Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

call the meeting in order. Please rise for the pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the September 9th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Go through the agenda here. Uh we'll start with roll call tonight. Here present. Here

and Kibby Walton is excused tonight. Uh any ceremonies, announcements, appointments, or presentations tonight, Mr. Manley? There's none. Amendments to the agenda. Just one clarification on um public hearings. Action item B, Echo Estates annexation file A NX 245. Uh they withdrew their interest in their subdivision. So we continued with the annexation aspect of their request. Okay. Sounds good. What does that mean? So what that means, yeah, there's a question about what does that mean?

That's fine. So what that means is as the applicant, they are just looking for a zoning recommendation from you tonight as part of the annexation request. That'll go before city council at a later date to hear whatever the outcome is tonight from you guys. and then um at a later date down the road once they have more direction then they would apply for a subdivision at that time if it was approved. We don't know the outcome of where it's going to where it's go. Yeah. So there's still a hearing. We'll explain a little bit more but there's still a hearing for them tonight. Okay. Yep. Any declaration of conflict, expparte contacts or site visit from commission members?

Have a conf I have a conflict tonight on the consent calendar. So, I'll recuse myself from that. All right, sounds good. Anybody else? Nope. All right. Uh, can we go over the consent calendar, please?

Yeah, we got action item A, which the is the meeting minutes from the July 29th, 2025 commission meeting. We got action item B, which is the meeting minutes from the August 12th, 2025 commission meeting. Action item C is the Poland and Zoro special use permit reason decision file number SUP253. Action item D is the River City Corner subdivision reason decision file number SUBD251. Action item E is the River City Corner special use permit reason decision file number SUP251. Action item F is G2 development annexation zoning recommendation file numbernx252. Action item G is the G2 development annexation reason decision file number SUBD252. And action item H is the Painted Rock subdivision reason decision file number SUBD253. Okay. Any questions?

Anybody like to make a motion on the consent calendar? Yeah, I'll move to approve the consent calendar as presented. Okay, we have a motion. Second and a second. Roll call, please. Stephenson. Yes. Schlavhower. Yes. Shriber. Yes. Wilhham. Yes. Carrie. Yes. Kimble. Abstain. All right. So moved. All right. Uh, next item is citizen issues. This section is reserved for citizens wishing to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda tonight. You will have five minutes to speak. Do we have anybody that would like to speak on something that's not on the agenda tonight? All right. Come on up. I have copies of this. you guys like it? Sure, it's fine.

Uh, name for the record, please. Uh, Sarah Ericson.

Uh, good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm just going to read straight from this because I have public speaking anxiety. Um, my name is Sarah Ericson. I'm here tonight to ask you to consider a small but meaningful change to the city code regarding backyard ducks. Yes, I said ducks. Right now, the code treats ducks as livestock and requires at least one acre of land to keep them. Chickens, however, are already permitted on any detached single family lot with up to 10 hens. I believe ducks should be allowed under similar guidelines. And I'd like to share why. Ducks require very little space, 10 to 15 square feet per bird uh of outdoor run area. They are often quieter than chickens, especially male ducks, who often make little noise at all. Their waste is actually less of a nuisance. Unlike chickens, duck manure is cold compost that can be applied directly to gardens without aging. Ducks also provide natural pest controls, eating slugs, mosquitoes, and other bugs, which reduces the need for chemical pesticides in our neighborhoods. Another point I forgot to put in here is they have nutrient-rich eggs. So, people who are allergic to chicken eggs can eat duck eggs sometimes. Uh, and they're healthier for you. Beyond practical benefits, ducks bring joy and are absolutely hilarious. if you'd like to see my child duck videos later. Uh they are gentle social animals that provide companionship and emotional support much like chickens already do for families across Post Falls. I also want to recognize concerns about neighbors and animal welfare. That's why I'm proposing clear limits. A maximum uh minimum, I'm sorry, of two ducks since they're flock animals uh with a strong recommendation to start with three for their well-being in case one dies. uh a maximum of five ducks per household to keep flocks small and manageable. Families could either have one male with up to four females or all males or all females. Um housing and setback requirements um would mirror those already in place for chickens. Uh duck pools would need to be kept clean to prevent odors uh and mosquito issues, same as any standing water on property. Ducks only need to be able to submerge

their face. They don't really need a whole pond. Uh the water from that kitty pool that some people use uh is nutrient-rich and like I said, cold compost, so instantly usable. People are even doing duck ponics and watering their indoor plants with it because it does not smell like chicken manure does. Um in short, allowing a few backyard ducks under the same framework as chickens would give families flexibility, help educate children, protect neighbors, uh and ensure animal welfare while bringing environmental and personal benefits to our community. Thank you for considering this amendment to section 6.08.030. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else tonight? Okay. Any unfinished or old business? There's none.

All right. We'll move into the public hearings tonight. If you're wishing to speak, uh, make sure you fill out the form in the back. We went up front. So, and at that time, you'll have four minutes to speak. The timer is on the podium, so please pay attention to that. Um, also, as we're going through the staff report and the developer talking and public, uh, please keep all your comments to yourself and everyone just give everybody the courtesy to be able to speak their mind if you would speak, come up here. Uh, there is no question answer. After public testimony, the developer does have a time to come up and and rebut any testimony and kind of can answer any of those questions. So if you do have questions, ask them and then the developer will answer them after that fact. All right, with that we'll open up the Harvest Meadow just PUD. Um, good evening commissioners. John Manley, planning manager, city of Post Falls, introducing the Harvest Meadows PUD and subdivision case file PUD 252 and issue 254. The um owner is Blackwell Homes and Development. The applicant is Merl Van Hton. The requested action for you tonight is to approve the proposed PUD on the 11.2 acres and the associated subdivision that they're proposing into 85 single family residential lots at the 7.36 dwelling units per acre. Now, if you remember, this was brought to you recently in June. They had 92 lots. the applicant from what I understand and they can go into more details took kind of your considerations and your concerns and they proposed an amendment and that's what we're here tonight is kind of look at their revised plan based off your comments looking at the PD they do base everything off of the gross acres of so there I have highlighted there on where that's stated in the falls municipal

code the property and the project location is as you see here and hatched red sandwiched between Guyia Road and Spokane Street just to the west or southwest of the intersection of North Brookie Drive and Spokane Street. Brookie Drive is that uh one-way street that kind of serves those lots that are out there by the golf course. The current land use, it's transitional. You can see some pre-existing single family homes that were once there that they're intending to remove, but it is transitioning to some other future than what was there in the past. It is over the raft and prairie aquifer. The water provider would be East Green Acres and the city of Post Falls would provide sanitary sewer. Looking at the surrounding zoning in the city of Post Falls, you can see that to the north, east, and south, it's the single family R1 zone. The golf course to the east is all zoned to R1 with the golf course. To the west, you do see some large lot undeveloped county egg property just to the west. So moving on to the PUD review criteria. So what I did here is as we stay on each criteria, I highlighted them in different colors. So we'll progress to different colors. But the first one is does the proposed PUD provide for adequate utility services and parking to service the proposed development. So regarding the public water supply system, there is a will serve letter associated with the subdivision in this project from East Green Acres Irrigation District. Sanitary sewer service is available and there's capacity to service and this deals with the next criteria. And is there accommodations for other utilities necessary to support the proposed

development? and looking at exhibit A3 which is the preliminary plan. They do show the corridors for utilities and easements along the private and public roadways and the aloays within the project. The next one is does the proposed project is there sufficient parking to meet the needs of this PUD and this is kind of the crux I think of the last one and where they've kind of revised this a bit. So, our code requires a minimum of two off- streetet parking stalls for each residence. And in their narrative and in sheet C5, the applicant details 114 available on street parking stalls and about $34 per lot. Here is their plan where they show where the on street parking will be and the the type. And so where you have Airshshire Lane, that is their private street and they do have parking on the south side being proposed. Those would be the front loaded product on along there to the north of the air private lane. Those are rear loaded. So then that provides the reason why that's purple is because that's a continuous parking that's not interfered by driveways. And so that would those would be um continuous parking along those lots as well as the open space which I'll go into detail in a little bit. And then you have the other orange along the north which show those are more front-loaded and so you'd end up having a driveway between lots and one uh parking stall typically between those. So the next criteria does a proposed PD provide for integrated transportation network and adequately serve the proposed development. We're looking at the um providing for continual arterial and collector streets meeting the standards. They provide they're proposing Tennessee Avenue within first phase that would connect the project to the southwest. Another connection to Spokane Street, improving

uh emergency service access to that area and improving circulation. Phase two that is planned to connect Guy Road out to the west. And then by staff reviewing this, they all look like there is sufficient capacity to handle the proposed development. Does the proposed network allow for adequate circulation and snow storage throughout the entire development? They do have some tracks. I'll let the applicant go into and how they intend to meet the snow management of this project, but they do have a few a couple tracks and the open space. We do identify that the there's going to be no parking on the proposed alleyways and on the p and the private street only has it on one side. Does the project provide for pedestrian bicycle systems designed to provide adequate circulation throughout the entire development? So you do see and I'll show on this next slide here. Let's see. I think it was in the previous one here. The project does have the plan for the open space and pedestrian connecting out to Spokane Street. You do have on the along the east side, you will have improvements that will improve the west side of Spokane Street. As far as let's see, there's their open space they're intending to develop. Looking at the next criteria, does the proposed PED provide enhanced community design by conserving and incorporating sites significant natural, scenic or historical features of development if any? So, this site does not have any, but it is along the park here along the rail corridor. They would be required to

have a sixoot fence to kind of protect um that corridor. Does the proposal integrate a mix of compatible land uses into development and adequately buffer or separate inco incompatible uses in development? Staff use this as they're proposing single family development detached. They're next to other single family detached units. Albeit it is an R1 zone. They're proposing an R2 on smaller lots. From staff's perspective, they're not incompatible. And then looking at are these proposed uses in the PUD blend in with the surrounding uses neighbor neighborhoods. I site here that the they do have um average lot sizes of about 3,400 square feet. The smallest lot is 2,800. They're only on three lots, the 82, 83, and 84 with the largest lot being about 6,200 square f feet. Regarding the open space pods are required to have 10% of their project be it open space in their exhibit in their application they cited the net area. So what I did is I calculated out what they site as their gross in their project as 11.57 10% of their gross would be 50,000 about 5,400 square feet. They are greater than that. So they are slightly above what is required for the PD. they would meet that. And then the fourth criteria, does a proposed PD provide for timely development of the property and security for future completion and maintenance? So as stated, they do propose three phases and each phases does independently stand on its own and would allow for continuation and continuity. The other one is ensuring that each building in the development lot has sufficient access to around the structures and allow for continual

maintenance of the building and access for emergency services. So in regards to our setbacks on our individual lots that does allow for um access and maintenance of each structure and we do see that within their combination between their public way and private ways you'd have access to their residences. ensuring that a funding mechanism exists to adequately maintain common areas that are not publicly maintained. We require an HOA to be established prior to platting and that's typically how staff recommends and sees this as being um facilitated. And then are there any modifications and deviations? This is what is cited in the conditions right now for approval if you guys deem so. And As far as memorializing, they're reducing the 4,000 square foot, which is typically in an R2 zone, to 2,800 square feet. The driveways, minimum of 16 foot wide driveways. This allows for the potential for two cars to park side by side. It has some standards for some rear loading, has some standards for the 40 foot front loaded, the 40T. That's how you get to the 16 feet because we require and code 40% of the frontage to be for driveway approaches or driveways. That's how you get from 40 to 16. So they tweaked their project a little bit, increased our lot sizes so they could get there. And then you can see the other ones at that point, some setback standards that they requested. Any questions for me on the PD at this point? on that that sheet, your last sheet there. These are the things that they're going that they're that they don't meet.

These are the things that they're asking for either that they don't meet like in particular like the 4,000 foot, you know, that would be the typical R2 minimum lot size. So, in order to get um this layout in the form they are proposing like the minimum being that 2,800 foot on the How many of the lots don't meet it? The what do you have for an average? The average was a slide earlier too. 3377 the applicant may know net lot sizes. The applicant may know how many lots are under 4,000 square feet.

Okay. And then and then on the the I remember last time one of our concerns was the setback the front setback for driveway parking. What do they have versus the code? They would I don't think we're on that one there. The driveways got are going to have to be 20 feet long. So we we wouldn't entertain anything any different anyways. We got to make sure that that garage to sidewalk the garage face to sidewalk as with any other um lot in Post Falls is 20T from either property line to face a garage or back a sidewalk to face a garage whatever is closer

and the building is 15. Yes, you can take the structure like if you had, you know, a living room or whatnot that can that can be 15 feet off, but Sure. Will you go back to the plat? Mhm. Visually, what is different on this than the one that we already seen? Other than there's seven fewer lots, but it's very similar to the exhibit that was part of the NX. So, the free space is still the same size.

No, they actually it's a little bit smaller. They had to if you look at the previous one, which I accidentally left on one of these slides, I noticed. Go back to it. So this right here, you can see how on the previous layout they had a little bit more open space, but in order to in um to deal with some of the concerns with the amount of parking. So before I think they had a single driveway with a with a questionable whether they can get twocar garages, right? So there was concerns about that. So what they did from what I understand is they widen some of their lots. They widen their driveways and I believe they plan on doing some a two-car garage product on some lots. And so that's how they were going to address it

and move some of the open space to the other end of that private road.

So that's what led to a reconfiguration here because once you widen some lots up, you consume real estate. Okay. So, I'll move on to the subdivision aspect of this. So, here is their proposed layout, which you've seen. So, is there provisions for water? We know there is east green acres. Um, the city's identified the second one, the is there sewer and there is capacity for the project. proposed streets are consistent with the transport element of the comprehensive plan. So we've already discussed how the the roads will connect Spokane and the guy road and create circulation. Look at the fourth criteria. Is there any top topographical conditions or that would present hazards? It's over the aquifer and there are known no known hazards. The fifth one is a proposed subdivision zone for the proposed uses. Does it conform with the requirements found in the code? This will be solely subject to the the PUD and being consistent with the PD if it was approved. And the sixth criteria looks for the developer. It has plans to ensure that the community would bear no more than its fair share of cost to provide services and paying fees and furnishing land, providing parks, mitigating its impacts to the community. This typically done through impact fees that are assessed at the time of building permits and they deal with things cited here, parks, fire, EMS, public safety, multimotal pathways, and streets. Here's the agencies that were notified. Here's the comments. Schools neutral, fire as usual, deals with at the time of

subdivision, our construction plans, making sure that everything's done at that time and as part of development. And Yellowstone pipeline, Philip 66, they didn't have any issues with the site as they don't have any utilities in the vicinity. Any questions on the subdivision? I got a quick question for you, John. has more to do with the conditions of approval. Mhm.

Um condition of approval number 11 um says the homeowner association for the project shall be required to maintain the common area right ofway frontage adjacent to open or the common right-of-way frontage adjacent to open space tracks along Guy Road south of Holene Avenue including all irrigation landscaping and snow removal from sidewalk and trails. But it doesn't talk about the private street. Um, is that an oversight? Should it should that or is the city is the city gonna be taking care of the private street? No, city's not that need to be included. Guess that should be included in there. Okay. Correct.

And alleys as well. I'm assuming same thing, right? Alley's and Yep. So, okay.

And it's probably more of a PUD question. Um, but I'll I'm going to tag on a little bit to the HOA thing. Um, we've I've mentioned it before in other public hearings about a making sure that there's a syncing fund calculation done um to make sure that a homeowners association is set up for success when it comes to maintenance of long-term infrastructure like streets. Um, I personally have live on a street that is maintained by my homeowners association and we've spent the last 15 years trying to accumulate money for repaving um because we were set up for failure to start with and it did not work well and it's very difficult um to do that especially in an entry-le subdivision. Um so then maybe I'll maybe the applicant can can speak to that a little bit. Um, but is there a way that we can or do you know of a way that we can make that a requirement to or that staff can oversee a requirement to make sure that there's a syncing fund calculation in maybe I should be looking at Rob on this. Um, to ensure that there's long-term maintenance provisions, funding for long-term maintenance like road repaving, ceiling, things like that.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean what you see as for the current condition that's the typical process. I think it definitely is worth warrants staff to talk about that element maybe in a little more detail. So then maybe that comes forward as maybe you know as part of the staff report but typically we have you know you have brought those up to applicants and let the applicant see how they weigh in on that that measure but definitely it's something I think staff can talk more on.

