Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Hey, Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat.

[music]

Good evening. Are we live? I guess. Good evening and welcome to the January 13, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. If we can have a roll call, please. Msina here. Ingles here. Jamas here. McCracken here. Fleming here. Word copus. Okay, if you can join me in the pledge, please. To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. and uh need approval of December 9th, 2025 commission meeting. I motion we approve the December 9th minutes as presented. Thank you. I have a first second. Have a second. Any opposed? All in favor? I I at this time any public comment other than anything that's on our agenda tonight if you wish to come up? Hear none. Yes. No, we're good. Okay. Staff comments.

Okay. Good evening, commissioners. A few updates for you. So, the county board of commissioners did approve our area of impact, which allows annexation requests to move forward. So, we met the December 31st deadline. So, that's good news. And you have annexation requests before you. So, that'll be able to move on to city council. Uh, depending on how that goes this evening. And then in March at our meeting, we'll have a PUD amendment request. There's um minor modifications being requested for the Mahogany Lane PUD. So, you'll see that coming before you and a zone change off of Futland. So, those are the two items. I thought I heard you say March.

I'm sorry, February. Sorry, I wrote down March, but yes, thank you. February. Thank you. Catch me on that one. Okay. The other item that I wanted to bring to everyone's attention is a code section that we have, municipal code section 110 CRP5. It states a speaker shall not be interrupted by members of the hearing body until his time limit has been extended or until he has finished his statement. So this is for any of the city's commissions and city council. So when we have public hearing items and we have the three minutes allocated, the speakers will be allowed to speak the full time and then if there are questions then the commission would be able to ask it at that time. So just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention. That's all. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you. Commission comments hear none. Okay. Going into our public hearing. It's um a proposed 1.937 acre annexation from county a to city R3 A-1-26. And Barbara's going to give us a summary. Good evening, commissioners. Good evening. You hear me? Okay. All right. As mentioned, uh, tonight we have before you two concurrent. Mic's not on. You can't hear me?

No. Let me bump the mic. Mike, hello. Is that better? Oh my gosh. Okay, it's very quiet. I'm have to very I'm going to have to lean in. Not sure they hear. Mike, are you able to um increase the microphone level at the podium, please?

And kill the lights. That'd [snorts] be great. Is that good? Is that better? That sounds a little better. a little bit. Okay. All right. So, we have two things to look at tonight. We have an annexation request as well as a subdivision request. They're both going to be running concurrently, so we're going to cover both of them tonight. The applicant is Aspen Homes in Celane. Consultant Olsson Engineering from Post Falls. Location is 2739 North Thomas Lane. All need legal notices were sent out on time. All right. We have before us two decision points. The first one has to do with the annexation. You're going to be have separate findings for each of these as we go through. The annexation has to do with a 1.937 acres in conjunction with zoning approval for the county agricultural suburban to R3 zone. And then as well as a subdivision which is four lot preliminary plat includes a private driveway and it will be known as mountainside at Canfield. It is um important to note here that your role in in the annexation process is just for the recommendation to council on the appropriateness of R3 for this subdivision. A little background information for you. Um here's the location map and you can see uh here's 15th here. Here's Thomas Lane. So it's basically at the end of Thomas Lane and then here's Shadic. The city limits are shown in green. So you can see that it's right on the edge of the city limits. The subject property, uh, you can see just some local streets for, um, context. Miners Loop is here to the west of it, as well as Thomas Hill Drive. Thomas Hill Drive is also here. And then this is Thomas Lane. Um, I also took a picture of this property right here so you can kind of get a feel for what the neighborhood is like. So this home that

you're looking at is this view right here. Uh this was what I would call an outof character use um previously. Uh the adjacent development is off to the right. So we've got a single home in the county. This was also in the county. And this is the property that we're talking about this evening. The existing county map is right here. So all that you see in green is Kney County a suburban which the current is currently the portion that they want to look at annexing. You can see the city limits here. It's good to know existing again is 1.937 and it is contiguous to the city limits and it is also within our area of impact. You can see here the zoning map that came along with the submitt and I [clears throat] wanted to show here in terms of they're requesting city R3 and city R3 is what we have all around it. So all the properties to the south and to the west are R3. R3 stands for three units per acre. The unit density for what they're proposing here on the property is one unit per 0.35 acres. The abuing I did look at the size of the lots here in Prospector Ridge and those uh there's seven properties here. They go from 76 per unit to 448 acres per unit. So you can see that what's proposed is right in that same range. Uh what does R3 zoning mean? means you have to have a minimum lot size of 11,5,000 square feet, sorry, 11,500 square feet and a 75 foot frontage. Uh the permuted use for this area is single family dwellings. Um the size of the lots that they're proposing would allow for basically one house per lot, so they're not oversized lots. And if approved, the applicate is also requesting that they'd be extended water and sewer. We're going to be looking at four

