Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

MINUTES

July 15, 2004

1. Members present: Jane Kirby, Tom Hollingsworth, Mary Ann Luedtke, John Kellogg, Barry Davis, Rod Barcklay Doug Reoch, Toby Schnuerle, Jim Paulus. Members absent: none. Staff present: Mike Weland.

2. The meeting was opened by staff in the main courtroom and adjourned to relocate to the extension office meeting room to accommodate disability.

3. Chairman Jim Paulus reopened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. in the extension office meeting room. Due to the number of people in attendance, Paulus stated that those wishing to speak were to sign in and stated there would be a four minute limit on testimony. Public hearing procedure was read. Paulus called for reading of the June minutes. Kirby made motion to waive reading and to approve minutes as mailed, Luedtke seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

4. Paulus opened public hearing on SUB 04-01. John Marquette, JRS Surveying, represented the applicant and described Stan Selent’s proposal. He stated Selent hoped to build single-family dwellings on each parcel and offer them for sale. Luedtke asked what the population density in that area was, Marquette said he did not know. Paulus opened the hearing to public comment. No one spoke in favor of the proposal and no one was uncommitted. Jim Neumeyer, an adjoining property owner, spoke against the proposal, saying the minimum parcel size in the zone district was five acres, that he questioned whether the soils would be adequate for that many septic systems and that there were two dangerous curves. Deb Bellmore read a letter from her husband and stated that she was opposed. Jack Giuliani said he was opposed to increased density and expressed concern over adequate drainage and increased traffic. Joyce (last name unknown), Georgia Giuliani, Mark LaVoie, J.T. Osborn, Lou Maring, Sandra Fleetwood, James Kopp and Dennis Johnson all spoke opposed, expressing similar concerns. Marquette had no closing comments and hearing was closed to public testimony. Following brief discussion, Kirby made motion to forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation of disapproval. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

4. Paulus opened hearing on SUB 04-02. Steve Moyer, North Star Surveying, represented the applicant. No one spoke in favor, uncommitted or opposed and hearing was closed to public testimony. Davis made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation of approval, Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