Okay. Um, and then the other thing, and I kind of understand that one of the reasons for the open space provision in the in the PUB ordinance is for because in this case particularly, we're having a lot smaller lots, right? So, we have modest homes on very small lots with very little yard. Um, and the open space is for recreation essentially, right? For the neighborhood. That's kind of the trade-off as either active or passive. There's active or passive. Yep. Okay. Um Okay. Uh hopefully the applicant will speak towards some of the amenities.

All right. Can can I ask just a quick question about zoning? Yeah.

So, we've the staff report shows 11.2 acres. The applicant says it's 11.6 acres. So minor difference there. And we can I'll ask applicant same question. But if it's R2 zone and we have 11.2 acres, that's 122 units. When we're talking about reducing the minimum lot size to 2,800 square feet, we're not anywhere near the maximum density in the R2 zone. I'm I'm It seems like we're talking about reducing the minimum net lot size, like finished lot size. Is that what because the zone talks about the overall density of the project? When we get to the PUD level, now we're talking about the actual finished lot size. Correct?

Well, I'll go back to the slide one. So, you go through we have I always find this confusing.

Yeah. So typically you have the area land before um dedication. So you have the 11.57 acres gross that includes rideway. So once they do their development, they're going to have to grant rightway. So it'll be majority like on Spokane Street to get in order to get the multi-use trail along the east side of the project over here on this development. they'll grant some rightaway along with the project that shrinks their project down to the subdivision aspect or the PUD element will be you know you'll be looking at the governing documents on the remaining net but you base the open space on the gross

okay so the open space is off the gross but what about the if if the minimum lot size for R2 for single family is 4,000 ft they could actually by right get 122 units on Simple math potent. Yeah, potentially. But I'm a simple person. But on but once you get you do got to subtract a certain percentage to your roadway. So on any project you have gross land once you get our city streets and you get our connectivity and you get our swells and you you get all that you do lose the potential maxima maximizing that okay that that math effect but theoretically. Yeah.

Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. I know I ask that question every time, but it's slowly sinking in. Any other questions for staff? Right. Invite the applicant up. Name for the record, please. All right. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Merl Van Hton. I'm here before you again to present Harvest Meadows subdivision in PUB. You may remember this is an R2 single family affordable housing development. Um so um John did a great job of covering the the material. Um I'm going to let him speak to to the overall attributes and we're going to kind of try and focus in on on how we got here from the beginning of annexation and what we've done since we last were before you in June. So this is an application made on behalf of Blackwell Homes. Um and this process started last winter with annexation request. So at that time this property was zoned or what excuse me it was zoned a suburban in the city in the county. We requested annexation into the city by looking at the future land use map and saw that it was low density residential. Uh the comprehensive plan says that that is all types of single family residential uses up to eight dwelling units per acre and it allowed us to choose from these zoning um districts uh for for you know our projects we decided to go with R2. Um but in doing so we limited ourselves to eight units per acre. So we came before you in an annexation hearing with an R2 layout that that's on the screen now. Uh the vision was to bring home prices below

median values products home products that are you know at the median value or less available for individual ownership ability to work and reside in the same area. Dedicated open space and neighborhood charm dedicated open space and neighborhood charm as you're saying so we can have places for children to play and no multif family housing. So, we put this layout before you, we put this layout before you, the total was 85 lots and uh it was really well received that night. Um, our we left with unanimous approval, um, saying that with that cap of an eight dwelling units per acre, um, we were granted the R2 zoning designation. So, want to be clear that we were never an R1 zoning designation. Um, we requested R2. um you gave us R2 with that caveat that we were limited to eight dwelling units per acre. So we came back before you in June uh with a layout that had 92 lots that happens to be eight dwelling units per acre. And when you saw that actual subdivision design, we had moved away from the conceptual layout and into a real subdivision design. We heard that you were concerned with things like parking and traffic and the findings or the the vote that night was three to three which resulted in denial. So what we found in the reason decision was the steps that the applicant can take to obtain approval. Uh the commission remained concerned with the proposal smaller lots coupled with minimal off- streetet parking leading to narrow crowded drive aisles impeding connectivity and safety. The applicant is encouraged to revise its proposal and adequately meet the parking needs of all uses of the PD and account for the space limitations opposed by the smaller, narrower lot sizes. So that is what you told us and and that is what we've tried to consider tonight and bring before you a layout that remedies those concerns.

So this is that layout. As John said, we've gone from 92 lots to 85. Um, that allowed us to make some of these lots wider. Uh, front loaded lots have gone from 35 ft to 40 feet, which will allow us to put a twocar garage and a two stall driveway on every front loaded lot. We'll go into that a little bit later slide in a later slide. Uh, rear loaded lots, um, we can accommodate that same parking with the the 35 foot wide lot. In doing so, we we have decreased open space a little bit. Um, we have also increased these snow storage and storm water areas at either end of the private lane. Um, and what what that turns into density-wise to to kind of address what Mr. Striber was saying is, you know, if this was a full-on R2 development, we would be allowed 126 lots. Back at annexation, we said that's just not compatible with what the surrounding neighborhoods are. We understand that we're going to offer up that that limitation that we are going to, you know, be at no more than eight units per acre. That would have given us 92 lots and that's what we came to you with in June. We understand, you know, there was still some concerns with that. So now we're back with 85 lots. That's a density of 7.35 units per acre. And it's worth noting that an R1 density is 6.7 units per acre or 77 lots. So, here we are still trying to hold on to this affordable housing community. We're trying to fill the need that pretty much every report that's come out of the city in the last few years says there's a need for something that the mayor has signed a proclamation for, but we're getting, you know, closer and closer to an R1 standard density. We're only eight lots away from being at an R1 density. So, with this layout, we're requesting the deviations down here in the lower lefthand corner. Reduction in minimum

lot size from 4,000 square feet to 2,800 square feet. Vehicular access to lots of 45 feet wide or less may be front-loaded. Reduction in right ofway width from 65 ft to 60 ft. And we'll go into that in a little more detail. and then setbacks for these side flanking streets that they're technically, you know, street side flanking and 15 be reduced down to five because we're abudding uh storm water and snow storage and not a road. So, it is a three-phase development. Phase one is in green, 23 lots with the open space at the south end. Uh phase two is yellow, lots across the north, and then another chunk of open space. And finally, phase three is in orange uh with the remainder of the lots plus those uh snow storage areas to support the private road. Open space is largely the same as before. We're providing a privacy fence and a nice landscape buffer uh from the railroad. We're providing pedestrian connectivity from Spokane Street into the development. And we're providing, you know, wide open space playing area for for to offset the smaller yards. Okay, so this is a closer look at front loaded lots on the left, rear loaded lots on the right. Both of them have 16 foot wide garages. Both of them have 16 foot wide driveways. So conceivably we can park four vehicles off street. And in the last hearing, there was some talk about what people put in their garages and what people leave in their driveways and what the resultant parking would be. And I think this really puts that to rest. You know, now we don't need to worry about what people are putting in their garages because we exceed the zoning code. And we've we've listed out the zoning code here just to to be clear down here in the lower left. I'm going to go through it really quick. Off streetet parking requirement for single

family is two for each unit. We have four driveways to individual residences must be 20 feet in length. And again, we brought up that some cars are longer than 20 feet, but the city code is 20. We meet 20. The front yard and the sideyard setback of the front garage is a minimum of 20 feet measured from front of the garage to the property line or the edge of the sidewalk to structure. We meet that too. From sidewalk to the face of the garage is 20 ft. A single residential driveway approaches must not exceed 40% of the street frontage of the property served by such driveway approaches. So, as John was saying, 40% of 40T is 16. We meet that as well. So, we are doing, you know, we are setting this up to to demonstrate that we meet all parking requirements for for the city. By comparison, you know, here's another development going on in Post Falls. Singlecar garage, single wide driveway, but good for them. They meet parking standards. We heard that we there was concern with this kind of a product in our development. We've taken that to heart. we've addressed it and we're going to provide more than what you see here. So, translating that into the overall subdivision layout, um the green lots, the green lots are front-loaded, the blue lots are rear loaded. That means the orange lines are broken up by driveways and the purple lines are unencumbered. They just continuous on street parking. The result is 114 on street parking spaces and 340 off- streetet parking spaces. So the comparison from our June hearing to here to today is you know 92 lots versus 85. On street parking has remained the same 1.3 on street parking stalls per lot. Off- streetet parking has gone from two per lot to four per

lot. So, total parking has gone from 3.3 cars per lot to 5.3 cars per lot. And let's keep in mind that probably most of the families that live here won't have five cars. So, I think we're doing more than enough to to satisfy the parking condition. There was also concern about, well, when all these cars park on this street, there's it's going to be too narrow to pass. And I think there was some confusion last time. So, I've set up this slide to to try and illustrate what's happening. The top is our proposed public road. The middle one is the existing Tennessee cross-section and the bottom is the city standard. I want to show you that all three of them are the same. And over here, we see that it's requirement of parking on both sides to have a paved width of 32 feet. All three of these have 32 feet. There's no difference from what we're proposing to what's out there on Tennessee Avenue now to what the city says is the standard. We have 32 feet. We have a 10-ft swale. We have a 5-ft sidewalk. Physically, there is no difference between what we're doing and what's out there and what the city has deemed to be the requirement. What we're requesting is a reduction of five feet to the right ofway width. That just brings the front property lines a little bit closer. It helps us with our building setback, but to help offset that, we're proposing a 15 foot sidewalk drainage and utility easement versus a standard 10. So, similarly, we have a couple of private areas where the road will only be parking on one side. Want to demonstrate that we are meeting city code. City code for a street width of parking on one side is 28 feet. We have 28 feet. Again, our parking complies with city code. Our street whist comply with city code. Any further discussion needs to be more about changing city

standards than it does this development. Housing type is three bedrooms, two to two and a half baths, twocar garage, 12-,500 square feet. Smaller houses equal fewer cars. Smaller yards equals less maintenance. So, subdivision criteria. I think John did a good job of covering all that. Um, I'll just say proposed streets are consistent with the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. Number three, all the streets meet city standards. On street and off- streetet parking exceed city standard. Let's take a little bit more time to go through the PUD decision criteria. Number one, the proposed PUD provides for adequate utilities, services, and parking to service the proposed development. As we've discussed, we have 114 for 85 lots of on street parking and four off- streetet parking spots per lot. Uh we have the provisions for water and sewer as well. Number two, the proposed PUB provides for an integrated transportation network that adequately serves the proposed development. So, the city has decided that Spokane Street has sufficient capacity to handle this development. Um, the interior public and private roads conform to the city standards and we're providing pathways and sidewalks that will tie the Spokane Street tail to Tennessee trail to Tennessee Avenue and Guy. The proposed PUD provides enhanced community design. So again, you know, this was celebrated during annexation as an an excellent way to address the need for affordable housing. Um, and then some concerns came up during the subdivision PU hearing, PUD hearing in June. Um, but we're still trying to achieve that that R2 light affordable housing de uh de development. We have 10.6% open space and on street parking similar to that of an R1 zone subdivision. Um the peed provides for timely development of the property and security for future completion and maintenance.

Um you know the project the project will be built in three phases. We will have that HOA u established KCFR has no conditions and our setbacks are consistent with R2 development. So you know I hope that's helped clarify and put to rest a few of the the concerns that were um voiced last time. But I'm here to stand for questions and I thank you for your time. Any questions? Yes. So, you said the rightway was 10 and then you're moving it up to 15. The easement. Let's go back to that one.

Okay, here we go. So, you'll see on the bottom two crosssections, the right of way is 65 ft and it has a 10-ft drainage and utility easement. What we're proposing is to take that 65 and change it to 60. That that helps us with our building setbacks and bring a product that a housing product that that um that we wanted to achieve. But in return, we're expanding that that standard 10-ft easement to 15 to make room for for water meters, dry utilities, things like that.

That goes in 10 feet anyway. That's Yeah, we're giving it Well, so the side Okay, if you see the top one, um 60 foot rideaway puts puts the property line in the sidewalk. We're eating up 2 feet of that 10. You know, we're choking it essentially if we leave it at 10. We don't want to we don't want to choke it. We want to give room for utilities. So, we've obligated ourselves to 15, five more than the standard. Okay. Mhm. So basically you have 12 and a half ft of usable space in the instead of the normal tent. Exactly.

Yeah. But it it shifts the set back a little bit closer to the front property line giving you guys a little bit more building envelope. Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely correct. But it but it shortens up the envelope from the sidewalk to the front of the house or it does not.

Let's go back to that slide. Um so so so here you can you can see on the front loaded lot that property line is running through the sidewalk. So when we do our 15t you know front setback you know that brings the front of the house here you know however we have that other you know part of the code that says we need 20 feet from sidewalk to garage. So the garages would be offset 20 feet, you know, from the sidewalk. The houses would be offset 15 ft from the property line. Okay.

And the first time this came before us, how many houses were approved?

We we proposed 92 the first time. So again, let's look at that. Um, you know, we were prop we were you accepted us into the city as R2. You know, we limited ourselves to eight units per acre, which was 92 that but when we brought it before you in June at 92 acres, you know, there were still some concerns. We've worked to address those concerns. So now we're at 85, which just happens to be the number of lots that we brought before you at annexation here and here. So, so what you saw that night, even though we were requesting eight units per acre, you know, we had 85 lots on the screen and and we just happened to be back at 85 now.

We're right back where we started from. Well, we're here tonight to request the subdivision and PUB hearing. So, we're we're trying to cross another milestone, but but yeah, we're we're at the same lot count. Mr. Van Hton, really quick. Um, so, and forgive me because I I was uh in the audience in June. Um, so, uh, with regards to the open space, I mean, obviously our, um, the lots are small and the house is a significant part of the footprint. Um, and as you said, small yard, small maintenance, right? Um, but also,

it's important in a neighborhood to have places for children to play. And, um, in a traditional R1 subdivision, the backyard is a great spot for a little play structure, right? Um, and there isn't really much room uh in these lots for that, especially on the rear loaded lots. Um, so it's been I know PDS are a kind of a give and take thing, right? So you have to provide open space that space is supposed to be there for uh recreation for the residents, etc. Um, you think it'd be appropriate for there to be to provide a a play structure in the open space? Um, so that kids aren't playing in the street. Um, I don't know. As a father, I don't know how you keep kids from playing in the street, but um, but um, you know, I can I can discuss that with the applicant, maybe talk about it during your bottle.

Okay. Okay. And then are also are you familiar with syncing fund calculation? I'm sure you probably are. I I mean essentially insure basically it's some it's a mechanism to ensure that a long-term maintenance for so you do a future value calculation um to ensure that long-term maintenance for private streets and alleys so repaving essentially

um is baked into the homeowners association dues. and that a fund is set up inside the homeowner association and in the CCNRs so that everyone's on notice um because especially for entry level subdivisions um everyone needs to know that hey there's a bill coming due in 25 years when that road needs to be repaved and it can come as a shock and I know city staff has seen applica or requests from several puds that are 25 or 30 years old asking looking for the city to take over their private streets that are falling apart, right?

Um and that's a problem especially in entry level. Um so setting it up to suet to succeed in the first place is incredibly important. So are you asking that that be a condition of approval? I would if yeah that would that would definitely be a condition of approval to just to ensure that I would ask can we do that? We what we've done in the past is we've said that they need to have a funding mechanism, right? We didn't go into the details of whether it's a syncing fund or how it's calculated or anything like that, right? Well, an HOA do of $50 a month sounds good day one, but then in 25 years it doesn't sound good. And so advertising upfront what the cost really is, I think, is what we're talking about here

essentially. Yes.

Yeah. and commissioners, we've talked about this a little bit before as to we have to make sure that it's roughly proportional to the city's imposing what it is on the city um to offset those costs. I mean, what we're talking about is a syncing fund or requiring an HOA to have some mechanism that talked about before from the city's perspective. Well, they put in their CCNRs as a private contract we can have as a condition, but what is the line? Is it proportional to the government's interest in this subdivision? Is it offsetting potential future costs of the city residents taking over these streets or the maintenance if the HOA goes defunct? And so if you have that finding and you can make that nexus, then I mean I think it's something that can be a condition.

Well, it's inevitable that it'll happen in 25 years if there isn't enough money in the news. Nothing's inevitable, but I I understand. Okay. Yes. So, it's in three phases, correct? When do the open spaces get done?