required findings for the approval. Uh rather than reading these here, we're going to go through them one by one. Finding one for the annexation is is this approval in or not in conformance to comprehensive plan policies. We're going to look at two sections in particular place types as well as goals and objectives. Regarding place types, the place type, as you can see here, here's the subject property is called single family neighborhood. As you can see, everything around it is also single family neighborhood. And as we mentioned already, it is contiguous right with the city limits that you can see there. This is the same map, just a closer view showing you some road names. Not that you can read them, but you can see again the subject property is well within the surrounding single family place type. In terms of what is a single family neighborhood, you can see here it's identified as lower density housing areas. Uh single family homes and larger lots. Supporting uses would be neighborhood parks and recreation. I want to make a note here too compatible zoning in in for this place type single family neighborhood is R1, R3, R5 and R8 and the applicant has chosen to go for R3. So it is at a lower density. In terms of transportation near the property, it is adjacent to bicycle network as well as walking networks. um because it's out on the edge of the city property, you can see that does not have much facility for transit. So, let's look at the other section of B1 finding has to do with the goals and objectives. So, I listed off several you're going to see in the next couple slides. Um but as you know, as as always, these are curated by staff. If there's other goals and objectives that you like to add, you certainly have that opportunity and those are in your staff

report. The ones that I've identified is uh an informed and responsive and involved community discussions. We have had several letters that have come in and hopefully we have some here today so the public has been aware of what's planned here. Um this the applicant is endeavoring to provide more housing which is a good thing for the city. Accommodating quality infrastructure. They are going to be doing all the improvements on Thomas Lane which will improve what is there now. And then there will be uh you're going to see this in a moment. There's provision for fire and other emergency services as well as police. So before you tonight for finding B1 again, does it correspond to the comprehensive plan in regards to place types and goals and objections? That's what you get to decide. [clears throat] Does it or does it not? The next finding is B2. Are the public facilities and utilities available and adequate for the purposes? We're leaning heavily on the staff comments here and all of the city staff has reviewed this. Streets, engineering, water, fire, parks, and wastewater all have reviewed it and have determined that there are indeed public utilities available. We did add, it says 13 here. We actually added a 14th today. So, there's actually 14. It's incorrect. It is correct in the packets that you have. So Tracy picked that up. I just didn't pick it up on the slide. There are 14 conditions that we have um recommended. And so the evaluation will be for you commission uh have have they or have they not met the requirements for public facilities? B3 are the physical characteristics of the site are they suitable for this request? Um what we're looking at here is the existing site and adjacent properties as well as the environmental site assessment. This is a photo of the property. So, I'm standing on the north end of the

property looking south towards Thomas Lane. And as you can see, it's been recently cleared. They do have an independent environmental site assessment that was done. In that assessment, which you have a copy of in your packet, at least a summary. It states that there was no concurrent concerns. However, they did state that when soil starts getting uh disturbed, they want to have an inspector on site. So, you're going to see this condition 13 is for us to make sure that during the building permit time, soil testing reports will be required. Um, I also spoke with DEEQ and I've asked their recommendation on if there's any other remediation that we should be doing. At this time, they said no, but they have looked at all of their records and they are going to be putting together some guidance for us that we'll be presenting. If approved tonight, if it goes to city council, any other DEEQ's recommendations would be included. and we've added that was the one that we added as the last condition. So that's condition 14 that anything that they come up with we'll make sure we adhere to. The next photo is now I'm standing on Thomas Lane and I'm looking north. So this is the pro the uh property to the north properties to the west and you can see a little bit of the sideyard of the property to the east. I think of note is that these are the properties to the west. some standing in Thomas Lane looking north and there is quite a bit of grade differentiation between these properties to the west and the subject property tonight. This is standing again at the entry and now I'm looking west that you can see these improvements along Thomas Lane and as you see in a moment the intention is that those would be continued across Thomas Lane for the full extent of the property. So for you commissioners finding B3 are the physical characteristics are these suitable for this request looking at existing site conditions the fact that there was an site environmental

