have it a >> Mr. Chairman.
214:55 >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes.
214:56 >> Yes. >> I move to recommend approval of Echo
214:59 >> I move to recommend approval of Echo Estates annexation file number ANX 24-5.
215:02 Estates annexation file number ANX 24-5. >> Hang on. Not approval. We're going to
215:04 >> Hang on. Not approval. We're going to make recommendation
215:06 make recommendation >> or a zoning
215:06 >> or a zoning >> or a zoning of R2.
215:10 >> or a zoning of R2. >> Thank you.
215:11 >> Thank you. >> Don't want to confuse anyone. The sample
215:13 >> Don't want to confuse anyone. The sample motion here is a little wonky.
215:15 motion here is a little wonky. >> Yeah, I think that's that's for an
215:16 >> Yeah, I think that's that's for an annexation. This This is zoning.
215:18 annexation. This This is zoning. >> Okay. This is zoning. Thank you.
215:20 >> Okay. This is zoning. Thank you. >> For a zoning.
215:37 >> There's really not a right one in there for them.
215:37 for them. >> The motion will be for an initial zoning
215:39 >> The motion will be for an initial zoning recommendation. Yeah, there should be
215:42 recommendation. Yeah, there should be simplication.
215:43 simplication. >> All right. I move to recommend
215:45 >> All right. I move to recommend >> this one is for both
215:46 >> this one is for both >> approval or an
215:48 >> approval or an >> approval of an R2 zone for Echo's
215:53 >> approval of an R2 zone for Echo's annexation file number ANNX 24-5
215:57 annexation file number ANNX 24-5 finding that the requested zoning of R2
215:59 finding that the requested zoning of R2 meets the approval criteria in Post
216:01 meets the approval criteria in Post Falls municipal code 18.201000 20110 0
216:05 Falls municipal code 18.201000 20110 0 as outlined in our deliberation and
216:06 as outlined in our deliberation and direct staff to prepare a zoning
216:08 direct staff to prepare a zoning recommendation to be provided to city
216:10 recommendation to be provided to city council.
216:11 council. >> Thank you.
216:12 >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
216:15 >> Okay, we have a motion on the floor. >> I second.
216:16 >> I second. >> And a second. Can we have roll call,
216:18 >> And a second. Can we have roll call, please?
216:19 please? >> Stephenson,
216:20 >> Stephenson, >> yes.
216:21 >> yes. >> Shower,
216:22 >> Shower, >> yeah.
216:23 >> yeah. >> Shriber,
216:24 >> Shriber, >> yes.
216:25 >> yes. >> Wilhham,
216:26 >> Wilhham, >> no.
216:28 >> no. >> Yes.
216:29 >> Yes. >> Kimble,
216:30 >> Kimble, >> yes. Okay. Motion is approved and we'll
216:33 >> yes. Okay. Motion is approved and we'll move on to city council.
216:36 move on to city council. Next item the agenda, administrative
216:38 Next item the agenda, administrative staff reports.
217:02 There's no administrative staff reports. Thank you. Any commissioner comments?
217:04 Thank you. Any commissioner comments? >> Yes, I got some comments.
217:06 >> Yes, I got some comments. >> Go ahead.
217:06 >> Go ahead. >> Uh, so I I'm not exactly clear on how we
217:09 >> Uh, so I I'm not exactly clear on how we do this, but I would love for um for
217:13 do this, but I would love for um for staff to take a look at this HOA issue
217:15 staff to take a look at this HOA issue that we keep coming up with uh in
217:18 that we keep coming up with uh in regards to funding capital repairs and
217:21 regards to funding capital repairs and replacements and see if there's an
217:22 replacements and see if there's an opportunity to put it in our subdivision
217:24 opportunity to put it in our subdivision code as we're
217:25 code as we're >> so yes
217:26 >> so yes >> advising and
217:28 >> advising and >> yeah, totally. And I that is something
217:29 >> yeah, totally. And I that is something that has already been brought up even I
217:31 that has already been brought up even I I think I as I asked for that too. It's
217:33 I think I as I asked for that too. It's been come up a couple times with city
217:35 been come up a couple times with city council meetings too. They asked for it.
217:37 council meetings too. They asked for it. So I just don't know where it is in that
217:39 So I just don't know where it is in that time. I know it was just trying to find
217:40 time. I know it was just trying to find >> I just want to put it on the record.