5. Paulus opened public hearing on SUP 04-05 and stated that 30 people had signed to speak in opposition, three uncommitted and three in favor. Ray Hendrickson, Sewell Engineering, represented the applicant. He stated that much misinformation had been spread regarding the application, and stated that county approval was only the first step in the permit process, and that EPA, DEQ, ITD and other permits would be acquired and complied with prior to establishment of the gravel pit. He stated that crushers and other equipment would be located along the back property line adjoining Forest Service land and showed on the map the area where the gravel extraction would be confined. He stated the project would not encroach into a meadow on the property and that a creek would be protected from the effects of the mining operation. He stated that extraction would begin on the north and work to the south in 10-acre increments, and that as each 10-acre area was finished, it would be reclaimed. He stated the operation would not result in a pit, but would remove approximately 18-feet from an existing knoll and create an even slope along a grade established in preliminary engineering work by ITD for that portion of the U.S. 95 realignment project. He said the life expectancy of the pit was 10 to 15 years, dependent on the market and how quickly materials moved, he stated that the ITD has a lot of projects underway and anticipated that materials would be used for those projects. He stated having a pit at that site, centrally located to existing projects, would reduce cost, cut down on hauling distance and lower the price of materials for state and county projects. He said some of the materials would be sold to private individuals as well. He stated that a creek on the east side of the rock knob would be left alone and steps would be taken to prevent damage. Kirby asked if the knob in question was in the way of the proposed roadway, Hendrickson stated the knob would be removed following acquisition of right of way. Kirby asked what the anticipated life span of the proposed pit, Hendrickson said it was dependent on demand. Kirby asked if existing pits would serve the needs, Hendrickson stated that the Round Creek pit was played out. Barcklay asked about the water table, Hendrickson said operations would all be above the water table. Reoch asked how much rock would be removed, Hendrickson described how the knoll would be brought down to grade and a catch point would be created. Reoch asked about use of an asphalt batch plant, Hendrickson stated it was a portable plant that would be used only as needed. There was no staff report. Paulus opened the hearing to public testimony. David Dieziger stated the land had been in the family for 100 years and he said they didn’t want to sell, but the property will be lost to the highway project as the ITD has proposed taking 140-feet on which to develop a stable right of way. He said that by mining, they will save some of the property needed by the state. He stated the family had entered into a five-year agreement with Wood’s Crushing, which was renewable at the discretion of both parties. Brian Wood said the project was geared to the I-95 construction projects, and said the pit would be operated similar to those operated by the state. He stated that with the ITD projects, the proposal would be viable. Speaking uncommitted, Don Vickaryous, representing the Selkirk Loop Association, stated that he would have concerns if the use was detrimental to the objectives of the association or harmful to the environment. He stated that that portion of I-95 is part of the Wild Horse Trail. Speaking in opposition to the proposal were John Tesser, who lives across from the Robinson Lake Pit, who stated he’s lived with the state pit for 33 years and that when it’s in operation, it’s dusty and smelly, he said one open pit in the area is enough. Mike Sheppard, Copeland, asked who would monitor the pit for compliance with air quality and other standards and expressed concern over porous soils and leakage. Bart Dinning, who lives on property adjacent to the proposed site, said he was concerned that by the way the lease was written, it could continue for 100 years. He said he was concerned about the spring behind the knoll. He stated he opposed the proposal unless a firm time limit was set. Scott Crane, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern about the ambiguity of the lease and dust, saying he’d never seen a quarry do an adequate job of dust control. Bob Holmes, Round Prairie, read a letter into the record and stated he was opposed over damage to the ecosystem, the noise and reverberation, health effects from the fumes and loss of quality of life. Pat Dougherty, who lives at milepost 536, stated his wife suffered from respiratory problems and that they’d moved to that area for its air quality. He stated he was concerned over dust, odor and excessive truck traffic. He stated it was unknown when or if that phase of the ITD project would be done. Robert Howell, who lives across the highway from the proposed site, stated he is opposed due to the potential adverse impact. John Dougherty, milepost 536, asked why an additional pit is needed when there’s one two miles up the road. He stated there is no confirmation the highway will be done within the next 10 to 15 years. Glenna Garrison, Round Prairie, said she lived there for health reasons, and said she was concerned with the potential adverse impacts. William Garrison said he and his wife moved there for the air quality, and stated it won’t take 10 to 15 years to knock down the knoll. He stated that if the pit went in, it would impact his wife’s health. Also speaking opposed were Ann Stevens, concerned over decreased property value, William Myers, concerned over wildlife impact, Lorraine Myers, Good Grief, degradation, Mike Sheppard Jr., Porthill, who stated there were enough operating pits in the area; Duane Scott, milepost 530, concerned about scenic impact; Ken Alexander, milepost 562 ½, lack of enforcement of traffic laws and increased truck traffic. E. Scott Huff expressed concern over noise, damage to wetlands and spillage. Tim Wilson, Bonners Ferry, stated that despite preliminary ITD studies, there had been no easement contracts entered into, and until there were, no guarantee that there would definitely be a contract; he stated that it was unfair to allow someone double profit at the expense of the taxpayer and said the matter must be considered without consideration of a potential easement contract with the state. Kelly Smith stated she was concerned over impact to wildlife, air pollution and loss of property value, and stated she was concerned over potential disturbance to an unmarked grave on the property. Dorothy Smith, adjacent property owner, stated she was concerned over impact to wildlife, aesthetics and loss of property value. Kenneth Beck and Linda Corson concurred with what had already been said. There being no further public comment, Hendrickson was allowed to make rebuttal. He clarified the regulatory role of the EPA, DEQ and other agencies, stating that gaining county approval was only the first step in the process of establishing the mining operation and explained that the asphalt batch plant is currently in operation and that it met and complied with all state and federal requirements. Paulus asked for clarification on lease provisions with the land owner, Hendrickson stated that it was a five year lease with the option of a five year renewal upon agreement between both parties. Davis asked how much of the parcel would be impacted by the proposed operation, Hendrickson estimated it would comprise approximately ten acres. There being no further public comment, that portion of the hearing was closed. Reoch stated he understood the concerns, especially with the number of pits already in existence, but he said he understood the land owner wanting to take advantage of an opportunity offered by the ITD, even though there is no certainty as yet that what the ITD proposed is what’s going to happen. Luedtke stated that ITD plans are known for changing. Reoch asked Brian Wood if anything had been done to address wildlife and water issues, Wood stated that an approved reclamation and mitigation plan would be required. Davis asked if the asphalt batch plant was essential to the operation, Wood said it was beneficial but not essential. In regard to other existing pits, Wood said that one of the products they’d be providing would be cap rock, which must be quarried and is not available from other existing pits. Hollingsworth said he has little respect for the EPA or DEQ, and stated that a decision couldn’t be made on the assumption that they would adequately enforce regulations. Davis disagreed, saying he’d worked under their oversight and said they do regulate. Schnuerle stated that if the ITD highway plan were firm, there would be no argument, saying road improvements were part of county growth and needed. Mary Diezeger stated she would like to withdraw from the lease with Wood’s Crushing, saying she wasn’t aware the proposed use would be as intense as it was represented at the hearing. There being no further discussion, Luedtke made motion to recommend that application SUP 04-05 be disapproved. Kirby seconded and the motion carried with seven members voting “aye,” and two abstaining.