Okay. Excellent question. So, um phase the this open space that's between Tennessee and Spokane would be complete in phase one. Um the other open space on the opposite side of Tennessee would be completed in phase two. I do believe there was some discussion about this at the last hearing and that we were willing to condition ourselves on that as well. Um just to provide that assurance, but that is the plan and um I was going to go back to one of Ray's comments if if that answers your question. Um so about the open space I I did recall um as you know early on in the conceptualization of this project we did discuss like some more I don't know I want to say just some more more amenities in the open space that that drove a higher price point and you know the conversation ultimately the decision ultimately was oh well this is um you know this is an affordable housing community so how much do we really want to obligate them to to pay for. So, you know, a play structure

maybe, you know, if that becomes an important piece. But but yeah, that we did kind of try and keep the open space simple to keep the obligations light. You know, understand it's a I mean, the math is what a $20,000 um $25,000 play structure divided by 80 lots. Couple hundred bucks a lot. Probably not going to be the breaking point, right? pro, you know, more likely probably a sales point. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'll talk to the the applicant about it and and uh get back to you during rebuttal. Did you get your HOA question? I did. Answer it. Okay.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. public testimony. Can I ask John a quick question here? Shoot.

Hey, John. I'm just uh you know, I'm also struggling with why this huge difference between um units per acre, which it sounds, uh you know, which sounds very um reasonable at eight, but then we're so far off on the minimum lot size. Is it because And and so these are two different ways of of controlling density and and the footprint that people have for their home. Is it because there's so many streets on this particular lot and it's such a weird shape? Is that why um street

is that why we have such small lots and but still meet the eight lots per acre? Well, I do know that from discussions early on, the eastern portion of it was two two parts of the annexation, but the eastern portion of this is in a little awkward shape. So, it did getting Tennessee over to Spokane did create some geometric um difficulties that we did kind of that the applicant mold over. And then you know then they did talk about different options of getting the road back to Guy road. Uh so I think it does play a role. I mean roads do consume like I said as part of my staff report land and you do end up with remnant portions that you divide out into lot sizing. Do I believe like I think there's a lot of different options you can do in R2. I mean you can do 6,000 square foot lots in R2. I mean you can do 8,000 square foot lots in R2. You can also do 4,000. So, a lot of it is up to the applicant to look at the land that they have

and decide what kind of path they want to go forward. We heard them tonight say they wanted to go to more of an attainable housing slant to their proposal. Uh so, in being so a lot of times when you go that direction, that does naturally reduce lot sizes as you try to bring down that that purchase cost. Sure. Sure. Yeah. I just it doesn't really make sense that they're so, you know, they meet the they so far exceed uh the eight lots per acre, but yet the lot size has to be so much smaller than the minimum. It's like there's a miss in the code or it's just because there's so many on-site streets.

It's the streets, but it's also the open space. There's a breakdown on the subdivision plan that shows that the net residential area is 8.6 Six acres after you take out the streets, all the streets and the the open common areas. Uhuh. Is how much? 8 point My eyes aren't that good. 8.59. So that would be 64. That's would make more sense.

Well, and then the R2 does allow I mean it does entertain density closer to I'd have to do the math 12 or 14 20 in Prager. I mean so there are product in the R2 whether it's attached town product or there's more dense product that that would make sense. So in this configuration though and they weren't trying to do town homes to increase density above 10 12 you know as part of a PUD request because we do have standards you got to stay within a certain percentage for uh a PUD you got to be consistent with the underlying zone and so they're on the lower end of an R2 otherwise it would be an R1 PUD that they could request.

So zooming in it's 11.6 6 acres gross minus streets minus common area. You did get down to just the lots is 6.6 acres. They end up losing five acres to common area streets. Yeah. I think that's where all the properties that's why the lots are so small. So you're not really bound. So the question is more for a a knowledge type question. Right. Right. Yep. Exactly.

Thank you. All right. Uh, the first one here did not have a title. Brian McConnellan was this com. Okay, we thought so just based on the comment here. Um, not wishing to speak in favor in favor. This is a valuable addition to the community of Post Falls. Uh, not wishing to speak in favor. J I'm sorry I can't demon uh there was no comment but they're in favor not wishing to speak in favor Gavin Jacobson Harvest Meadows a piece of property with an opportunity to provide housing and an affordable price let's see highest and best use would be used as part of the city of Post Falls as it surrounding area already. Not wishing to speak in favor. Taylor Harland, no comments, just in favor. Not wishing to speak in favor. Alexandria Cook, no comments, just in favor. Not wishing to speak. In favor, Hannah Hunter in favor. This is an amazing option for dozens of my friends and family. I have many acquaintances paying the same cost in rent that they could be paying for to own a house. Being a young person in this town has become impossible. This would help. Not wishing to speak in favor. Colton Blizzard, Postf Falls needs more affordable housing and more affordable um more housing and more affordable housing as well. Uh the builder has builder is born and raised in post halls native that cares about the community and the people in the community. Not wishing to speak in favor. Seth Wy

no comments just in favor. Not wishing to speak in favor. Brandon Rio Rio. Sorry if I mispronounced that. No comments but in favor. Now wishing to speak in favor. Katie Barnett. No comments. Just in favor. Wishing to speak. Yes. In opposition. Deborah Thomas.

Name for the record. You have uh four minutes. And we'll set the timer up there for you. at Deborah Thomas at 384 West Blandon Avenue, Postf Falls prior meetings, I and surrounding homeowners raised many objections, but we lost the resoning issue for Alers annexation, the five acres on the west side of the proposed PUD as well as the Steckman annexation to the east. Both were approved separately. The city approved going for from low density indicated on the comprehensive plan that would mean a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet to R2 light as they called it allowing medium density with a minimum 4,000 square foot lot size ignoring the required compatibility and density cohesion considerations. No adjacent subdivisions to this proposed PUD are compatible to such small lots and density. A condition for R2 light was also approved allowing a maximum eight detached single family homes per acre. This would create a maximum of 40 homes on 5 acres. The developer then came back with a proposed PD to the planning committee combining both annexations with minimum lot size of 2649 square ft and where 81 out of 92 proposed lots were below the approved 4,000 square foot minimum. That was defeated. We are now being presented with a PUD where the developer wants to again combine both annex properties and get a variance in order to have lots as small as 2800 square ft. This is a 30% reduction from the 4,000 square foot minimum the city approved. In addition, it appears the developer wants to now have 46 or more homes on the L first 5 acres instead of a maximum of 40. The overall reduction from 92 to 85 proposed lots with single family homes is appreciated. However, 72 out of 85 have lots under 4,000 square feet. This development should still be held to 4,000 square foot minimum lots. The

maximum 40 detached single family homes on the Elers's portion. The POD overview zoning information states a maximum 35- ft height. I do not know how that equates to the number of stories that would be allowed, but we were always shown the homes to be two story and that should remain the maximum two and a half or more to try and help with some sense of privacy for existing homes surrounding this development. As currently proposed, lot 81 is adjacent to my property with the side of the house running parallel to my fence. The setback on the south side of this lot is now showing 10 ft from my fence. The owner through Merurl made this change and agreed to this at the prior meeting. It is appreciated as it now matches all other homes to the east of this lot. However, the current PUB overview zoning info states the side setbacks are 5 ft. It needs to state in writing that lot 81 has a sight set back of 10 ft from our fence on the south side. Merlin also previously stated to me that the owner had agreed to remove a very large cottonwood tree that is partially on my property. He also stated this in the last public meeting. The total tree removal needs to be stated in writing as my last conversation with Merl seemed to put this in question. My tree expert who is a certified arborist Stefan at Grace Tree Service highly recommends this tree be removed before any development occurs. This should occur as soon as possible while the land is still in essence vacant. The tree removal needs to include stump killing which also kills the roots and then stump grinding to complete the process. This is important because the stumps and roots left from the prior continu removal on the alpha section of the proposed PRD are now growing branches around the rotted centers and from the roots creating massive bushes. Complete removal is necessary. So there is no longer any joint ownership or issues to create new problems. I have information from Mike Cherry of Green Tree Spray Service who can perform the stump kill and kill the roots before

stump grinding. And I'm willing to pay for this treatment. Once all this work is completed, I will buy and donate a new tree the developer can then plant on his property in the new location of this cottonwood. The new tree can then grow and adapt to the new environment. Thank you.

Thank you. Wishing to speak in favor. Michael Wendland. Name for the record. You have four minutes. Uh Michael Wendland, Cordelane, Idaho builder, realtor, developer. Um I'm here. I'm past president association realtors, past president for the builders. Worked on multiple committees for housing urban development throughout the entire state of Idaho. I work with ITD, all the highway districts, and I've even worked with you guys in smart code before. Reason I'm here today is I support Ben. Um Ben has went above and beyond as you've seen. He's met multiple exceptions that you guys asked for in your last hearing. Um his green space exceeds what is required what's needed. His street design exceeds what's required and what's needed. He exceeds the number of parking units. He's nowhere near the density level that's that he can be. This project doesn't work for him. it could work for some other developer out of Seattle and they can run this thing up to 100 units out there and they can get it approved. He's not looking for that. Ben's from Post Falls. Ben's here to make Post Falls better. He's here to provide housing for entry- level buyers and that's why he's doing this project. Before I run out of time, I just want to say that he has met and exceed all code requirements and really he should receive approval on this project. I want to touch base real quick on the land itself. So, we talk about R1, we talk about R2, we talk about location and what's around it. Obviously, we're in real estate. The best thing is location. This is in a great property. He's got a railroad track on the south of him. He's got railroad tracks to the north of him. He's got three of the busiest streets in Post Falls that surround him. He's got nasty smelling water coming from the west. He is improving the city by developing this

property into lots that can be bought and be owned by entrylevel buyers. People that go to Keech, people that go to NIC, people that work here, people that live here that will have home ownership and desire to maintain their property and and keep a nice neighborhood. Again, I believe the applicant meets and exceeds all code requirements as we've seen today and this should be an approval. Thank you. Thank you. Motion to speak in favor. Christian Troutman. Name for the record.

Hi, my name is uh Christian Troutman. In regards to the Harvest Meadow Estates proposal, I am for it because it would be nice to have affordable, new construction, family-friendly homes. I wish my fiance and I had this opportunity. A few years ago, when we purchased our home in Post Falls, we bought a 30-year-old home and it doesn't come with any of the offerings that this place does. It would also be easier to purchase and get a loan for a new home compared to an old one. This is a great option. I have a lot of friends and family that could definitely benefit from this development. Thank you. Thank you. Wishing to speak in favor, Sean Sammon. Hi, I'm Sean Sammon. Uh, I'm born and raised in this area. Um, my wife as well. And something that we just did is we were a part of the Britain crew who just moved in um off of Greens Ferry. And so this is something that definitely is close to our hearts just because for growing up here, I always wanted to live here. couldn't raise my kids here because it was too expensive. And I hold a really nice job, my wife does, too. And when the median home price in the area is over a half million for a lot of houses to fit a family of four or the kids have to share a room, it's very, very hard. So, seeing that they're trying to put more houses in this area that people can afford, specifically locals, is a huge win because I've seen my friends move out of the area. It really, really hurts to watch them go. And so that seeing that they're trying to make it an option so that these families or even people that want to live here because Postfall is an amazing place to be being born and raised here. I love the school district. I love the people that are from here. My family, I'm over a hundred years uh on my mom's side of the family here. We all want to stay. And so I tell my customers um in banking that if I wasn't from here, I'd want to show up. But I can't afford to

work here with the wages that this area provides. So with what they're doing here, it makes it affordable and makes it tangible and makes it families the ability to actually be in a spot that um gives them the ability to actually reach those goals which is really awesome. So yeah, so I appreciate you guys' time. Thank you.

Wishing to speak in favor, Garrett Critz. Good afternoon, evening. My name is Garrett Crates. I'm a resident of just like uh Sean of the Miracle on Britain development uh here in Pulse Falls. I'm here to voice my support for Harvest Meadows. Um I understand or I was led to understand that some of them would be I didn't realize all of them would be affordable. Um, but that they would be set aside for essentially people like me, uh, my family and my neighbors. Uh, lower middle to middle class working families that want to raise their families here. But their journeys are tough ones like ours was. Uh, my wife and I were in pretty good condition to uh, buy a home back in 2020. Uh, and then the world shut down and somehow in a shutdown world, America found Idaho. Uh prices skyrocketed, supply crashed, local people lost the ability to buy. We ultimately were forced to rent, pay someone else's mortgage, give someone else wealth, wealth that we could have used to grow our lives. We could have given ourselves our home. We've heard the numbers, heard firsthand the troubles, seen them in the news. But this subdivision and its dedication to follow uh my neighborhood gives these families something that they haven't had in a long time, if at all, and that's hope. Hope that they can finally afford something that has been to us every step of the way, the American dream. While it has changed over time from the two children, a dog and a white picket fence to something simpler, it's still a dream. one that you can help realize for families like mine. So, I urge you to approve this uh for the residents of Coutney County, keeping our workers here. Thank you.

Thank you. wishing to speak in favor. Maggie Alliance,

Maggie Lions. For the record, I serve as the executive director for uh Panhandle Affordable Housing Alliance and the Project Britain that you've heard from two of our buyers already. Nine months ago, we broke ground. We now have 10 families in their homes with five more in by the end of this year. All 28 homes will be owner occupied by next summer. Let me tell you who they are. You've heard from two, but in our most recent round, we had a firefighter and his wife, a graphic designer, and their baby. We had a police officer and his wife an office receptionist for an OBGYn office and their baby. We have who you just heard from Sean. They have two grade schoolers now enrolled in Greensbury Elementary. These are the people who serve our community. They want to stay here. They want to raise their families here. They love this community. And over 82% of the applicants that have applied for all the Britain homes, we have over 350 applications, were born and raised in Coutney County. What we have learned is very clear. The demand is enormous by our local workers and there is virtually no inventory available for them. The need is unmet. And yet before you tonight is an application for a neighborhood dedicated to meeting this need. In large measure, this need can be met because of the greater density. That's what we have in Britain. But in order to do this, it takes partnership.

It takes cities governing for all. It takes builders like Ben Steckman willing to step up and realize what is needed and support the lower priced starter homes. And then on the on the side, I'm going to clarify this a little bit. PAHA when these homes are deed restricted. So it ensures long-term preservation of these homes for local workers. PAHA is that third angle of the triangle to manage those homes to keep them forever affordable. I uh I I can tell you this is not easy work. Most developer builders are not interested in doing this, but Ben is, and you've already heard how he was raised here and how he's committed to this community. He is committed to selling these at lower than median home prices. And in addition to that, he has agreed to dedicate 10% to even lower prices so that we can reach our lower wage earners. I have not had very many developers step up willing to do this. 70% of our residents want home ownership. Britain is scalable. It's repeatable and it is being built for the long term so that we can get more developers doing exactly what Ben is proposing tonight. This is how we keep families here. This is how we build a livable future. And thanks to Ben and I believe the city of Post Falls, because you're already a great partner with us in Britain, that this can be done and going forward, we'll see more and more homes restored or restoring the American dream of home ownership. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Wishing to speak in opposition, Chad Gabbert. Hello, my name is Chad. Um, I'm a homeowner. I live off of Nike Court. Um, I oppose this for a couple reasons. It's my neighborhood. Um, but I did some research on your guys's uh goals and your comprehensive plan that you guys have set up. Um, goal G5, G14 and policy 1 and two of the city comprehension plan stress that the importance of maintaining community comprehension and ensuring developing are compatible and welldesigned basically designing what's neighborhoods are like it are like R1. So, you guys, the city council approved an R2, which I understand it got approved. Um, R2 minimum design is 4,000 square ft. They're trying to go a lot less than that. I believe that we should stick to a 4,000 foot lot to maintain an R2 uh development. Um also uh I traffic plans uh patterns I understand and discuss and how these developments might um affect existing and future traffic patterns especially on Spokane Street. I don't know if they're going to widen Spokane Street and put a turn lane in after the railroad tracks. That could be a major concern on people turning into that neighborhood. Um, that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Wishing to speak in opposition. Ren Ferguson. Yeah. Ren Fugleston speaking and this is the fourth meeting I've been to here and I've opposed it from the very first meeting and I tell you getting it down to an R2 was the first mistake. It's uh it's just plain wrong and terribly wrong. And uh and now it it's getting worse every time you look up up on the board. And uh now one question I have, what what are the prices of these affordable homes? Do we get do we know what the prices are going to be for what you consider affordable?