assessment report provided staff has conditioned it that there will be soil reporting on any building permits issued as well as coordination with DEEQ. And last but not least for annexations is fighting B4. Um, how will this proposal adversely affect surrounding neighborhoods in regards to traffic, neighborhood character, and existing land use? We're going to look at those one by one. Uh, there was a traffic look by our city engineer and you can see the details there. Um, because it's such a small use area, we're they're only proposing four new homes. Uh, there should be no effect. And so, he's saying he has no objection to the annexation as proposed. finding before about neighborhood character. Um this is the general land use map and you can see single family dwelling is all around this area and you know north south and west neighborhood character. Here's a a view of property prospector ridge. And then what I've done is I've just overlaid what the proposal is. You can kind of see side by side the size of these lots compared to what's adjacent. And what you're going to see here in a moment, this is the private driveway that's going to be serving access to those lots. This is the single residence that's still in the county that's east of the property. Existing land use, I took a look at the map. All the parcels to the west that are adjacent to this property vary from 26 to48 units per acre. the city I'm sorry south parcel which is in the city varies from 0 29 to 0.58 east parcel just east is 2.9 and the north parcel is 4.9 so by comparison the subdivision that they are proposing is at.35 which again

is sort of in the same range as what the city lots are so before you tonight is to determine whether or not finding before is found in terms of traffic neighborhood character and existing land use. So that's it for the annexation. Moving on to the subdivision, we have some more findings to take a look at. And again, these findings have to be found separate from the annexation findings. So this is just kind of an overview background of what they're proposing. So imagine if you will, north is up now. So that we've turned it sideways in this view. So here's Thomas Lane on the left. This is a private access road. And then here are the four lots. The the lots range from 149 to 155 overall den density of.35 units per acre. And as we already talked about size limits, you have to have 11,500 ft² per dwelling unit. So in other words, that's giving you you can only have one house per lot as well as an accessory dwelling unit as would be allowed in R3. The entry is off Lane. They have not requested a PUD. Um, gated communities can only have that if it goes through a PUD. So, no gates would be allowed at the entry here off of Thomas Lane. And as stated, they are requesting to be added to uh, city water at their own expense as well as sewer. And also, we made a request that those would be extended to the north property line, which they're also doing. You'll see that when we look at the utility drawings. All right. The subdivisions that are required for approval are findings B1 through B4. Rather than reading them here again, we'll go through them one by one. B1 are all the generally plary PLA requirements met and attested by the city engineer and Chris Booseley did review the plans and has stated that all general

preliminary plat requirements have been met per the municipal code. finding B2. Are there provisions for sidewalks, streets, alleys, rights of way, easement, street lighting, fire protection, planting, drainage, pedestrian, bicycles, and utilities. So, we'll go through these are these are drawings again that were in this middle packet. What you're looking at here is a cross-section of Thomas Lane. So, this is Thomas Lane here. They will be adding curbon gutter. They're adding the 10-ft swale and the 5-ft sidewalk, which is exactly what we just saw in those photos previously on the adjacent properties. They're also here's that property that we took the picture of earlier and what we saw in those photos. So again, they're just carrying that same thing across the across the full width of the property. You'll also see here uh one of the requirements of this B2 is street lighting. So this right here is existing street light. So there is street lighting available. This is a cross-section of the private driveway that they're proposing. Um we're now looking at it looking north. So off here to the left is that steep grade that goes up to the adjacent properties to the west. Um rather than doing retaining wall, they've chosen to use a 3:1. So they don't have sloughing. So they actually have uh used 8 ft to get to that 3:1 grade. They've got this is a 33 foot access and utility tract, separate tract, and then it's 24 ft of driveway in the middle. Once you get onto the property, there's a 10-ft swale like you would expect for utilities, utility easements, and storm water swailes. [clears throat] Um, we will be requiring that there's a maintenance agreement to maintain all of this at the cost of the homeowners. And again, noted entry is not gated. So, this is the utility plan that uh we received from them. You can see water and sewer are here. You can see that they're extended to the edge of the