217:41 >> I just want to put it on the record. >> Oh yeah, for sure.
217:42 >> Oh yeah, for sure. >> So that's number one. Number two, I'd
217:44 >> So that's number one. Number two, I'd like to um have staff take a look at
217:48 like to um have staff take a look at this ducks versus chickens issue.
217:51 this ducks versus chickens issue. >> I think they're the same.
217:52 >> I think they're the same. >> I I think that's it's a very valid
217:55 >> I I think that's it's a very valid >> not the same
217:57 >> not the same point. So, I I think we got to take a
217:59 point. So, I I think we got to take a look at it as a city.
218:00 look at it as a city. >> You can't even have chickens.
218:02 >> You can't even have chickens. >> Oh, I'm getting the duck out here.
218:03 >> Oh, I'm getting the duck out here. >> Um, and and I I think
218:07 >> Um, and and I I think this may not be the right place for
218:08 this may not be the right place for this, but in regards to private streets,
218:11 this, but in regards to private streets, the way our subdivision code is written
218:14 the way our subdivision code is written right now, it's almost like it promotes
218:15 right now, it's almost like it promotes them. And I think this long-term is
218:19 them. And I think this long-term is going to be a huge liability for the
218:21 going to be a huge liability for the city one way or another. Um, I'm
218:23 city one way or another. Um, I'm wondering if it's appropriate to take
218:25 wondering if it's appropriate to take another look at how we how our code
218:29 another look at how we how our code addresses private streets. I know in
218:32 addresses private streets. I know in most other cities in Coupney County, we
218:35 most other cities in Coupney County, we can't do this. Um, up against this in
218:39 can't do this. Um, up against this in other subdivisions in Bonner County and
218:41 other subdivisions in Bonner County and Coupney County, it's it's maybe five
218:44 Coupney County, it's it's maybe five homes per private street.
218:47 homes per private street. Everything else has to have direct
218:48 Everything else has to have direct access to and from public roads.
218:52 access to and from public roads. It it
218:54 It it >> right.
218:54 >> right. >> I'm just thinking long term for the city
218:56 >> I'm just thinking long term for the city this could be a huge issue.
218:57 this could be a huge issue. >> It's one of those weird things where you
218:59 >> It's one of those weird things where you know Black Rock's all private streets,
219:00 know Black Rock's all private streets, right?
219:01 right? >> Yes.
219:01 >> Yes. >> They're not going to have a problem,
219:02 >> They're not going to have a problem, >> right?
219:03 >> right? >> And my subdivision 33 starter homes,
219:06 >> And my subdivision 33 starter homes, it's a problem.
219:07 it's a problem. >> Yep.
219:08 >> Yep. >> And there's a that's a really hard
219:10 >> And there's a that's a really hard balance and not an easy thing. And it
219:15 balance and not an easy thing. And it you're right. It probably does
219:17 you're right. It probably does >> bear looking at
219:19 >> bear looking at >> something. I'm not sure what the right
219:20 >> something. I'm not sure what the right answer is because so restrictive
219:23 answer is because so restrictive >> it's going to come back to the same uh
219:26 >> it's going to come back to the same uh plus and minus of cost and it's usually
219:30 plus and minus of cost and it's usually done for affordable housing and it's
219:32 done for affordable housing and it's done to try to decrease costs and
219:34 done to try to decrease costs and increase density and
219:35 increase density and >> right and really what it does just kicks
219:37 >> right and really what it does just kicks can down the road.
219:38 can down the road. >> Chris alluded to though we're in the
219:40 >> Chris alluded to though we're in the process of updating our subdivision code
219:42 process of updating our subdivision code >> that that's why I think maybe now is the
219:44 >> that that's why I think maybe now is the appropriate time to
219:44 appropriate time to >> he alluded to that too. So you'll be
219:46 >> he alluded to that too. So you'll be maybe seeing something on that as part
219:48 maybe seeing something on that as part of that.
219:48 of that. >> Okay.
219:49 >> Okay. >> And then just one final note. Um
219:53 >> And then just one final note. Um and again tell me how appropriate this
219:54 and again tell me how appropriate this is but I've done a lot of work on
219:57 is but I've done a lot of work on subdivision proformas and cost analysis
220:00 subdivision proformas and cost analysis and density versus
220:03 and density versus fees versus land cost and kind of follow
220:07 fees versus land cost and kind of follow figuring out where all these things
220:08 figuring out where all these things follow together. And there's so much
220:11 follow together. And there's so much misinformation thrown out there and it's
220:13 misinformation thrown out there and it's thrown in our faces constantly that
220:16 thrown in our faces constantly that density equals affordability.