The applicant may be able to speak to that during his rebuttal. What's that? the applicant may be able to res speak to that during his rebuttal. So we don't we don't know but the applicant can probably speak to

well um you look at at afford affordable from numbers I had heard it's not that much difference anyway but uh and the last time talking about uh about R2 and the numbers now you're working towards towards the min minimum size, you know, and uh and it talk talks about attractive addition to the area. Um a matter of opinion, I guess it it's farthest to me the farthest thing from attractive. and um you're talking about solving parking and traffic, you're off base. There's going to be so much traffic there. there's going to be a lot of problems and uh so it would be interesting knowing you know how much everyone considers affordable but uh anyway and those tight lots do we have the number of feet from the the home to the fence the existing fences there Is that 10 feet?

Off the top of my head, I don't know. The applicant can speak to that. Okay. Are we looking at 10 feet? They'll be up here. He'll be up here after he can do a rebuttal after all the public test.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. And uh just looking at that and the the homes, the families and the I would just look at it as quality of life for a family in a in a tight tight little area. Anyway, I think it's terribly wrong what what is taking place and I think, you know, I think the number number of lots should be addressed. I'd like I'd like to have it closer to 23 than 85. I'll leave you with that. Thank you.

All right. and not wishing to speak but in favor I'm going to butcher this name is it char I'm sorry you want to try projectati there you go swar projectati in favor and no comments thank you now wishing to Speak in favor. Holly Lamb. No comments. Just in favor. Uh, wishing to speak. Yes. In opposition, Karen Olsen.

Hello, commissioners. I'm Karen Olsen and I am nervous. And I'll tell you what, my head had just spinning. Um, I had something kind of prepared. But first off, I'm going to say I'm a simple person, too. I'm not a real estate developer. I'm not an engineer. I'm not anything like that. Um, I do still work and I live on Guy Road. I've driven by the Britain development and it was commented on earlier that I think there's 28 homes there. And when I drove through there and it's not through being um completed, but that community there looks like the community I live in now. What's being proposed is not. So that being said, and it's beautiful over there. If we could do that here, I think I'd be in favor of it. I'm here to ask commissioners to deny this request. And when I said I'm a simple person, I've never seen the PUD used in any of the paperwork. Um, I have heard the word compatible. It's used in the language on the city's website. It's used by the personnel in the office when I go in and ask my questions. That word is used constantly, compatible. I am assured that this is the touchstone for the assessment of the developers requests and for the decision-making process for our community. My home is an R1. My neighbors are an R1. At the beginning, we were shown that across the railroad tracks and all the communities around it's an R1. And the developer asked for and received R2. Um not everyone was happy with that, but we're accepting it. And I just don't believe that the project is abiding by what the um city has decided.

And in the PUD, it says that a PUD may contain may contain a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses so long as the proposed areas. Anyway, yada yada. And again, I I'm this isn't my Valley Wick. I'm I'm not understanding all of this. All I know to me anyway is that if if it's designated to be able to do all these things, even though the word may is used, I'm believing that it will absolutely all of that could very well happen. And I didn't move there and choose to live where I live on Guy Road to have commercial or industrial buildings. Now I don't see that on the project but this isn't my first this is not my first meeting but everything keeps changing and changing and it forgive the analogy I kind of feel like when the the kiddos keep coming asking for a cookie and I give one and I give one and they keep at me and badgering until finally either one I put my foot down or I cave and I'm just asking when is enough enough if it can look like Britain That would be awesome, but it doesn't. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Any more?

All right, sounds good. Invite the applicant back up for a rebuttal. Okay, thank you. Um, so no, it was great to have so many people in support tonight. Um, you heard from a lot of people who would benefit or have benefited from a development like this. So, um, just like the the studies the city has issued in the proclamation, the mayor has said that there is a serious need for affordable housing developments. Um, but I'm going to go through some of the comments I heard from the opposition address those. So, um, so this this piece of land was never um required to be a 6,500 square foot lot development. Um, you know, again, we we started off with this process here with the future land use map. Uh, the comprehensive plan says up to eight dwelling units per acre, all types of single family, multi-residential uses, and these are the zones that can accommodate that. So, so was it ever set up to be a 6,500 foot lot uh development? No. No, it wasn't. Nor were we, you know, obligated to a certain lot number. This is what we're working through now is is what the subdivision should look like. Um, so there was also talk about density on the Stecman piece versus the Alfred piece. You know, when this was first brought as annexation, there were two separate applicants. Now there's one. So that's why we're looking at this as a single project. What what's happening on one versus the other is is irrelevant because it's all one single application. Um, there was never any obligation to

build single story. I don't know what was promised but that was certainly not from us. Um and um you know did we have discussed tree removals and setbacks in the past and if that's if that's a you know the the part that gets us approved then then we can accommodate that. Um so there was also talk about um you know the Spokane Street being widened. That will happen. Um it will be widened to the city uh standard. We are working with the engineering department to to do the proper configuration and striping of the road from from the northern boundary through the railroad crossing. Um so it will meet city standards and and receive approval from the engineering department. Um however um you know there was discussion about you know these lots being required to be 4,000 square foot minimum. So when that when we go back to that, we're going to look at a project that's a standard R2 subdivision. You know, if we're going to put forth an R2 a 4,000 foot lot, then there's no there's no need to provide no requirement to provide open space. We're providing a standard R2 subdivision, not a PUD. With the PUED, we're requesting smaller lots that bring the price points of those lots down, but in return, we're providing open space. So, you know, this talk about, you know, sticking to a standard R2 subdivision, I think we should explore that because that, you know, let's say we get denial tonight. You know, that might be what we come back with next is, you know, we've heard that you don't want this PUD type product. We've heard that we're going to develop this as an R2 subdivision because that's what we have, you know, as our zoning designation. Uh we come back with 4,000 square foot lots. Um our

maximum density would be eight units per acre and uh we have no requirement to to to provide any kind of open space. These are, you know, 4,000 square foot lots that don't have that luxury or that benefit. And um you know unfortunately the people who are relying on the price point that these smaller lots achieve are now out in the cold. So it really accomplishes nothing. Um I feel like what we prop we're proposing here you know provides a lot more. you know, we have these granted smaller lots, but a more achievable price point and they have the benefit of some open space that's right down the block where where they can, you know, have the benefit of running and playing and um because going from a 2,800 foot lot to a 4,000 foot lot does not provide you a lot of extra yard space. Um, so let me go through my notes. Um, there was a question Mr. Mr. Fugenson was asking about lot depth. I I I tried to answer it, but I missed what what he was saying. Um but anyway, um he was also asking about prices. Uh the median home price in Coupney County is about $550,000 right now. Um we're I talked with the developer. He's targeting somewhere more around a median value of like $425,000. So well below the median price regardless of what that actual number comes out to be. Um, also heard that this is not like Britain, but we did not really hear any specific ways that this is not like Britain. Um, and I also know that that Maggie Lines had to raise an additional $1.1 million to help bring those price points down to to make them achievable. So um you know Miracle on Britain had some special conditions of its own and we are you know propping it

up as a a great example of what can be done and we you know we'd like to implement a lot of the ideas that we saw there but um I don't know specifically how we're not like Britain. Um single family oh she was also concerned about the mixed use. Um let me flip back to that. During annexation, we were conditioned not only to eight dwelling units per acre, but detached single family residences only. And you know, that's what we're proposing tonight. There won't ever be any twin homes, any duplexes, any town homes, single family residences only. We agreed to that during annexation and continue to stand by it. Um, what else? Let's see. Um, you know, uh, as far as the slot, Mr. Schlottau made a comment about the small lots and I think I kind of discussed how, you know, if we go to that, you know, standard R2 4,000 foot size, then we're raising a price point and we're not fulfilling all of our objectives. So, that is another reason, you know, for for the product that we're presenting tonight. um uh a play structure um you know while it's not in in this um in this proposal if that becomes the hanging point of this project then I'm sure we would agree to a play structure. So um are there any other points that that you heard that I could address for you or any other questions that you've had?

I have a question for you. Sure. So the concern I primary concern I think is the is the yard space that these families are going to have. Okay. And the the tradeoff for the yard space is you know in this 30% or so reduction in lot size and it's going to be yard space. What's the what do you think the lot cost decreases by increasing your density? And you know, I I would

I don't like really I don't like speaking relatively because it's kind of misleading, I think, for folks. So, okay, if we had a dollar amount, if it's a $425,000 house, uh getting this increased density, how much does that has that decreased the price of the product by having the smaller lot? You know, is it 5,000? Is it 10? Is it 15? And, you know, maybe we have some real estate professionals in in the audience who might be able to address that. I I could I'm I'm an engineer. I'm a realtor and I don't know. So all Yeah.

Well, I think you probably have in the neighborhood of a $50,000 lot cost. So if you increased your density by 30%, maybe you've saved 15,000 and so maybe the these houses cost 15,000 less. I think that's reasonable.

Yeah. And I mean I don't know. I I can't say one way or another. Um but you know I would say that you know that also comes with the the loss of the open space that that we're you know providing. So is there you know does that well it seems to me that there's a bigger benefit by having this open space it's a benefit for everyone versus the 4,000 foot lot. But thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Is out the hearing and look at the

Are we gonna have discussion? That's what we're going to do now. Okay. We can have discussion.

All right. Good afternoon, uh, commissioners. What's before you tonight is Harvest Meadows PUD, uh, number 25-2. We'll start with the criteria for the PUD review criteria first. Um number one, the proposed PUD provides for adequate utilities, services, and parking to service the proposed development. Uh the first one is the public water supply issue. It's all it's public. We have is it green acres? I believe these green acres that provided the bill surf letter. Thank you. Um no issues with that one. No big debate. Uh number two, same question for the public wastewater collection system for the city.

It's the city and that's been addressed and it's also I think the condition in the staff report or condition with regard to the guy road lift station. I think that's in there but so that's taken care of as conditioned. Thank you. Um next one is providing adequate accommodations for other utilities necessary to support the proposed development. So, I mean, they've they've dealt with the parking issue by making sure that they're twocar garages and two cars in the front just like every other single family residential subdivision in Post Falls. Um, that's a really that's a big improvement over what we had before,

right? Sorry, I think I jumped to D. You were talking about other utilities. Sorry, this one this one has to do with generally the easements, whether there's sufficient easements. Yeah, they're sufficient 15t. Yeah, these is sufficient sufficient to support both private and public uh roadways and the infrastructure. I don't know that there was much testimony opposing that one. Yeah. Right. If if the standard is 10 ft and they're providing 12 and a half ft from behind the sidewalk, that's more than adequate. Thank you. Now, now on the parking issue, u yes, that's more improved, vastly improved. Um, and by going with the twocar uh garages, that uh improves things greatly.

It is a very tight fit in terms of 16 foot wide driveway and a 16 foot wide garage is is tight, but it is adequate, right? It's it is tight. That's that's what our standard is, and that's and that's every other subdivision in posts, right?

Agreed. And this one engendered a lot of debate last time um having you know sufficient parking and the issues. It looks like the applicant has changed the proposal to address some of those needs. Um if there's any other discussion on that one, I'd encourage it. Okay. Uh number two, the proposed PUD provides for an integrated transportation network that adequately uh serves the development by providing for the continuation of arterial and collector streets. consistent with the master uh plan for transportation.

Well, I mean the widening of Spokane Street definitely takes care of item A and with regards to providing connectivity um connecting with it Tennessee out to Spokane Street provides connectivity from that adjoining subdivision out which is consistent with the master plan. There's improvement looking at B snow. There's been improvement on that from the the last hearing also. And the the two public streets that are going through the project. So Tennessee Avenue and Holstein Avenue, those are both a dedication over over an acre each. Um and that's coming off of costs that could be that could end up being a city cost. In other words, the developers putting in those streets, providing the land for those streets, that all goes back to improving our network, our traffic network. Um, it's providing additional ways in and out of the subdivision as a whole and not at the cost of the city.

I think that's pretty important. It does complete the puzzle in the area. Exactly. There was also some discussion under B on the modifications to the snow storage issue which was something the commission was uh debating last time. I don't know if there's any comments on that issue at this point. Well, they show that they increased their storage now. Yeah. Uh thank you. Uh let's go to 2C. Uh providing a pedestrian and bicycle system to provide adequate circulation through the development into the open space areas. sidewalks will go in and then the um multi-use trail on Spokane Street

as well as the cond connection through the open space to the subdivision to Spokane Street of the bike system. All right. Criteria number three, the proposed PUD provides for enhanced community design by incorporating any significant natural, scenic, or historical features. I don't think there was anything noted. I'm not certain there was any testimony on anything on that issue. Nothing noted.

Okay. Uh integrating a mix of compatible land uses in the development and buffering or separating incompatible uses. Well, there's single family residential uses adjoining single family residential uses. And so when we're speaking about land use, we're not speaking about lot size, but just strictly land use. And single family next to single family um is the same. Yep. And there are restrictions on the annexation for single family use only for this development. So they are somewhat limited in that issue what they could propose. Single family detached. Detached. Yes, sir.

Yes. Uh C, locating the proposed uses and lot sizes in the manner which blends with the surrounding uses, the neighborhoods and the facilities.

Yeah. Again, I guess you know these are going to be detached single family homes. While they will be smaller, they will kind of blend in with everything else to serve a greater purpose in my opinion. And I I did do some math here. Um, so if we take the area of the open space and divide it by the 85 lots, we get 608 square feet. If you add that to the 3377 average, you come out with 39.85 15 square ft per lot shy of the 4,000 minimum.

That that's what I was that's all my scribbles here, too. If you take just the open space, add that back to the net residential area, these homes are on 7.8 acres at 4,000 square ft minimum lot size. That's 85 acres or that's 85 units, right? So essentially, we're taking those 85 units and instead of spreading them out, we're compacting them onto a smaller portion of the land, but then in exchange providing a bunch of open space. Correct. And I think part of the reason for that is just the shape and the configuration of the property itself.

Right. I don't know if they'd ever get to 85 at 4,000 because of the configuration. They're kind of taking some of the wonky um area and using it for open space, which is smart. Um, but it does essentially meet that 4,000 square foot if we're talking about a a gross land area minus the right of way. So, I guess minus right away and the private streets and Yep. Right. I would agree with that. Okay. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, the next one is the 10% open space requirement. I think we've addressed that one.

They have met that. I want to talk about the recreational needs portion of that. And I do think that the addition of a children's play structure in the open space tract is necessary to meet the recreational needs simply because the lots are so small and the yards are so small that the recreational needs of kids in that neighborhood. What about us old guys? How about botchi ball? Oh yeah. Pickle ball. Do you guys have driver's licenses? Well, you do. You're So, you're talking about adding that as a condition. I am. I I think that that would be an appropriate condition. Um

I would have to question that just a little bit. Um only because I mean it's a house. If you're in an apartment, you have most of the time you have nothing. I would disagree. Green space or something. Mo most of our apartment complexes now have play structure. I just for I don't know. I just at this time to put that on the developer that he has to I mean his requirement was green space. It wasn't in for a PUD it's green space. It's not required that they have um you know play things or anything like that. It's the closest city park.

Yeah. And they have um you know they have a little yard. It might not be big but at least there is a yard there and then they have the green space they can go to to do it. I just think at this late time to put it on the developer that he has to I think it's a small ask. Um and and the reason I say that is having costed some of them out recently. Um they're not that expensive. Um I mean a place they can get really expensive if you really want to. Um but they don't have to be. And I'm not saying that um they have to go with a super duper Razu um children's play structure, but something better than just the open field. I mean, if you drive through uh Greenside Vistas, they've got a little common park out in the middle and the kids aren't using it hardly at all. Um, put a play structure in it. Probably going to get some use. Um, I agree with that. I live in the Meadows and I drive by where they have those play areas and there's kids there,

but that's an extra cost for the HOA, too, to keep it maintained. True. It is. It certainly is. Commissioners, my only comment on that, and I don't mean to weigh in on the debate, is we cities had other subdivisions where they've had a requirement for some sort of play structure to be imposed. Uh sometimes what's happened is somebody has gone out to Costco, bought a play structure, put it up there, and in two seasons it falls apart

and then the HOA gets and people get angry at the city for not maintaining it, which really wasn't the city's obligation in the first place. So, there is a balance there. I'm just cautioning if you do want to make a motion that's certainly your prerogative to include that as a condition um with it recognizing the costs involved but um there are can be incidental effects as well right and I understand that there's long-term ramifications of that and the long-term maintenance um I in this case I think I mean and we did it before I think on by the meadows uh the by the meadows subdivision um there was a little open space did a PUB Well, and I don't have a problem developers willing to,

you know, go along with that on that thing, but I just Good point though. It does seem like a bit of a reach for us to put that on the development. Yeah, that's it. Okay. Sorry. Uh, sorry about that.