property. Um, we did require them to put in this fire service turnaround which has been reviewed by fire for its usefulness. Uh, we required a snow storage space here at the end so they can just push it out and have a place to store the snow. Uh, we required them to put in four individual common space parking units. So, because the this roadway is not wide enough to park on the street, so we've provided parking off the street, one per unit. uh finding B2. In terms of comments, all the city staff did review these plans. You can see the departments that were involved there and uh the city staff has indicated there's adequate public services and they're available. Again, that hasn't been changed because I added the last, but there are 14 now, 14 recommended conditions infrastructure that's there. Now, we've already looked at this one. So to the west of the property, we see this is the swale that they'll be continuing the sidewalk and the curb and gutter facing east. Uh there's only curb and gutter on the south side of Thomas Lane. So where they're going to be continuing that is going to be over here. So it's going to help the drainage off Thomas Lane in front of the property. So, the finding before you, I'm not going to read that again, but as noted, the city staff has indicated that the the infrastructure they're defining is there as well as the addition of the 14 recommended conditions. So, finding B3 was the next one. Um, does it meet all the requirements of municipal code? Engineering and planning have reviewed those and for the purposes of this preliminary plat submitted all of the improvements have been found to met municipal code requirements. And lastly B4 does the proposed preliminary plat meet the requirements

of the applicable zoning district? As mentioned it is zoned R3. The proposed zoning is consistent with the surrounding properties as you can see here with no PUD. The development must meet all of the R3 guidelines per the municipal code and no entry gate will be allowed. Four lots, we've already gone over this, but four lots, single family housing, the frontages that's required for R3 is 75. They do meet that. All lots also meet the 11,500 square ft minimum for R3. And one of the things that the conditions you'll see for planning, rather than having all the setback requirements off the public road, we're going to require that all of that will be off of the private road. So all the setbacks will be from the private road, the frontage will be on the private road. So before you tonight is, does it meet the zoning requirements per the planning review? Because there's no requested deviation, it has to meet R3 requirements and we believe that it does. So, these are the 14 proposed conditions. [clears throat] Uh, engineering has made sure that they will have a dedicated sidewalk easement along Thomas Lane, they're going to provide a 3 to1 taper transition. So, when it hits where it's not developed yet, there's going to be a taper rather than something abrupt. Planning is requiring that instead of public street, which is what R3 calls out, all of the frontages and setbacks will be from the private street. We're also asking that they add the utility easement shown on the private driveway on the final plat. Water is requiring an 8 inch water mane will be uh in the beneath the private lane and also is going to go to the end up to the northern property line and also requiring a permanent flushing station to handle that because it's a dead end there. wastewater. They're requiring for the 30-foot shared util utility in the road as well as uh

the to and through which you're familiar with that urban forestry is calling out what's uh what is looking for for street trees along Thomas Lane. So, we are asking for those. There's overhead power lines as well as a swale. So they've got to he's given him some ideas about you know talk to us so we can tell you exactly what trees are going to work in that tight constrained place. Fire uh this is generic conversation from the basically once they pull permits fire is going to be reviewing those to make sure it meets all IFC requirements. Building is asking for the independent soil test reports which we've mentioned me mentioned and then also added uh the compliance with any DEEQ recommendations that are forthcoming. two decision points that you have before you tonight. One for A126, the annexation of 1.937 acres in conjunction with the zoning approval from county a suburban to R3 zone and then S126 a four lot onetrack preliminary plat which will be known as Mountside Canfield subdivision and access will be off of a private driveway. You have alternatives for both of those. So the alternative for A126 is to approve with conditions, approve without conditions, deny or deny with prejudice. And you'll find those worksheets in your packet. The action alternative for the subdivision is to approve, approve with conditions, without conditions, deny or deny with prejudice. Any questions? questions about Go ahead, John.

Uh, first a comment. Um, this is a little bit different layout of a staff report than I'm used to and staff reports are always pretty great. Uh, I think this is really a step above. I I applaud the the effort. It's nice to have the applicable

uh finding or whatever and a little kind of commentary next to it. I think I think you've done a really good job and I don't know if that's something the whole department's moving towards a little different formatting, but I I applaud that number one. Questions? I I I throw this out. It might be a little bit just kind of rhetorical. Maybe the applicant touches on this a little bit. Maybe you have a comment or two. Um, if this was a PUD, and it's not,

uh, there'd be a requ there'd be a requirement uh for there to be a a functioning uh, HOA, not required in this case. You know, this kind of looks like a little uh little PUB, but it's it's not. The only similarity would be that we are requiring a maintenance agreement.