220:23 Is there any opportunity here that we can
220:25 can present
220:28 present reality
220:30 reality because density does not necessarily
220:33 because density does not necessarily equate to affordability
220:35 equate to affordability and it's very mathematically accurate.
220:40 and it's very mathematically accurate. If anything, its impact fees affect
220:44 If anything, its impact fees affect affordability.
220:46 affordability. Not saying we get rid of impact fees. We
220:47 Not saying we get rid of impact fees. We need them, but
220:49 need them, but >> and we are looking at doing a per square
220:51 >> and we are looking at doing a per square foot basis on impact fees. So,
220:53 foot basis on impact fees. So, >> yeah. And I know we're talking about
220:55 >> yeah. And I know we're talking about >> tearing it. And so, I mean,
220:56 >> tearing it. And so, I mean, >> and and I'm not saying we even
220:57 >> and and I'm not saying we even necessarily have to address that per se,
220:59 necessarily have to address that per se, but just this constant
221:04 but just this constant uh presentation, every presentation is
221:05 uh presentation, every presentation is coming in and saying, "Well, we need
221:06 coming in and saying, "Well, we need more affordable housing. We need more
221:07 more affordable housing. We need more affordable housing and we're going to do
221:09 affordable housing and we're going to do that by decreasing the lot size by a
221:11 that by decreasing the lot size by a thousand square feet. It's not going to
221:13 thousand square feet. It's not going to make any difference at all.
221:14 make any difference at all. >> Yeah. And Commissioner Shrever, I I
221:16 >> Yeah. And Commissioner Shrever, I I think the best venue for that rather
221:17 think the best venue for that rather than getting into an open debate with
221:19 than getting into an open debate with people that are presenting, I mean, it's
221:21 people that are presenting, I mean, it's our role to listen to their
221:23 our role to listen to their >> And I don't that's why I'm saying I
221:24 >> And I don't that's why I'm saying I don't want to do that.
221:25 don't want to do that. >> Yeah. I and I can see that it's not
221:27 >> Yeah. I and I can see that it's not helpful to get into an argument with
221:29 helpful to get into an argument with somebody presenting their opinions on
221:30 somebody presenting their opinions on something else because this is really
221:31 something else because this is really their three minutes or or whatever else
221:33 their three minutes or or whatever else it is to say why they're not in favor of
221:35 it is to say why they're not in favor of proposals or anything else. I think the
221:37 proposals or anything else. I think the best time for you to present your
221:41 best time for you to present your feelings or research on things something
221:42 feelings or research on things something like that is during the deliberations
221:44 like that is during the deliberations with your colleagues up there. Okay.
221:45 with your colleagues up there. Okay. >> And to say you know I
221:47 >> And to say you know I >> I heard what Mr. Smith said about uh
221:50 >> I heard what Mr. Smith said about uh density bonuses and affordability. I
221:52 density bonuses and affordability. I would like to say to the commissioners
221:54 would like to say to the commissioners that I'm not necessarily in favor of
221:55 that I'm not necessarily in favor of that because of X, Y, and Z. That's
221:56 that because of X, Y, and Z. That's probably the best venue. Perfect.
221:58 probably the best venue. Perfect. >> Rather than getting into back and forth
222:01 >> Rather than getting into back and forth with public comment.
222:03 with public comment. >> Perfect. Okay.
222:04 >> Perfect. Okay. >> Um but
222:04 >> Um but >> no, that's I'm a suggestion. I just I
222:07 >> no, that's I'm a suggestion. I just I just can see that as becoming so
222:09 just can see that as becoming so adversarial at some point that it's
222:11 adversarial at some point that it's detracting from the debate.
222:13 detracting from the debate. >> Perfectly agree.
222:14 >> Perfectly agree. >> Yeah.
222:16 >> Yeah. >> Out of here. Cool.
222:19 >> Out of here. Cool. >> I move to adjurnn.
222:22 >> I move to adjurnn. No. All in favor?
222:24 No. All in favor? >> I
222:25 >> I >> All right. being a journ.