I I'll say one thing though, Chris. the uh you know the I think the the the the property I like the idea of what they're doing here. I like the product. I like the concept and I like the idea of affordable housing for people. I just don't believe that this property is going to achieve that. That's the problem that I have with it. I don't I don't believe that the people saving uh are going to be happy to if they have the choice of this property and one down the road and the other one down the road has 4,000 foot lots and that they cost 440,000 and these are 425. I don't think this is going to be a popular product. But that's not my call. It's the it's the developers. It's their property. And so I think it doesn't fit because there's too many streets and they have too many lot costs for the uh for the for the for the number of lots. The costs are too high because of the number of improvements they have to make. So I don't think it's a very good fit. But um nonetheless, it's their property and we do have to try some things to try to get affordable housing. And so if they want to make a crack at it, my worry for the city long term is that it will be a unpopular neighborhood that will become run down and um won't be a success. I personally worry, but I'd be very happy to be wrong on that. So I I really think it comes down to the developer though. It's their their property.

If you dig into the numbers, impact fees are a huge Yeah. That's going to be a much bigger way bigger price determinant than lot density by far. Yeah. This isn't the way to save the money and it's not going to I don't think be effective, but they can sure give her a shot if they want to. And if you know, if these are, let's say, a minimum of 1500 square foot houses, I don't see how it's possible to get them under 500,000 in the current world.

I have to imagine they run the numbers, but All right. Um, appreciate uh the dialogue on that uh issue, gentlemen. And uh, Madame Commissioner, uh, number four, the PUD provides for timely development of the property and security for the future completion by ensuring that each development block contains the necessary elements to exist independently from future blocks. Uh, this one addresses some of the phased development. And I think there's a three-phaseed subdivision proposed complete in three phases.

So, and that's condition number three that uh on the staff report and I would just add to that that uh it needs to be completed in the three phases, but each of those phases needs to include the common area that they show will be in those phases. So, in other words, it's not finishing phase one, the homes, and then the open space is left open and they're already into phase two. Would that be a subdivision condition then? I agree with that. I'm trying to figure out exactly what Just making sure that the open space goes. If you look at the Yeah, if you look at the the phasing maps that he gave us or the plats that he gave us, it shows the common area for each phase. I just want to make sure that those are done.

I think the last time we we kind of were we added a condition that's we did, but now it's different. Yeah, but we could add the same condition that construction of phase three can't commence until the completion of all open spaces. So that way, yeah, or just finish each phase or something. The biggest concern is not getting the common area done, right? I agree. And just jumping into the next one. So So how how are we going to address that wording wise would be good. I mean the common area is part of each phase development. So that's kind since we have the subdivision application here. I think that's the place to yes ensure it and I I think it probably is insured by the

usually we put it in with the main governing dock. So in this would be the PUD. So you would sit there and say so wording kind of matters. So if it's construction before um you can't go into construction prior to completion of phase one and two that allows them when they're going through phase one. Theoretically they can start construction before 100% completion of two. So the wording and how the semantics does play a role on when they can start construction of phase two as part of it. The timing of the platting of phase one.

Let's just keep it simple. is that the open space is considered subdivision infrastructure to be completed as as part of each phase. So it's basically I mean it's just like the swailes or the sidewalks or anything like that. It's just the open space has is part of it. One thing I don't want though is to hold bond or shy for phase one and two and have the argument that they can start construction on phase three. phase three. Ideally, you'd have them actually completed on phase one and two before they can start construction on phase two on phase three. Sorry. Yeah. I don't

except for the fact that like if if they're going through and paving roads, there's got to be an economy of scale. Yeah. You want to let them pave the roads. Well, there there's all of that and then there's the fact that if they're paving in November, you're not going to put hydro seating down. Right. Right. So that's the So I my question would be can we direct staff to just include that to make sure that the way the phasing is done because I'm not an expert in that. We had a lessons learned. Yeah. In the community where basically there was a park that was not completed because it was done as part of phase three and and developers done. Well, sometimes they do walk away.

Right. That's right. And so, one reason or another, having a hook in there to where um they will they, you know, they can if they walk away, you know, odds are they're not going to walk away, you know, you know, with with the right conditions or if they do, at least the the community there has their open space, right? And then you don't have an HOA trying to figure out how to complete their open space through some sort of bond or shity that was posted by some other party. Agreed. Right. And so, where do you stick that caveat? You know, we really would like it phase by phase because if they start phase two, they could sell out one and two before one's open space is even completed.

But where to start? Is that a time of plat? Is it a time of construction? They have completely two different applications. I mean, if it's so if it's part of the constru infrastructure for the subdivision, then the way the city bonding process works is that we they the way it works would be is that if they don't complete it, they have to bond for it and that they're not allowed subdivision completion until the bond goes to warranty, which means that they're not allowed CO until it's either building permits or CO until Um, we generally don't hold the builder often times separate from the person doing the subdivision and platting,

right? So holding the the CEO up, you're holding the wrong person hostage for an obligation to the person developing the lots. And you're also holding a bond that the developer is on the hook for for one and a half times the cost of the remaining stuff remaining, which I mean it it's it kind of sucks that if they don't do it that it puts a city on the hook, but that that's probably the appropriate hook to have in them so that you can go after their bond and except for the tract is on a private. So we usually don't take bond money and improve private lots,

right? which why I phrased it the way I did to to consider the open space a public part of the public infrastructure. I mean just to allow that is that Chris is that well out of bounds there. I think what we previously did to allow them enough flexibility to control their development is we said phases one and two shall be complete before you start phase three. That means complete phases one and two. So if they need to get all their open space I mean that was what was previously suggested. This this is the same proposal more or less. That's fair enough with that. And I think that addresses most of your concerns without requiring them to complete all of phase one before moving on to phase two because they do need some flexibility in ability to sell homes to pay for that infrastructure. I I assume. Y absolutely.

So that would be my recommendation, commissioners. Um but it's it would be so that we'd be adding that to condition number three. Uh that would be a modification and I think that was previously proposed by uh Mr. Manley in the last round. So, I would I would adopt that language. Okay. Um All right. Uh number 4 B, ensuring that each building in the development lot has sufficient access around the structure to allow for continual maintenance of the building and access for emergency uh services. That's done through setbacks. I think the setbacks have addressed some of that. I'm not sure there was much testimony to the to the contrary on that issue, right? They're just standard R2 setbacks.

Yeah. and meeting the city city requirements. Sure. Uh and finally, ensuring that the funding mechanism exists to adequately maintain the common areas that are not publicly maintained. I think this is where we talk about the um and this is on condition number 11, right? I think this

I would just change this wording. So right now I would change it to read something along these lines. The homeowners association for the project shall be required to maintain all common areas including rightofway frontage adjacent to open space tracks, private roads, streets, alleyways uh including paving, landscaping, irrigation rem and snow removal and the HOA shall provide a funding mechanism for capital repair replacement in the future. I think we need to add streets and alley private streets and alleys. I did. You did put private streets. Okay. Okay. I just I'm definitely post.

All right. Thank you. Um yeah, that's that's simple. Okay. In the at the end of the day, we can't force we're not enforcing the CCNRs, right? But we can try to educate these home buyers. My biggest concern is when we have first-time home buyers stretching to get to these purchase prices, whether whatever the price is, and they're in there five years, developers gone, street needs a new slurry coat, and here's your bill for $50,000, right? Special assessment time.

It doesn't work. Well, I you know, I understand that, but at the same time, is is that not something that should be in our requirements when somebody's coming in to get a PUD, they're told ahead of time, if you have private streets, this is what this is one of the it has to be done. No, it isn't. That's what I'm saying. How do we just throw it on a developer right now? It shouldn't it be instead of that because we have the option to do it when it's a PUD? I don't know that we that's what I'm questioning because it's you just pick out a person one PUD and say okay we're going to do it to you because you have private streets but we haven't done it before. We've done it on like the last five approvals we put it in there.

Commissioners I I appreciate the comment. I I believe it warrants a larger discussion as to making folks more aware on the front end if they're going to propose trip yeah private streets and infrastructure to have them understand upfront what some of those obligations are at least the city's concerns to avoid the public maintaining that private infrastructure in the future when it's inevitably going to fail in the future. Well, yeah, and I totally agree with that. But I think it should that be an upfront thing that they should know before you know when they come in for the to apply for a PUD or something. is one of your conditions.

So, I think that needs to go back to staff level and we need to take a look at the code and see if it's going to We are doing a subdivision update right now as we speak. Um, I will bring it through the admin's channels, but uh I I mean I I think it warrants a larger discussion.

I think everybody understands it except for the buyer. That's the person that needs to understand it. I don't know how you convey it to the buyer. So having been involved in similar projects, you also run into on the back end FHA, HUD, VA requirements and a lot of those secondary markets when they look at HOAs, they're going to look at the capital reserve fund. We don't at by code require it, but if especially if you're building affordable housing, it's got to be be in there.

So, you're saying that they wouldn't fund the loan for the buyer if it's not sufficient? They won't. I do know that Oregon State Code and Washington State Code have provisions for most of things. I don't I I don't think Idaho State Code does. Bunch of hippies, right? I know if you get any kind of like tax credit financing for a project, those those capital reserve requirements are huge. All right. Probably a separate issue we need to try to figure out how to address general.

Like I said, I like I think I think we have the ability as as a commission to make suggestions to the code and revisions where we see them appropriate and that's probably the better channel rather than doing this on the fly for each each hearing and then imposing those. But I do I do want it changed for this one for the conditions. Sure. I think it sets him up for success and it and it doesn't hurt the developer. It all it does is it just ensures that everybody knows upfront that there are expenses. Um because driving down the street the the normal person doesn't realize that that blue street sign means it's not maintained by the city and that the city plows aren't going to drive by and that in 20 years the city isn't going to repave it.

Yeah. So so we've uh concluded on the PUD criteria. My recommendation is let's go through the subdivision criteria and then uh open it up for uh further debate in motion if that's all right with the commissioners. Y sounds good.

So on subdivision 25-4, this is the request for the 85 lots in the R2 zone for Harvest Meadows. Uh criteria number one. I think we have satisfied uh it is determining whether adequate supply for water supply has been made. I think we have addressed that. So we need not revisit that at this time. Same with number two, adequate provisions in their subdivision code for the public sewage system and that can service the uh proposed sewer flows. We have the city of Post Falls as well on this issue. Correct.

Uh number three, proposed streets are consistent with the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. Um we've had some discussion on that one. I don't know if there's any further debate on this issue. No, I think we talked about it with regards to the PUD. So it Spokane Street widing improvements meet the transportation master plan and the providing the connectivity to the joining residential streets completes that hole in the residential grid.

Thank you commissioners. Uh, number four, topographical or hazardous issues have been identified. I don't recall much testimony on that one other than it being over the aquifer, which is our standard response. Uh, the area proposed number five for the subdivision is zoned for the use um the R2 uh zoning and the use conforms to the other requirements found in the code. Yes. Yeah. R2 is an allowable zoning district as modified by the PUD. Yes. And on this one, there is that notation that if the PED were approved, then the lot sizes and the other uh uses would conform to our other requirements of the code. Otherwise, it would not true.

Um then finally, uh adequate plans to ensure the community will bear no more than its fair share costs of uh fees or off-site mitigation services. And this is the impact fees that we've talked about for public safety, parks, streets, as well as like street dedications and street improvements that they're actually doing within the project too. Yeah. And on the frontages or and on the frontage street. Exactly. So, okay. Thank you, commissioners. Anybody have any other further discussion or comments?

I do. I do too. Go ahead.

Well, essentially, we approved this a while back. It's just been massaged in a few different ways. The last time the PUD came in, I voted against it. Um, but this is right back to one that we approved. the for the concerns for the people that don't want it there. This really is our two light. I mean, and I brought that up at that other meeting. It is so close to it. I mean, yeah, you don't want it there at all. Neither do I. I live a quarter mile from there, but it's it's it's there. We need housing. Um I don't see any problems with that. Uh it's it's not that far off from R1. Um, I've never been in one of these meetings where so many people are in favor of a project. So, the developers got a lot of friends. So, uh, I would say I mean for me it's kind of went back to what we've already approved.

Chris, um, so in the conditions, uh, one of One of the conditions, condition number four, a reduction of minimum lot size from 4,000 square feet to 2,800 square feet, not to exceed 7.35 lots per acre. I'd like to change that to not to exceed 85 lots because I have no idea still what we're applying the lot. What which acreage are we applying it to? I think that makes sense. It just drives me nuts. It takes the math out of it. Yes. And I don't think there's any issue with that because it's essentially the same number. depending on which acreage you're using.

I think that's the only thing I have. Sounds good to me. Any other comments, Mr. Shver? Um, excluding tracks. Excluding the open space tracks. No. Yes. 85 lots excluding 85 building lots. Oh, sorry. Yes. Yes. 85. There's a distinction in our code between tracks and lots and I I like to not perfect. Any other comments? All right, there's nothing else. Entertain a motion.

Chris has got it. wrote all the edits down. Okay, Chris, you got this one. So, what are we going to start with? Are we going to start with the subdivision or do we start with the PUD or do we approve them simultaneously? I think you can do them both through one fail swoop. Um um you can take a vote on the PUD first would probably be my preference. Um and then the conditions can apply to both. Do that. So, two votes. Sure. So just start with PUD then. Okay. So how do how do we want to make that motion? My suggestion uh commissioners is take a vote on the PUD and then subject to the conditions as described in

so so the conditions themselves are for the PUD not for the subdivision because it to me it looks like these these approval criteria are for both. They're mixed. make one super motion and I'm sorry for the confusion. Um, let's just have the conditions apply to both and I'll farad it out on the back end in the in the final report. All right. So, take a take a motion on the PUB first subject to the conditions as described in the motion on the subdivision. Then the following. Does that work?

Okay. Thank you. Uh let's see if we can try this. This might need some amendment. I make a motion to approve uh the Harvest Meadows PUB file number PUD25-2 finding that it meets the approval criteria in Postf Falls Municipal Code and I'm assuming that's uh section 17.12.060 060. And as outlined here in our deliberation, subject to the conditions that will be introduced in the related subdivision and uh and contained in the staff report and direct staff to prepare a written reasoned decision.

Very good. A motion on the floor. I second and a second. Do we do we need to amend any of those conditions? We're going to amend them with the subdivision. The subdivision. Okay. Since they're going to be for both, do we need to amend them for both? They're going to be amended here in a moment. Okay. Commissioner, I think we'll go through them and make the amendments and apply them to both. Okay. So, unless you want to go through them twice. No. Okay. I have a motion and a second on the PUD. Can we have roll call, please? Carrie, yes. Kimble, yes. Stephenson, yes. Schlottower, yeah. Shriber, yes. Wilhham,

yes. Okay. Motion is approved. Okay. You want me to take a shot at this this with the amendments?

Yes, please. I move to approve Harvest Meadow subdivision file number SUBDD-25-4 finding that it meets the approval criteria in Post Falls municipal code 17.12.060 and as outlined in our deliberation subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Those conditions are conditions 1 through 12. We are amending uh with the amendments to condition number three. Condition number three is the proposed subdivision must be completed in three phases or less. Uh we'd like to add to that what was the recommended wording there again because that one I didn't write down. Sorry.

I think phases one and two are completed fully completed including the common area before three. Is that correct? Yes sir. Okay. So phase phase one and two are com are fully completed prior to commencement on phase three. Well one and two with common areas common one and two with common areas.

Uh condition number 4A and this is in regards to the reduction in minimum lot size from 4,000 to 2,000 foot. Simply going to change that from not to exceed 7.3 lots per acre. We're gonna change that to not to exceed 85 lots not including the common tracks. Okay. Uh see the last one is condition number 11 and we're amending condition number 11 to read as the homeowners association for the project shall be required to maintain all common areas including rightofway frontage adjacent to open space tracks. private roads, streets, and alleyways, including paving, landscaping, irrigation, and snow removal, and provide a funding mechanism for capital repair replacement in the future. And I think that's it. Are we going to add a play structure or not?

I would like that. Let's add that as condition 13. That developer shall include a play structure in one of the common area open space tracks. Okay. Okay. We have a second motion and a second. Roll call, please. Carrie, yes. Kimble, yes. Stephenson, yes. Sean Hower, yes. Shriber, yes. Wilham, yes.