And that's where I'm going with the question is is and we've approved others in town. I think fairly recently there was one on Fourth Street just north of Lunford, north of Costco. There there's a little triangular piece there and I I angsted a little bit on that one and I I said, "Well, yeah, I get it. There's a maintenance agreement that's on the it's on the plat. you buy the house from the realer and uh it says, "Hey, you got to be part of this maintenance agreement." But in the real world, you know, do they function? Uh does this one guy elect he becomes the guy that walks up and down the street passing the hat trying to collect money to plow the snow? I've just Does it does it actually work in in the real real world? And and I guess if you can say, "Hey, I'm not aware of any any issues from these previous developments with a maintenance agreement that the phones aren't ringing off the hook at city hall that, you know, the snow is not getting plowed and and things like that. U but I I just I just I'm just curious how it actually functions."

I I would defer to Hillary or Randy. Do either of you have any comments on that? I think it works. Okay. And actually, Commissioner McCracken might be able to respond the best. Yeah. I mean, I think they I mean, this is only four homes, so they're either an HOA or a maintenance agreement. The four people pitch in or they're an HOA where all four of them are on the board. So, I think they have to work together either way. I think a maintenance agreement is simpler for the size of a street for sure because there's just not not a lot there other than other than plowing their own driveways. There's not a lot else to maintain. There's not a park or trails or that kind of thing. So,

no, I appreciate that. I at the end of the day, the phone rings at city hall and it's, hey, it's priv private property. It's not not our not ours. But I I just hope it it it gets worked out. Yeah. maybe less likely in city limits, but outside of city limits, a road maintenance agreement is very common. So, yeah, thank you. And that agreement would be probably recorded on each of the properties so that purchaser would know that they was a responsibility. The title company would disclose it on any future transfer. So, yeah, good deal. Good report. Thank you. Any other questions for me? No. Thanks. Okay, that was good.

Thank you. Thank you. Just click to go. Okay. Which one? Left. Uh, yes. Left. All right. Perfect. the speech. Okay. Hi. I just got to swear you in. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Help you God.

To the best of my knowledge. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you.

Uh good evening, commissioners. Uh for the record, Jeremy Tulli. I'm a land use consultant uh here in Cney County uh collaborating with Olsson Engineering tonight on behalf of Aspen Homes. Um, Commissioner Engles, I also recognized that the staff report was incredibly comprehensive and it sort of makes my job pretty boring because I don't have a lot to add to it. But right out of the gate, I can offer some clarification on that roadway. It actually isn't a private street. It's a shared driveway. So, it won't even have like a street sign. So, there that should clear up some of the misconceptions. to your point, um, some residents believe it's paved and it's in front of my house and it's the city's responsibility, but as Sarah can attest, on such a small thing like this, it's probably going to be pretty clear that it's a shared driveway. It's uh, going to be built uh, more robust than a street section as per the geotechnical engineer. So, that should help clear that up. Pardon me. [cough] [clears throat] Anyway, I will be brief and try not to be redundant. I'm going to work backwards through um and assume an R3 zoning designation and annexation. Um, I know that's not a foregone conclusion, but just to kind of work backwards through the the subdivision first and a summary. Um, not cut right out of uh city code as to what the subdivision uh requirements would be. These are mostly yes or no questions. Does the preliminary plan contain all the essential information? It does as per the city engineer. Does the plan contain all the provisions for the required infrastructure? all of the things that we see in a preliminary PLA. City staff uh looks over our preliminary plans to ensure that it does. And of course, if something gets missed along the way, um

we work closely with the city engineer to get that uh get that addressed. Um does the plan meet the city's design standards? Again, for the preliminary review, it does. And under the R3 zoning designation, do our underlying lots meet all of those requirements? and city staff their report um basically ensured that it did uh there was one point of clarification in the staff report where it it was sort of a trans the number was transposed where she indicated that it was.35 units per acre. The lot sizes are 35. The tract is its own lot. So the actual density is just 2 point it's just over two units per acre 2.07 107 the max being three units per acre in the R3. So just a point of clarification that I noticed in the staff report. So the subdivision again assuming that we were to annex this property with the R3 zoning designation. It's actually a pretty simple review that it does meet all the requirements of uh the subdivision. [sighs] So, the zoning request um and I and I do recognize that you guys are going to forward along a recommendation to city council. They will make the ultimate decision. Um so, is the R3 uh zoning designation the appropriate designation for this particular property? Um so, first we look at the the comprehensive plan, the future land use map. I felt that the staff report was incredibly uh thorough in the goals and policies of the comp plan. So, I will rest on those. Uh, additionally, the future land use map is pretty clear that a low density residential out here is is the preferred and in implementing zoning out here. That's exactly what Aspen Homes is proposing. Um, next we'll look at the infrastructure availability and as all the departments weigh in, infrastructure

is readily available. Infrastructure extensions will be done at the developer's expense. it'll be warrantied and then handed back over to the city. Um, additionally, infrastructure will be pulled to and through to the north property boundary so that if that property ever annexes in or will be developed out that we don't hamstring those people. That developer, if it is a developer, can work with city staff and determine the most appropriate uh place to loop water lines for fire flows. uh which way that the sewer should flow, if there should be connecting street networks and the like. So that will all be reserved and uh dealt with through the platting process. Site characteristics. Um is the low density single family uh compatible based on the site characteristics? Um I thought staff did a great job with their photos and we all kind of know this area anyway. It's sort of right in that low spot before you go up the the hill a little further on Thomas. Uh the intent there was to not disturb the subdivision to the west, leave that alone, pull it back off of that fence line that's been in there for years. Um and then uh reclaim the area further down the toe of that slope and then build from there. And I thought the photos did a good job of representing that. Um the cleanup on the site is complete. However, the geotech has been back out there to dig some test holes so that we could see if the native soil um get a feel for the native soil. Again, if we assume that some homes will be built there, we would like to know what the soil looks like there. So, they dug some test holes. The person that actually did the environmental assessment wanted to be on site that day so they could check the margins in those test holes. Still no concerns. Um but also the DEEQ requirements are going to ensure if we move to development of the

site, digging foundations, putting in for roads, all of those uh best management practices will be met and if any additional cleanup is required, the developer is is going to participate in that. So um with regard to uh impact on uh the rest of the area, um four homes on here uh versus the junkyard that was on here. Um, we believe a massive improvement. The city engineer weighed in. No additional traffic study is needed. It's going to be a very minimal impact on traffic in the area. We're talking roughly, you know, four peak hour trips per day. Um, Thomas Lane built out with pedestrian connectivity all the way to 15th. We're just going to match that street section along Thomas. Um, then the uh shared driveway into the development. it'll have very very minimal effect on uh the surrounding areas. And then again, consistency with those surrounding areas and not just to hone in on the development to the west. I did pull up this slide right here. So, if you look everything in yellow.

Nope. Nope. Not at this. Nope. Nope. Not at this. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. They have uh Rodney Walker who is neutral and does want to testify. Come on. Yeah. My name is Rodney Waller and I'm a resident of the Prospector Ridge subdivision. I just need to swear in solemnly swear and affirm that testimony about to give is the truth, the hope truth, nothing but the nothing but the truth to help you God. Yes.

Okay. Go right ahead. Thank you. So, I've heard the word density mentioned several times, and I think that's the reason I'm here is I live uh probably 150 yards from this proposed development, and everything I in full agreement when I heard Aspen Homes was going to be the developer. My wife and I went bravo. Um, good local builders. Um, the concerns that we have is back to density. Uh, and really the topic is ADUs. And I'm in the early stages of investigating all this ADU things because our neighborhood is about to have the first one in our neighborhood in the spring and there's a lot of hubbablaloo because as you might guess uh the people who buy an R3 have a certain density expectation and ADUs uh fall outside of those boundaries for a lot of people. So, I guess my question would be if we could get some rebuttal from uh Aspen. Do C do you plan to have CCNRs um on these four lots that would prohibit uh a second residential dwelling on that? That's my number one question and concern. Um and I'm not sure. I'm researching right now to know if you know the the city has a brochure on ADUs that uh gives the indication that other cities can allow them or not. But then it was raised to me today that perhaps the state is also supporting ADUs uh at a higher level. So, I'm not sure uh if anyone here could speak to does a CCNR prohibiting that trump a city or a state

uh allowance for that. So, I'm not so just a question and soil contamination. Glad to see it was in there. It's has been a junkyard for decades and you see a lot of crazy things going on back there crushing cars. So, I'm glad to see the engineers and DEEQ people will be monitoring that during the soil disturbance. And that's it. As far as your two questions, I don't know if Hillary wants to address it or or Randy and then the applicant has a chance to come back up. Okay. Later at the end and answer any questions that might arise from anyone else speaking. So, okay. I think you might get some answers, but I don't know if you have anything to add on.