All right, that is approved. All right, we're going to take five minutes. We've been going at it for over two hours now. You got to

Call the meeting back to order. Next on the agenda tonight, uh, public hearing for Echo Estates and open the hearing. Good evening, planning commission. My name is Justin Souder, and tonight we have the Echo Estates annexation file number A NX-24-5. The property owner is Eagle Crest Land LLC and the applicant is Olsson Engineering. And the applicant is requesting that the planning and zoning commission forward a recommendation to the city council for a medium density residential zoning on approximately 9.72 acres as part of an annexation request into the city of Post Falls. And again, this is just a forward recommendation to the city council. So there will not actually be a decision on it tonight. Just so everyone knows, here is the project location. In the red square here, you can see it is just north of Echo Drive. We have Maguire Road right here running north and south. And then we have Corbin Road over here. And then it's at the terminus of Okonogan Avenue, which this is the Gabrio Estates right here. So hopefully that gives you an idea of where we're talking about. As you can see here in the black hatch square, this property does not have a zoning designation at this time. And the properties to the north, south, and the west are all within the county. There's also some properties to the east that are within the county. And then again, we have the Gabrio Estates, which is R1 single family residential. We also have some R2 medium residential to the northeast of this property site. And the applicant again is requesting

that their property would also have a zoning designation of R2. Uh go back one second here. If you can see it is actually two different parcels. There's one parcel here and then this is another parcel. So currently each lot is being used for a single family home. It is over the Wrath Drum Prairie aquifer. The uh east east greenacres irrigation district will supply the water and the city of Post Falls will provide the waste water. We have adequate capacity. We also have a will serve letter from the irrigation district. As far as traffic, Echo Drive is a local residential roadway and additional rights of way and easements would need to be provided as part of the annexation. There are here is the review criteria for a zone change. There's three of them. We'll start with one. So, is the proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map and focus area contained in the currently adopted postfalls comprehensive plan? Here we on the left we have a graphic of the future land use designation. It is medium density residential. That is exactly what the applicant is requesting as well. It is also within the west prairie focused area. That's the graphic on the right. And the proposed um annexation. This area in the focus area is expected to develop as some portion of residential. So the zoning request is also uh consistent with the focus area. As we can see here, the implementing zoning districts are R2, R3, RM, and SC4. And so R2 falls within that area. planning manager John is actually going to talk a little more about the future land use designation and specifically

this area of town.

Yeah. So back when we did the comp plan in 2020 we did look we had a special workshop. This is one of those areas. We had three areas. This is one of them. So we took into consideration and I have highlighted up there the medium density trailer park. You got to the west you have the commercial industrial corridor along Seltis Way and then you also have a Meuire on the east side. You got a mix of you got the LDS church, you got a multif family site, you have some industrial facilities. I think you have an auto auction yard out there. And so what we looked at is how does this transition when you trans go going 20 years in the future? If you're planning 20 years out in the comprehensive plan and this area is in our exclusive tier and you're making some base assumptions that this more than likely is going to evolve in time and has an increased likelihood of having annexation requests, how would you transition away from those uses on Seltis Way going northbound towards the railroad tracks? And so the concept through the workshop that we did through that public outreach is what you see there is that you'd have that business commercial along the north side of Selttheast way. That's that pink. And then you would mitigate some of those impacts with the R3 not the R3 the higher density zoning designation and in transition to the medium density zoning designation. And then that blue that you see there, that's a that transitional use because it's unknown how and what would may be developed in that medium density or in the higher density. And then then once it does, you give you an insight on how that may transition to the railroad corridor. But just wanted to give you a little bit of h how the current condition is and why it's there as part of this uh request.

Thank you very much. Moving on to the second review criteria which states is the proposed zoning district consistent with the goals and policies contained in the current adopted postfalls comprehensive plan that are relevant to the area under consideration. So the product site is within the West Prairie focus area which is called out in our current comprehensive plan and as an area for future mixed residential uses between Meuire Road and Corbin Road. Specifically, this project site falls right in between those. The annexation request is consistent with goal one of the comprehensive plan which seeks to grow and sustain a balanced resilient economy for Postf Falls providing community prosperity and fiscal health. So the R2 zone can deliver attainable housing choices in the form of cottage homes, tiny homes, twin homes, or town homes. Diversifying the housing stock within Postf Falls and diversifying the housing stock may assist in sustaining a balanced and resilient economy for Postf Falls. The recent 2025 housing needs analysis report encourages the diversification of housing types to meet community needs. And then there are also several factors that need to be considered when applying a new zone designation and these are outlined in policy 2. So we need to consider future land use mapping, compatibility with surrounding land uses, infrastructure and service plans, existing and future traffic patterns and goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. We've already touched on the fact that the pro proposed zoning designation is consistent with the future land use designation and is compatible with some of the surrounding land uses. And now we're going through the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. As far as infrastructure, sanitary sewer is within Okonagan Avenue and is within a shared sewer service basin that allows flows to collect to the closest lift

station. In this case, that would be the Montro lift station, which has capacity for the requested zone and is in conformance with the city's water reclamation plan. For future traffic patterns, a future subdivision would have access via Echo Drive, which is again south to the project site, and then to the east to Gabrio Estates through Okonogan Avenue. That would provide access to Maguire. And then from Echo Estate, from Echo Drive, you could get to Corbin off to the west or to Maguire to the east. And Echo Drive would be designed based on a local residential collector standard, which means additional rights of way of dedication would be required with the annexation, and that would be for sidewalks, drainage, and utility easements. The annexation request is also consistent with goal seven of the comprehensive plan which seeks to establish types and quantities of land uses and postfalls supporting community needs and the city's long-term sust and the city's long-term sustainability. So, the R2 land use designation may help with community needs and long-term sustainability by providing the different housing types we talked about and that are discussed in the housing needs report as well as policy 15 here in the comprehensive plan. And that all encourages the diversification of the housing. Annexation of the subject site with the zoning request would help provide land for future housing needs, the medium density residential in an area that is projected to be annexed into the city. Upon subdivision development, roadway and pedestrian improvements would be required and completed, allowing for the continuity of roadways and help create further pedestrian connections through sidewalks and trails, which is also encouraged here by policy 33. The final review criteria is does the proposed zoning district create a

demonstrable adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public service within the city and there have been no identified demonstrable adverse impacts upon the delivery of services at this time. Here's a list of the agencies that were notified and we received comments back from four agencies. They were either remain neutral or comment at time of development or had no comments. Here's that review criteria once more just for your reference. And then finally, the site itself. And then just as uh I want to mention again that the recommendation tonight will be sent to city council for further deliberation and a final decision. So that concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer questions and John can also help answer any questions.

Is there any other land out there that's pending city council annexation or I feel like we've seen a bunch of stuff out there. Midway that far. Is it north? It just had Painted Rock recently. Yeah. Midway which is on the corner of Midway and Magguire. Correct. And then to the west of that was Lingar. It's right above the word Midway. That was Lingar. Both R2. Painted Rock was R2. Yes. Yep. Okay. I I just couldn't remember off the top of my head. Yeah. Gabriel Estates there. Well, you weren't here then for John. Gabriel Estates went before city council for R2 and they got turned down I think twi I think twice.

I think they came to DNZ. They got forwarded a zoning recommendation of R2. Right. When it went to city council they approved it as an R1. R1. Correct. Then they came in with for a reasonzone, right? For a portion they but they didn't go they didn't got what they withdrew. They were going to there was three lots that was adjacent to that's right the northern R2 that they were wanting to they were desiring or contemplating going to R2 and they decided not to pursue that any further. So it started R2 here ended up R1 on G ultimately. Yeah. So lots going on. So, the two up up on Midway where they're waiting to go before council. No, they've been approved.

They were approved at at R2. Cool. Thank you.

Anybody have any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Invite the applicant up. Aim for the record, please. Good evening, commissioners. Jeremy Truzulli. I'm a land use consultant uh collaborating with Olsson Engineering this evening on behalf of Ryan Stoker um Eaglerest Land LLC. I felt that the staff report was incredibly comprehensive and for this recommendation to city council is uh only for the zoning designation. Um, but I'm going to go over and give you a little background towards the end here, um, on how we arrived here and invite some discussion and that'll explain itself when I get to that point. Um, the three very more or less simple yes or no questions uh, with regard to our review criteria. Um, is the proposal consistent with the future land use map um, and the focus area? It's relatively simple to answer. Um Oh, you don't have a presentation. Perfect. Thank you. Um so the property designation in the future land use map is R2 um or rather is medium density residential. R2 is an appropriate implementing zoning district. And then future guidance is usually uh in the focus area which again a lot of this is just redundant from the staff report so I'll move very quickly. The focus area we're down there in the southeast corner of the west prairie. Um this is kind of I did bring the proposal midway about an eighth of a mile north of this a couple of months ago. So this presentation is very much a carbon copy

of that because we're so incredibly close. The West Perry focus area uh that applies to this request is highlighted here in yellow. That mixed residential is envisioned between Maguire and Corbin Road. Uh putting some of those higher densities near the commercial corridors in Arterial. And as we're shifting further south towards that Seltis corridor, you would anticipate that the densities would get a little higher down there. And as the staff report pointed out, perhaps even some medium to high density to buffer between single family residences and those commercial/industrial uses. So we think that this uh aligns uh seamlessly with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map as well as the focus area. And then the comp plan does talk about adjacent areas and neighboring properties. Um, if you do look at the Montro subdivision, it's very close to here. Um, Okonagan has become sort of an extension. Um, as we're seeing some of that medium density residential develop out Midway. Um, some of you guys did ask about that. Those were both the one the painted rock and the one that I presented were both approved R2. Um and there were a couple of guardrails put on by city council uh that they would remain single family residences up there which was all agreed to. So this same pattern is kind of uh working its way in this little uh odd shape between the tracks Corbin and Maguire. Um in the staff report uh they did point out goals and policies that I also agreed with. Uh, one thing I did notice in the staff report regarding policy 38 is that their staff comment points out that per the Westbury focus area of the comp plan, the infrastructure to support urban development is mostly not in place

at this time, but has been planned for since the most recent comp plan update. Um, as staff did clarify, this actual area here south of the tracks um is adequately served by uh city infrastructure. So, I think the comp plan speaks more to the West Prairie Focus area um along Pleasant View, which is very true. North of the tracks, we have no pipe in the ground out there and uh the infrastructure is not available at this time. Impact and delivery of services. No. Um dozens of agencies are notified during this process and and no demonstrable adverse impacts were noted. Um, so what I wanted to point out and and allude to was there was a subdivision that was applied for concurrently with this annexation. Um, our developer has developed all around the community these little five and 10 acre infill pieces, uh, adjacent pieces. They're kind of his bread and butter. He does them very well. He's provided a lot of different uh lot sizes, a lot of different final housing products all throughout this community. Um, and his thought after meeting with many of the neighbors, and he did go out and knock on a bunch of doors, um, they thought bigger lots was, uh, what they would prefer if this was to get annexed. Um, and then John and I got talking and we kind of agreed that we would sort of have to invert all of the arguments I made for the Midway project to ask for an R1 zoning designation and ultimately it is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. Although Mr. Stoker said I'd be fine with R1. I

can make eight, nine, t, thousand square foot lots out here work, but we don't want to paint ourselves into a corner, get in front of council and say we uh are doing the will of the neighbors that says they would prefer if it is to get annexed and it if it does get approved for development, larger lots would be something that we would prefer and then have city council say, but it's not in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Um, and that's sort of the discussion I'm inviting this evening to see how we how we handle that. We had proposed, I shouldn't say proposed. There are three to four designs currently floating around with the development team. Some of them it's all larger lots. Mr. Stoker said, "I can make that work, but it's not in conformity with the future land use map." He said, "Okay, I'd like to do these twin homes." A concept that's something nobody else in town is trying. Um, and most people see twin homes kind of stacked in there like cordwood. Well, except between structures. He's proposing 15 foot side, no, sorry, 30 feet between structures. So, yes, 15 foot sideyard setbacks, deeper lots so that half of a twin home could have a shop on that lot. It's a unique idea. Not a whole lot of people doing it. There's a thought, well, we give up a little bit in the home, meaning it's cheaper to build because we're we're building four walls for two residences. Party wall becomes the property line. You give up a little in the home, but maybe you get yourself a little 20 by30 shop in the back. Um, so they're spread out a lot more so that you can have a drive aisle that goes all the way back to the shop. And then we have some hybrid version of both of those. There's a couple versions

floating around out there. Uh my client can make any one of those or any combination of those work. Um like I said, he's developed all around the city. Um we're looking for feedback. We're looking to hear what the the uh neighbors might want to read into the public record tonight. your discussion could be incredibly helpful as we move to council and ask for approval of this, what the appropriate zoning is and what those appropriate guard rails could be. And with that, I stand for any questions. Did you say there's no twin homes here? Did you say there was no twin homes here? I'm sorry. Did you on this proposal? Oh, I thought you said in the area twin homes. There's

Oh, no. No. There's twin homes due north. Yeah. Twin homes with a shop, though. Oh. That's the unique component. And I kind of turn my head and say I can't think of anywhere where somebody has done a twin home because usually then they're 10 feet between structure, right? And they just stack them up, right? Envision 30 feet between structure with a 15 foot driveway that goes to the backyard and then makes a 90 into a shop. And because we're not proposing the subdivision, I didn't want to muddy the waters by bringing those slides, but here I am muddying the waters by telling you that.

But do but then do you come back later and go, well, no, we just want to do R2 multifamily. No, I'm single family. I mean, Mr. Stoker is going to speak tonight. Okay.

He's got excellent history and development in the city. If the council says we want these to be owner occupied, no problem. Put it in the CCNRs. Um they want um single family out here. No rental units, no duplexes. We're not proposing duplexes. Twin home is not a duplex. Each unit can be sold fee simple and get a mortgage on it. All those guardrails are on the table. Um, and if they simply say, "We want standalone freestanding homes on 9,000 square foot lots," he's going to say, "I'm good with that as well." We thought, and again, having done this a bunch in collaborating with Mr. Manley, it was like R1 is not it's it's not in alignment with the comp plan. Oddly enough, it's a less intense use, but it does not meet the the review criteria. It's kind of a weird little pickle to be in,

if that makes sense. Well, you can there minimum lot sizes and so you could build an R1 product in R2, right? We certainly could. So, I don't really see the issue, but it was when requesting the zoning designation because my client was like, "Well, let's just go for R1 then." And R1 technically is not. So, we could do R2 and then if it gets approved, he could decide to just go ahead and put 9 10,000 square foot lots. That's completely accurate. Yeah, you don't have to build to the maximum density. So,

if that's really the case, that sounds nice because I see if that turning into R2 multifamilies, all those five acre lots are just going to fall like dominoes. I wouldn't like to see all that multif family there. We we're proposing zero multifamily and the uh technically you can't do the closest thing you can to get to multif family is town homes but you can't do multif family in the R2. Town homes are single family attached product. So we removed multif family as an option in R2 I think about three years ago. Well isn't I mean twin homes Well I guess it's not you own you own each side. Yep. They're all MLS, single family

owned, zero lot line.

Well, feedbackwise, I think you can see that we are a little reluctant to exceed the the uh R2 requirements. And so, if you can meet or exceed R2 requirements in the future for a subdivision hearing, I think that uh we'll all get along just fine. Yeah, it was the point of if the subdivision was uh you know adjacent to this application, city council could say, "Well, this isn't an R2 product that you're designing in the subdivision and you're asking for R2." I just trying to be uh preemptive here and not box ourselves in and get denied on a technicality, I guess, is what I'm trying to state. Any other questions?

No. Thank you. Any public testimony?

He doesn't have as many friends. I think there was some written testimony, too, that was submitted already. It's in package. Yeah, there was two letters in the packet. Uh, wishing to speak in favor. Ryan Stroker.