And I did speak with them before the meeting a little bit. Um, so there a couple of questions within that. So if a neighborhood wanted to impose CCNRs, they could and that would supersede city regulations. So if they wanted to have different, you know, guidelines for ADUs, height limits or design or things like that. Um, but it is possible that at the state level they could restrict that from being an option. And we do anticipate some legislation coming forward this session that will be prohousing. So that could take various forms. They're looking at Montana and other states for trying to encourage ADUs and other housing types in neighborhoods. So we don't know what that will look like. Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Erin Ford did not indicate whether you wanted to speak or not. Okay. Uh Deborah Miller does not wish to speak but didn't indicate favor or opposed. Okay, that's all I have unless someone else wants to speak before the applicant has a chance to come up to answer any other statements you want to make or if you have nothing else to say. Uh Jeremy Trulli again for the record. Um yeah, just to to um to answer that question, I I don't think that the applicant at this point in time, they're going to rest on the underlying zoning um and not explicitly uh prohibit ADUs. We're going to that is part of the homeowners here are going to be sitting on large lots. They may have a shop. They may have a child that they want to put um in an ADU above said shop or something like that where I don't think they're interested. Um they deliberately went much larger than um the minimum lot size so that these could be larger sort of estateish type uh lots. So they're just going to um if approved they would rest on the underlying zoning to dictate what was put on those lots. Um and with that again um we respectfully uh request approval of the subdivision and a recommendation of an R3 uh zoning designation as we move uh to council. So thank you very much.

Any additional questions? No. Thank you. All right. All right, I'm going to close public testimony on this, bring it to the commissioners for discussion, and hopefully a finding an a motion. Go ahead, John.

I I wouldn't call this a no-brainer, uh, but pretty close to that in terms of, uh, you know, everything just lines up with this one. I mean, the comp plan is very clear that compatible zoning is everything from R1 to R8. this could be a lot more dense than we see here. And uh I, you know, recognizing that everything around it is R3. I our recommendation to council is just to recommend the zoning. So I I I it's to me, like I said, it's pretty close to an R uh no-brainer that R3 is the right fit here. And that parcel, in my humble opinion, belongs in this city because like a lot of other doughnut holes and Swiss cheese and whatnot places on the fringe of the city. It would benefit from being in the city. The city manages that road section in front of it. The city plows it. The city sweeps it. The city polices it, fires it, etc., etc. It belongs in the city. Uh that's just commentary, but

Okay. Okay. And it belongs in this city as R3. [laughter] All right. Thank you. I I agree. I think it's a it fits well within the community. The the all the neighborhoods around it are are very similar. Um very little impact. It's only four houses. Um I think it's a a great improvement from its historic use or at least the last the last previous history. Um so I think it checks all the boxes. Every city department has agreed that there is not an issue with servicing the the four homes that will come in. So I I think it's a great project. Ditto.

Not anything bad. Yeah. It's a good It's a good ad. Yeah. And Aspen does a great job. It'll only add to your neighborhood. It'll increase your values and clean up a very ugly eyesore. Yeah. Thank you. I agree with the other comments that have been made and looking for a motion. Please, you want to go, John?

Sure, I'll do this one. Uh, so, um, with respect to the annexation being A1-26. This is a matter that's come before the planning and zoning commission tonight, January 13th. Lucky 13, 2026 to consider A1-26 a request for 1.9 1.937 acre annexation from County Egg Suburban to City R3. Applicant is Aspen Homes and Development LLC. Location is 2739 East Thomas Hill Lane, Quarter Lane. Uh so we make a a number of findings of fact uh that the commission here, planning and zoning commission finds that uh we've made A1 through A9 findings of fact that are slated in our worksheet here uh that have been established on a more probable than not basis as shown on the record before it and on the testimony presented here tonight at this public hearing. So uh walk through these in summary. A1 is a finding of fact that touches on all of the uh procedural uh aspects of the hearing have been addressed and covered with respect to noticing and and mailers and all those things and newspaper legals and all that kind of stuff have been done. A2 is a finding of fact that says we had public uh testimony tonight that we've heard. And A3 describes the site as a site that's within the AIC. Uh it's vacant. It's an egg egg suburban and it's 1.937 acres. uh finding A4 uh speaks to the uh requested uh annex, the requested zoning being R3

uh with what we see tied to uh subdivision one-26 for four lot uh subdivision with a uh deadend uh driveway uh that accommodates all the utilities. etc. Uh A4 also kind of points out that the properties surrounding the development are all R3 and that's been touched on several times. finding A5. Uh we addressed the uh comp plan uh which talks about this being a single family neighborhood place type of which uh R1, R3, R5, R8, and even MH8 are all appropriate. This being the lesser density R3. So it's very much compatible zoning according to the comp plan. uh in A6. Uh as the uh presenters have pointed out with respect to the comp plan goals, uh the comp plan goals and objectives that are addressed in our findings worksheet seem quite appropriate. I would leave it at that and point out that you know there's uh I think uh very good support in the fact that this helps provide you know that balance of uh housing product types and price points. Uh it's a a property that is a little cheaper than what we see on the river at least. So there's that. Sorry for the editorial. uh A7 is a fact that uh you know it's been well addressed that all of the city departments have looked at

this with respect to sewer, waste, water, water uh traffic uh etc. All those utilities and services uh can be uh served with no problems. Uh A8 talks to the uh nature of the site. It's been remediated, but it's it's it's flat and really has no significant physical constraints of any sort. And then A9 talks to the environmental site assessment being completed. uh that supports that there's no finding of of you know environmental concerns there and there are conditions going forward that further protect into the future as the thing as the dirt starts moving uh to make sure that those uh attributes are uh addressed and uh any future remediation handled during construction. So with that uh conclusions of law based on the foregoing findings of fact the planning commission would make the following conclusions of law. B1 that the proposal is in conformance with the comp plan policies. B2 that the public facilities and utilities are available and adequate for the proposed use. B3 that the physical characteristics of the site uh do make it suitable for the request at this time. and B4 that the proposal uh would not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood with regard to traffic neighborhood character and or and existing land uses. So the motion would propose the decision that the uh planning and zoning commission pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law that we have determined that the requested R3 zoning

uh does comply with the required evaluation criteria and recommends that the city council adopt the R3 zoning uh with the following conditions uh that are provided in the worksheet. Those being the 14 that uh were provided in the presentation. Thank you, John, for that motion. I need a second. I'll second. I have a second by Fleming. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll call, please. Ingles, yes. Jamas, yes. Fleming, yes. Vracken, yes. Missina,

yes. Okay, motion passes. I need a similar finding report for I'll do this one. Okay.

Um this matter coming before the planning and zoning commission on January 13, 2026 to consider S1-26. A request for approval of a four lot on one track subdivision known as Mountainside at Canfield. The owner applicant is Aspen Homes. The location is 2739 East Thomas Lane. Um, Courtane, Idaho 83814. The findings of fact. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the following facts 1 A1 through 8 A8 have been established on more probable than not basis as shown on the record before it and the testimony given at the public hearing. These are the noticing requirements. um the testimony given tonight and a description of the subject property and the conditions in contained in the staff report. The conclusions of law based on the foregoing findings of fact, the planning commission makes the following conclusions of law that all of the general preliminary plat requirements have been met as attested by the city engineer. that the provision for sidewalks, streets, alleys, rideaways, easements, and street lighting, fire protection, planting, drainage, pedestrian and bicycles facilities are adequate. That the preliminary plat does comply with all of the following subdivision design standards contained in chapter 16.15 and all the subdivision improvement standards contained in chapter 16.40 requirements. The proposed preliminary plat does meet the requirements for the applicable zoning district of R3. The planning and zoning commission pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law has determined that the proposed preliminary plat does comply with the evaluation criteria and the request should be approved with the following conditions 1 through 14 as repeated in the previous um in the previous list. Um, we would

approve with conditions and that's it. Okay. I have um first by McCracken. Second. I have a second. Second. I have a second by Jimus and roll call please. Jam toss. Yes. Ingles. Yes. Fleming. Yes. McCracken. Yes. Msina. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Need a motion to adjurnn. I'll make that motion to adjurnn. I have a motion by Fleming to adjurnn. Second. I have a second by Engles. All in favor? I. Any opposed? We are adjourned.

Thank you. Thank you. [music] [music] Heat. [music] Heat. [music]

[music] [music]