Yeah, I'm Ryan Stoker. I live at 224 Eaglerest Drive in Celane. Um, like Jeremy said, uh, I went out over a couple weekends back in March, April and tried to meet with as many neighbors as I could. In general, they were, uh, they didn't want any development in the area. Um, I showed them three different options. Uh, one was the twin home option, and I particularly like the shop because I'm envisioning when I was younger, I had toys. I needed a place to put the toys and the garage just didn't work well for that. Um, I also showed them single family uh lots, basically about 5,000 square foot lots. I have had offers from like Dr. Horton and LAR to purchase those lots. Um, I've told them no at this time. Um, I've also showed them an option that was 10,000 square foot lots. What I've primarily done in the past is I have work with about four builders that I build larger shop lots and then sell those lots to them to build on. So some of the subdivisions are like um Aerolleaf Estates, Tranquil Meadows, Quiet Ridge, Fair Estates, Birdie Glenn, and Ashler Ranch. Um so I'm willing to be flexible. I would wouldn't mind at all doing the 10,000 square foot lots that builds right into my business model, but when I saw this, I wanted to be compatible with the R2. I kind of like the twin homes look of it instead of really small single family homes where the market's at today. Probably the single family homes end up being better on the small lots. And if I we were to be approved for that, I would probably turn and look to sell those lots to somebody like Dr. Horton or

Lenar, they're going to build um a less expensive home than the semi-custom builders I normally work with. They're going to be a little higher end on that end. Um I'd like to hear from the neighbors out there what they're looking for and then if you have any questions for me, I'm more than happy to answer. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Melissa Morris. And while she's speaking, she has photos. So, I'll pass this around and all the commission members, you guys can look at that.

Good evening. My name is Melissa Morris. I am here as a resident of Post Falls and an invested citizen who resides at the terminus of Okonogan Avenue. I also want to mention no one knocked on my door. I'm here to formally oppose the proposed annexation and what was supposed to be the R2 zoning of the property adjacent to mine. While I do understand the city's need to plan for growth, this proposal fails to meet the standards previously upheld in recent annexations and does not serve the best interest of this particular community. This annexation lacks the financial upside that justified past approvals. In the Painted Rock annexation, Council Member Weslin stated, "There is no financial downside, only a financial upside because we are not having to purchase the right of way." This current proposal offers no such infrastructure benefit, nor does it align with the city's stated goals of sustainable development. Furthermore, the R2 zoning designation raises serious concerns. While developers claim R2 zoning supports starter homes, the reality is far more complex. R2 zoning establishes higher residential density and crowding, compromising pedestrian safety and overall walkability. I've provided the pictures of the neighboring Wildflower Meadows community as part of such crowding. In the pictures, you will see streets are narrow because vehicles are parked on both sides and sidewalks cannot be utilized because vehicles are parked there, too. R2 zoning strains public services without demonstrable benefit, violating the city's own review criteria. I have also provided pictures of my own neighborhood in which the city will not hold the landowner accountable for maintaining the vacant lots. I can, if requested, provide additional

pictures as proof of the city not holding landers accountable for land maintenance immediately outside of my neighborhood as well. R2 zoning encourages transient residency, undermining neighborhood stability and a sense of community. When residents cycle in and out, there is less incentive to invest in the community, whether that's maintaining property, participating in local events, or looking out for one another. Over time, this turnover weakens the social fabric. Finally, R2 zoning reduces green space and disrupts the rural character of adjacent properties. This has been stated by postfall citizens time and time again in similar proposals. I speak from experience. If you were a member of this committee a few years back, you were sold a bill of goods by a fast-talking developer who made promises to you that he couldn't keep. That developer promised thoughtful development, a boutique community, and an exciting new development for the city of Post Falls. Unfortunately, you and the community received a broken commitment from a developer who failed to deliver, a developer who lied, and a developer who should be investigated for fraud. We were told one thing but given another. I urge you not to repeat this mistake. In a recent city council meeting, council member Stig leader stated, "Experts in the industry are saying this is important. Citizens are not speaking up for this. Citizen voices are not just anecdotal. Citizen voices are essential data points in the evaluation of community impact. I come to you tonight as one of many people publicly speaking up for this and respectfully oppose this proposal. I can only hope that you hear citizens tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Speak in opposition Debbie Voka. name for the record, please. My name is Debbie Vodka. Um, do you need to know where my house is or

echo? I'm on echo. So, um, I'm thankful to have the opportunity to speak with you and I really hope that you do listen to the public's um, concerns and the reasons why we oppose this. I been up here before. So, um I think growth is good for most of the towns if it's done slowly and with good plans of keeping this place a desirable um area to live and raise a family. Um we shouldn't have roads that are full of traffic and water treatment plants that you can smell for miles away. Um, existing homeowners should not have to reduce their val or developers shouldn't have the ability to reduce our home's value by overbuilding and kind of building less quality homes. Our home, our street has pretty quality homes on it. Um, I think Post Falls is changing too fast. the um safe, quiet neighborhoods are no longer really out there. Um they're becoming pretty dangerous with all the traffic and just people from other um areas moving in. Uh it is still somewhat affordable, I think, compared to Washington. I mean, I have people that I know that are moving over here. Um, I think that we have quite a bit of affordable housing at this time, which I know, um, the multifamily is considered affordable, but it's still pretty much out of reach for most people that are locals and their income isn't what out ofstate people have. Um, it seems developers are just wanting to make a profit instead of really caring about the area. The the way that they're

developing it, it's not looking that great as far as I'm concerned. Um, anyway, Echo is a very small, narrow road. There's no street lights where it intersects with Meuire. It's very narrow. There's not room for hardly two cars. And so that will not change if this gets approved. And there are a lot of people that still walk our street even though we don't have sidewalks. But it's because they say this is just a nice quiet street. It's very um beautiful just because it's not overdeveloped and overpop populated. So, I would just ask that you consider to keep some of Post Falls with uh options for the people that do want to have land, that want to come here and have animals or grow gardens, vineyards, whatever. Um the single family homes are probably a better fit for this um street with some goodiz lots because that would um it would give families that option to have that kind of a home. And once you give this land away to the hodge podge developers, there's no going back and then this area will no longer be a desirable place to live. So, thank you.

Thank you.

See, Barbara Bron Bron Rono Rancho did you want to speak? Okay, you didn't mark name for the record.

Thank you for letting me uh voice my concerns. You've seen our property on multiple um council meetings. We are north of the proposed subdivision that's going in and we are west of the sub the subdivision that was put in on Midway and Maguire. And your decisions impact me daily. Um with that subdivision on Midway and Maguire, we drove through at 4:00. I counted 70 vehicles there. It's not a complete subdivision, but uh there's so many people congested there and the street is now very normal, very narrow because everybody parks in the street along with their uh access ways. But uh my concern with this subdivision is that it's for R2 instead of an R1. I would like to see single family homes and it would um be very continuous of the other places that are 5 acre lots bringing it down to single family and extending the single family road of was that Okonogan there to the the east. Um, at some point you guys are going to have to put in a stoplight there at Corbin just to go with more traffic and uh the usage and um let's see.

Currently we experience a lot of unlicensed vehicles running on Midway. I could see that happening on Echo. If you call the the police department, they say it's part of the county sheriff should be patrolling that. I would like to see more um police presence just to monitor some of the the things that we're living with. We are not in the city, but we sure are impacted by the city. and uh we've lived on this property since 1990. We're lifelong residents of Idaho and just want to keep the small town feel as much as possible. I think people take more personal pride in a single family home than they do a twolex or forplex or whatever we're calling them today, whether it's a townhouse, a condo. Um, I do appreciate that. Um, you took the time to listen to my concerns. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Kathy Lesnner. Lesser.

Leer. Sorry about that. My name is Kathy Blesner. I live on Echo. I live to the west of this development. I strongly oppose anything other than R1 with one home to an acre. At first, I was going to tell you I would totally disown it because of the way that the builder talked to me when I addressed the concerns of the road and how narrow it was. He said, "Oh, well, I have to make it wider down on that end. So, the road's going to jog in and come back out and then we're tiny." I said, "What about our end of the road?" I don't care about your end of the road. I don't have to worry about that. You do. and he told me that he wanted to put in 48 double residences. That time I said to him, "You're talking about adding 200 more vehicles on this road." Less than a month ago coming going west on Echo, I encountered a semi, a car carrier. He couldn't get over. I had to go down into the rideway and to the ditch so that he could get across. I can't imagine what 200 more cars is going to do to us. I encountered three

ladies walking on our road yesterday morning who were appalled at what this developer wanted to do. They called it their freedom road. They were free from crossroads. They could walk a great distance back and forth. The landscape was beautiful because everybody most everybody has trees. It's a nice quiet area. I asked that you strongly do not allow an R2 in there and take away. We raise cattle. Occasionally, we don't like it. They get out. We have had neighbors let our cows out who did not like our cows. The odor bothered them. What's going to happen when I get five acres down? People don't like the odor of my animals. So, please think about that. I also think about the aquafer. How long is a aquafer going to hold up with all these homes that want to be built in our area? The city has trouble. They may have the capacity for the sewer treatment plant, but the odor they can't control. I have a beautiful deck that half the time in the summer, I can't sit out there because the strong is too bad. The smell of it is so strong that you can't sit out there. So, please take into consideration the people that have lived there for years. Me and my husband purchased the property in ' 92, the end of ' 92, moved in in 93. We would like to stay the way that we are. We don't need all these multif family houses in there. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Wishing to speak in opposition. Wayne Plant. I'm Wayne Plant. I live 2447 West Echo Drive. Bobby knows my place. And uh I'll tell you, uh it's just total mess out there. I know Keagan Road, which they want to run in there to this new project. Uh that developer left a mess all along my fence line and when they put it in they tore up the corner post there right on uh Maguire. Never fixed that. They were going to they never even cleaned up the the fence along there that supposed to stop you know the trash from blowing in that plastic fence they put up. The whole thing is this new project. If it goes like they show this uh flap they gave you. Uh fire. The houses are too damn close together. If you look at what's happening in California and those got yards between them. We've had 60 mph, 70 mph winds there on Meuire where I live. I had a tree that was this big around. It snapped it like a twig and dropped it right across the pole line or pole power line, excuse me. And uh all these factors got to be taken in consideration, you know, and and like the lady said before me, you know, the traffic down echo is getting tremendous. People don't want to go down Maguire

and or go down Selt's and turn north on Meguire with the traffic light. They don't want to wait. So they turn on Corbin and they go down Echo and then they go north and it's become a real traffic. It's 35 miles an hour. midways 25 and u you know it's just getting worse. You know if they put as many houses in there as they want you know you're looking at the average person now has four cars in a single domain. You know if they're going to do anything I'd like to see R1 period. I mean, I gotta look at those army army army barracks north of me there that they put in on Midway and uh you know, I realize there's more money in apartments than there is R1 single family homes, you know, but the reason we bought there and I've been there since ' 89. Uh it's a quiet area. You got room to do things. I used to have cattle. I don't anymore but you know I mean uh that was the reason post I moved to Post Falls but the whole scenario has changed so radically it's unbelievable I guess us old farts are just resistant to to change you know what I mean but if we're going to change let's do it right you know thank you thank For the record, full disclosure, I probably only talked to Mr. Plant four or five times in my life. My family's a hundred years in this town. I know most everybody. So,

uh, wishing to speak in opposition. Glenn Whipple. It says see attached pictures, but I don't see any pictures. You got them. All right. Okay, cool. That works. Just the road we live on. I don't know if you guys been around there or not.

We can pass them around. Not You can take that one. I saw it. Yeah, that's fine. We can pass them around. Thank you, sir.

Want to sell Glenn Whipple? Um, my wife and I own the and live in the adjacent property to the west of the proposed annexation. Uh, we bought the property 36 years ago. Um, to be out of the city to be in the county zoned area, the only and only one home acreage in that area. That's what we wanted to be in. We built our forever home, raised our family. uh plan to live here and keep it in the family in the future. Our neighbors still raise cattle, other livestock, and uh farm for fruits and vegetables. None of us want to leave the area. We like it there pretty good. By cookie cutting in um city zoning in the middle of our properties, it will take away our way of life and why we bought it here. It also will depreciate our homes and our land. The years of construction noise and dust alone will be unbearable as well as the noise over a hundred families and a couple hundred more vehicles up and down Echo Drive. This is a narrow street. Uh many people enjoy walking every day along that alley or the street there. With approximately 120 families on the adjacent Wildflower Meadows, 18 families on adjacent Gabriel Estates and the recently approved Painted Rock development nearby would add another 20 families. The proposed Echo Estates

would add an additional 102 families. That's approximately total of 260 families with no plans for parks for the kids or anything to play in. So, they're just going to be out in the streets. And I don't understand the comprehensive plan um why we're not involved in that or get any notices on it. I guess it was done five years ago. Um and how they can kind of take over what they want to do with our land all through there. I'm just not sure how that all operates. I don't get any notices or anything. So, I don't know. Maybe we can figure something out so we can maybe get some of this changed or let us know what we can do.

I'll add real quick there. We're in the process of updating that. There was a there's been many many workshops and you know, I've gotten emails and mailings on that. So, we can definitely can probably talk to the city staff and obviously we got your information here. So, it's on our website. It's on the website, too. We keep all of our notices on our city website. So, every five years, we try to update it. And so, this is the fifth year, and we were just starting the public process. There's going to be more public input opportunities. So, now is the time to get involved for sure.

Yeah. Oh, definitely. I don't know how it worked before. I didn't get any notice on anything going on, but hopefully I'll try to stay on top of it and see what's going on. Uh after after recently researching, I found that currently hundreds of apartments for rent, approximately 80 homes and duplexes or town houses that are under $500,000 for sale right now. Um while there are very few homes at a million and above, our home and few more of the homes on the street are valued approximately 1 million or better. There are a lot of people financially looking for priced to homes like this as well. So, we don't want to just take over with a bunch of duplexes and stuff. Um, I hope you'll uh take all this into consideration and and not approving this development and keeping our way of life the way it is. I know you're here for the people and the people don't want this. I hope you decide not to pass this. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Fight the applicant up for rebuttal.

Uh Jeremy Tzulli once again. Um, so I know because we did pull the subdivision kind of created this whole kurfuffle, but we're not um we've pulled the subdivision explicitly for this reason to get this feedback. So, a lot of the the comments here um during public testimony are not applicable to the question that is before us, which is um if the city council decides to approve annexation is R2 the appropriate zoning designation. It aligns with the comprehensive plan. It aligns with the future land use map. It aligns with the focus area. It is a piece of property that is one quarter of a mile from the city's major east west commercial industrial corridor literally 1250 ft. Um if the commission thought that R1 was more appropriate and wanted to make a recommendation to council uh for R1, as we've pointed out, we have no problem with that either. Uh Mr. Stoker can make both work. So, a lot of the comments with regard to, you know, 102 families, I don't that the math doesn't check out. We would on 48 lots, 48 residences was the one version that had the highest density of any that we were even floating around here. And they were all going to be single family, not rentals. Um, 30 feet between structures is what I mentioned. and that is reflective on one of the subdivision um uh versions that's out there. Um and again, a lot of these comments I think apply more to a subdivision request and not the request that's before us, which is what is the appropriate zoning designation.

Um we're fine with R1. We think R2 is what fits uh the guiding documents. Uh the adopted master transportation plan has no issue supporting traffic for R2 in this area as well as other city infrastructure. So with that, we respectfully uh request R2 recommendation uh to city council. And if there are any other questions, I can clear them up right now.

Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, close out the hearing and we'll look at the review criteria. And just as a reminder, we're just looking at zoning recommendation that will be forwarded to city council for and then they'll determine on annexation and then at some point in the future possibly a subdivision will come forward. But tonight is just the zoning recommendation on uh for uh that'll be forwarded to city council.

Thank you, commissioners. Um just a point of clarification, Mr. Kimell, I know there was some testimony from a Whipple. It's you're not associated with the Whipple adjacent subdivision. No owners, sorry. I just make sure that that was on the record in case there was any question. Thank you. All right. Echo Estates annexation number 24-25 an R2 zone request R1 adjacent uh property in the city limits. Um number one is the proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map and the focused area focus area contained in the currently adopted comprehensive plan.

That this is the big question. our comp. So we're as planning commission, we're bound to the comp plan at least to a certain extent and our comp plan shows this as medium density residential. So the R2 zone is an implementing zone. The R2 zone does not allow apartments or duplexes or multif family. It's single family. Wait a minute. I want to ask a question. Duplexes are in R2. Yes. Okay. Okay. But not not apartments.

Yeah. Um but at the same time the R2 zone uh is supposed to be used for residential development where residentially designated areas are readily serviced by collector and arterial streets. So while I would agree that this meets the land use designation in the comp plan, the R2 does, I'm not sure that Echo Drive can support it. Granted, when this project gets developed, they're going to be widening Echo, but they're only going to widen the north side and they're not widening all the way out to Meguire, nor out to Corbin. And we can't control that because those parcels aren't part of this, but boy, we're putting ourselves in a pinch.

I agree with that completely. that road there, the city will say it's the right uh width and stuff, but if two cars are coming, you're walking in the ditch and there's areas where it's slanted down there. If you're having a hard time walking, you might be rolling down that if two cars are blasting by. That road, I don't think, is ready for this. And and what I'm seeing in the transportation plan is that it's only designated to be a local residential street, not an artiller arterial or a collector. So it's it's never even going to be that width is my concern. I think maybe after it was developed,

but developed to local residential street. Well, things change. I mean, sure. I mean, I've just seen how many times did we see stuff when 41 was going things got denied, denied, and denied. And the reason was 41's not done. And then I saw even stuff when 41 was done. It still got denied. Okay. So, no, good point. I can see both. I can see it both ways, though. It's definitely a narrow road, but do you wait for that one corner to get done? I don't know.

And then come What about you know? Well, I mean the reality is that there's an existing rideway there and that existing rideway is likely wide enough to pass, you know, for a widening project that although it may not be at the full width, full eventual width, um it's enough to make it safe and safer. Okay. Um and with regards to the future land use map and as you correctly pointed out uh R2 is an implementing zone um and it's also the least least dense dense of all of the implementing zones right

uh it's the least impactful. So if we're looking at com our future land use map and being consistent with it that would be the least impactful and the least dense. Um and then as you look at the focus area, the focus area speaks to um more density closer to Seltis Way and then further as you go further away getting less dense and um this is also in that I mean one could make the argument that an R3 would be an appropriate zone here even though um it's kind of this weird wonky place in our comprehensive plan,

right?

The fact that they're asking for R2 and that gives them the flexibility to do anything that that they could do an R1 subdivision in an R2. They could do, you know, they could do a lot of those things. And I guess that's really up to city council as to if they want to do anything if if it's up to I mean they're the ultimate deciding factor, but if we're going by what the zone our code says and our our review criteria, then it does meet the future land use map and focus area as currently adopted. Yeah, I think these these hearings are are tricky for me because literally you go right next you got all this transitional stuff. So what is that going to actually be developed? Will it be developed? Who knows? Um but to Ray's point, you know, R2, you could do R1 in there, but you're not going to go in there and put 150 apartments either because it's not allowed. So, it does limit the density and it is the least dense zoning you could put in that area. Anything else to add? So, it sounds like there's some debate um obviously whether or not annexation is or is not a good idea isn't before us as a body. Um the real question is is the proposed district of R2 consistent with the fluke is my acronym.

Um and it sounds like it generally the the R2 is the commission can always recommend something else. Um but it's ultimately up to the city council. So I think we've got enough debate on that issue at least to move on to the next criteria unless there's something else. Okay. is a difficult position because for the owner of the property this is these are the rules they're given. Yeah. So the property owner their hands are you know fairly well tied on what they want to become part of the city. They've got to follow the rules.

Yeah. These are the parameters that are set parameters they have. I'm sympathetic to the I'm not usually very sympathetic to the neighboring property owners. But in this case where the where it's not someone who moved into phase three doesn't want phase four. You know, these are are uh folks that have been here for a long time. The unfortunate thing is that they live in areas that are uh transitional in nature. Uh had to be that way when we wrote the comprehensive plan and so it's kind of unfortunate an unfortunate necessity and they're caught up in it. I I feel for him on that.

Yeah. And we have the comprehensive plan as this giant, you know, thing that guides the decisions working within those frameworks and working down to the individual level. That's why we have the comprehensive plan put forth and that that needs to be changed and we try to re revise that in the future. But well, the guiding principle is to buffer highintensity areas with with uh higher density zoning. So we do that everywhere. That's kind of the guiding principle. you're starting out with commercial that's guiding this entire process is that principle and I don't know that it's flawed. I don't know. I think it's probably a good principle. So,

I appreciate the debate. Thank you, commissioners. Uh let's go to number two. Is the proposed zoning district uh the R2 consistent with the goals and policies contained in the currently adopted plan? Uh there's been some goals and policies cited, but I would invite any further comment on that one. The transportation issue uh uh may be an issue if there's some goals or policies that inform on that one. Well, how about water? Can we talk about water for a second? You're welcome to talk about water. Yeah. Spokesman's review.

Stretches of water flow dangerously low. You can walk across the river almost down there. We always take it for granted that we have water everywhere. Today in the Celane press, uh Emily Fitzgerald, they say our aquifer is doing all right with the caveat that we don't know what the future holds. I mean, this not might not be appropriate right now, but for generations down the road, I think in one of those meetings, you said that in 20 years it'll be a 100,000 people in Post Falls. Are we setting them up for dry lands? Uh, and I know that doesn't really pertain tonight, but we always take it for granted that we've got all kinds of water for everything. We don't

Well, it does speak to policy 72, but what I will say is that, you know, both of those articles are largely bunk and and I'm going to say that because, you know, I'm an engineer. I work you walk across the river, right? And about 100 yards downstream from there, the aquifer is recharging the river and above that spot, it's all just flow from the dam.

Well, I've been here 67 years and I've never been able to walk across the river. Well, the reality is is that we're pumping less now out of the aquafer than we were 30 or 40 years ago because of all the peak flow out of the irrigation of every single one of the irrigation districts. And I know this because East Green Acres irrigation district records show that they're pumping less now than they were 30 years ago because of all the wheel lines and all the hand lines that I used to move as a kid and you probably did too, Bobby. um those were running 24/7 all the way through June, July and August. And the reality is is that our aquifer is fed by the entire almost the entirety of western Montana. So our aquifer is fed through the bottom of of or through Lake Pere. So Bay View is leaking at Bay View and it feeds our entire aquifer and there's over a billion gallons a day crossing the the state line today. And when our our draw down on the aquifer for every single well out there has not changed in the last 20 years. So the aquifer level has not changed and there's evidence to that across the board. And so while I appreciate the concern because it's a valid concern, it's just that the reality is is that unlike many many many places in the world, we are incredibly blessed with what we have and our aquifer is f it it provides high quality um high quantity water. it deserves to be protected. And um but the chicken little sky is falling argument for me falls on completely deaf ears because it's not supported by the

science. Well, our weather is changing. Phoenix, Arizona, they're going dry. Those rivers are are drying up. Uh that dam down in Nevada, uh where all that's backed up has dried up. uh Salt Lake City. Okay, that's has dried up. Yeah, but that's those are all first of all, those are all those places you listed were dry. Anyhow, I'm saying it's possible, but I'm just saying that's not part of our thing for commission. I said that while I was saying this, too. Okay,

so back to reorienting back where we need to finish tonight. Uh number two, we're just trying to decide whether the proposed zoning districts of R2 is consistent with our goals and policies. I was I was going to say policy two jumps out and we've talked about this a lot just the future land use map u being compatible with the surrounding areas talking about infrastructure traffic patterns so I think that applies uh specifically to this again also policy six which encourages residential development patterns that feature intercon connected grid networks even though this is not a subdivision it's set up for interconnection to the east um as well as policy 14 following annexation procedures established by Idaho statute um and policy 15 which is probably the one of the most important ones here is ensuring adequate land is available for future housing needs

and if you get into the sub area we look at the west prairie and that's that um the policy there is mixed residential envisioned between Meguire and Corbin with higher densities near commercial corridors and arterials. And if you look at our land use plan, uh our our future land use map, this property is on the north side of Echo Drive, and it's essentially serving as a buffer for the high density residential that is proposed for the south side of Cor side of Echo, which then backs up into the commercial and industrial on Seltis. So, we're trying to do that tiered buffer approach where you've got commercial, then high density, then medium density, and then into single family. Um, and right now the way the West Prairie sub area is set up, we don't even have the option necessarily of R1 unless we want to go outside of the direction of the plan.

Okay. Thank you, commissioners. Uh and finally, number three is uh does the proposed zoning district create a demonstraable adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services within the city? Nothing's been identified staff report.

All right. Thank you. I think the one thing I'll add is all the comments tonight, you know, we've definitely heard that we have to when we make these type of decisions, we have to kind of go what's going on the count plan here. So if we say R1 I think and I'm will speak for myself and others can chime in you're a quarter mile away from Seltis and you have to have to build in that buffer between commercial area and then you as you go to residential as we've talked about before and I think we tried that before and it got switched over with city council. So my preference would be R2. It sounds like the developer would be open to many different types of developments, even larger houses and lots. Um, there's definitely not any type of apartments going in here and highdensity stuff, but that's for another day and another conversation. You know, whatever recommendation we have tonight will ultimately go to city council. If they approve the annexation, at some point in the future, it'll probably come back to us as a subdivision. So this is just step one

and there really is no decision. I just want to make that clear tonight. There is no decision. Yeah. Just a recommendation. All it is a recommendation. Yeah. And council will they have a lot more room to condition it and augment this than I think the commission does right now when I think they're more stuck by the review criteria and being consistent to the comprehensive plan. And then yeah, that's basically what I was saying. Yeah, R2 fits.

I mean, I know it's it's not popular for everyone out there. Um, the reality is is that we are bound by state code and our comprehensive plan. And right now, we're undergoing we're redoing our comprehensive plan. This is the perfect time. It is the foundational document for all of our land use decisions. And so because we're redoing it right now, you folks have the chance to get in and speak your and voice your opinion and make the change so that the comprehensive plan can change the way you want it to be. But your voice doesn't get heard unless you show up and you make your comments known. And although you're making them here tonight for this, it's not the forum that it needs to be to make that comprehensive plan change. when we have uh we have on our website we have there's a whole bunch of documents out there for you to make comments on. It's open comment period right now. Please go do that. It's incredibly important.

No, that's what we're trying to say. This is a recommendation for the annexation. We're not making any decision on the annexation. The city council does that at a different time. This is just zoning, not annexation. It's it's simpler than that. If what we're saying tonight is if the city should decide to annex the property, we have no say in that whatsoever. If the city decides to annex the property, what's the proper zoning? And what we have to decide is is the zoning they're asking for what our code dictates. It's very cut and dry actually.

So, okay, we can't have this back and forth because we got to have everything on on record, please. So,

all right. With that being said, and any more any other comments? Well, I agree with um the the engineer that presented this would go both ways on this and the uh the developer did too on what he wants to build and they said they're a little apprehensive thinking that because this is comprehensive plan R2 area that they might not get R1. I think we should recommend R1 and if the city council wants to go back to R2, let them because it's going to get annexed. Anybody like to make a motion or we got some more comments.

I'll make a motion. Well, I think that the the developer was worried about them just kicking it out completely if we make it an R1 and not giving them the option to do the R2. This way, if they go in with R2, they have and they get approved, they have that option of being able to do R1, an R1 type product. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. I'd say make it easy and give it to them right now. But if the like if the city council says it doesn't go in align with our comprehensive plan kicked out.

Just just a question. How would it go to recommend R2 zoning with a minimum lot size that of X that's equivalent to R1 as a condition? Well, I think we've made recommendations before with some guidance. We can't really make a condition at this point, I wouldn't think. But no, you're just basically and and the council was going to deliberate over all this again. Yeah.

They're going to look at the recommendation for R2 zoning as being consistent with the plan or an R1 zoning as being inconsistent with a comprehensive plan and may wonder what the reasoning is be behind it. And so I'll try to capture that in the reason decision, however the vote goes. Um, I generally don't know that if we have some recommendations as to limiting it in an annexation agreement to an R1 type of a product or anything else how much that will sway or influence their decision. I tend to leave that for them to work out. So, I mean, you can you can make the recommendation. Uh, our goal here is just to make a recommendation as to the appropriate zoning. for any anything extra. I would just consider that to be surplusage to some degree. Sorry. So I think there's some differing opinions on this. So I think instead of going down one road and it not passing or whatever, you know, my opinion would be R2. I think others agree. I think Bobby, he can speak for himself, but I think he would like R1. But I would like to at least put the motion forward that's going to make the recommendation for the correct zone that's going to go forward and not us have it a

Mr. Chairman. Yes. I move to recommend approval of Echo Estates annexation file number ANX 24-5. Hang on. Not approval. We're going to make recommendation or a zoning or a zoning of R2. Thank you. Don't want to confuse anyone. The sample motion here is a little wonky. Yeah, I think that's that's for an annexation. This This is zoning. Okay. This is zoning. Thank you. For a zoning. It's all right. Um subdivision. There's really not a right one in there for them.

The motion will be for an initial zoning recommendation. Yeah, there should be simplication. All right. I move to recommend this one is for both approval or an approval of an R2 zone for Echo's annexation file number ANNX 24-5 finding that the requested zoning of R2 meets the approval criteria in Post Falls municipal code 18.201000 20110 0 as outlined in our deliberation and direct staff to prepare a zoning recommendation to be provided to city council. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. I second. And a second. Can we have roll call, please? Stephenson, yes.

Shower, yeah. Shriber, yes. Wilhham, no. Yes. Kimble, yes. Okay. Motion is approved and we'll move on to city council. Next item the agenda, administrative staff reports.

There is no uh wait. There's no administrative staff reports. Thank you. Any commissioner comments? Yes, I got some comments. Go ahead. Uh, so I I'm not exactly clear on how we do this, but I would love for um for staff to take a look at this HOA issue that we keep coming up with uh in regards to funding capital repairs and replacements and see if there's an opportunity to put it in our subdivision code as we're so yes advising and

yeah, totally. And I that is something that has already been brought up even I I think I as I asked for that too. It's been come up a couple times with city council meetings too. They asked for it. So I just don't know where it is in that time. I know it was just trying to find I just want to put it on the record. Oh yeah, for sure. So that's number one. Number two, I'd like to um have staff take a look at this ducks versus chickens issue. I think they're the same. I I think that's it's a very valid not the same point. So, I I think we got to take a look at it as a city. You can't even have chickens. Oh, I'm getting the duck out here.

Um, and and I I think this may not be the right place for this, but in regards to private streets, the way our subdivision code is written right now, it's almost like it promotes them. And I think this long-term is going to be a huge liability for the city one way or another. Um, I'm wondering if it's appropriate to take another look at how we how our code addresses private streets. I know in most other cities in Coupney County, we can't do this. Um, up against this in other subdivisions in Bonner County and Coupney County, it's it's maybe five homes per private street. Everything else has to have direct access to and from public roads. It it

right. I'm just thinking long term for the city this could be a huge issue. It's one of those weird things where you know Black Rock's all private streets, right? Yes. They're not going to have a problem, right? And my subdivision 33 starter homes, it's a problem. Yep. And there's a that's a really hard balance and not an easy thing. And it you're right. It probably does bear looking at something. I'm not sure what the right answer is because so restrictive it's going to come back to the same uh plus and minus of cost and it's usually done for affordable housing and it's done to try to decrease costs and increase density and

right and really what it does just kicks can down the road. Chris alluded to though we're in the process of updating our subdivision code that that's why I think maybe now is the appropriate time to he alluded to that too. So you'll be maybe seeing something on that as part of that. Okay.

And then just one final note. Um and again tell me how appropriate this is but I've done a lot of work on subdivision proformas and cost analysis and density versus fees versus land cost and kind of follow figuring out where all these things follow together. And there's so much misinformation thrown out there and it's thrown in our faces constantly that density equals affordability. Is there any opportunity here that we can present reality because density does not necessarily equate to affordability and it's very mathematically accurate. If anything, its impact fees affect affordability. Not saying we get rid of impact fees. We need them, but

and we are looking at doing a per square foot basis on impact fees. So, yeah. And I know we're talking about tearing it. And so, I mean, and and I'm not saying we even necessarily have to address that per se, but just this constant uh presentation, every presentation is coming in and saying, "Well, we need more affordable housing. We need more affordable housing and we're going to do that by decreasing the lot size by a thousand square feet. It's not going to make any difference at all. Yeah. And Commissioner Shrever, I I think the best venue for that rather than getting into an open debate with people that are presenting, I mean, it's our role to listen to their And I don't that's why I'm saying I don't want to do that.

Yeah. I and I can see that it's not helpful to get into an argument with somebody presenting their opinions on something else because this is really their three minutes or or whatever else it is to say why they're not in favor of proposals or anything else. I think the best time for you to present your feelings or research on things something like that is during the deliberations with your colleagues up there. Okay. And to say you know I I heard what Mr. Smith said about uh density bonuses and affordability. I would like to say to the commissioners that I'm not necessarily in favor of that because of X, Y, and Z. That's probably the best venue. Perfect. Rather than getting into back and forth with public comment. Perfect. Okay. Um but

no, that's I'm a suggestion. I just I just can see that as becoming so adversarial at some point that it's detracting from the debate. Perfectly agree. Yeah. Out of here. Cool. I move to adjurnn. No. All in favor? I All right. being a journ.