6. Paulus opened public hearing on SUP 04-06 by Gene and Arlene Sloan. Liz Bigsby, the manager of the Paradise Valley Inn, and Arlene Sloan presented the proposal. Sloan said she is an Idaho licensed architect and that she and her husband built the Paradise Valley Inn five years ago, providing a beautiful and economically beneficial enterprise that imposed little adverse impact. She gave an overview of her plans for a retirement community, saying the area has all necessary services, that it was isolated and would impose minimal impact. She stated the proposal would provide several jobs and would increase the county tax roll with minimal impact on the provision of county services. She stated that under the terms of the proposal, the existing special use permit authorizing development of the Paradise Valley Inn, not yet complete, would be curtailed and confined to a single ten-acre parcel; eight acres would be reverted for residential use, and the remaining 46 acres would be developed into a retirement community consisting of 52 cottages and a three-story complex which would provide 48 assisted living units, kitchen and other amenities. She stated the project would be developed in phases over three to four years, beginning with the cottages, and said growth would keep pace with demand. She requested permission to show a video; due to the length of the meeting to that time and the number of people waiting to testify, Paulus denied the request and members concurred. Sloan said construction would follow the lines of the existing Paradise Valley Inn. Paulus stated that, as chairman of Cabinet Mountains Water, he was aware that the estimated cost of providing sufficient water to serve the proposed use would be around $3/4-million, and he said that in his letter, road supervisor Jeff Gutshall estimated the expense of bringing the road, Eagle Way, up to county standard to allow consideration of the county assuming maintenance to be between $30- and $50,000. Sloan stated that grants were available for upgrading the road should the county adopt it, and mentioned utility agreements. She stated the proposed use would be barely visible from adjoining residences, and that there would be little noise. She said dense forest surrounding the facility would remain to provide buffer, and the facilities would be situated well back from the property lines. Kirby asked for additional information on potential road grants, and said that she was concerned that ingress and egress was insufficient should the need ever arise for an emergency evacuation. Luedtke asked how the cottages would be owned, and asked if it was likely that the elderly would relocate to a remote area removed from readily available medical care. Luedtke raised concerns mentioned by Boundary Community Hospital CEO Craig Johnson on the potential impact to existing services. Sloan stated that the assisted care facility could be withdrawn and the number of independent living cottages and apartments be increased to 78. Kellogg asked about market strategy and what the median age was expected to be; Sloan stated she anticipated tenants to range in age from about 50 to 75 or 80 years old, and said she anticipated that those in the assisted care facility would likely be over 65 years old. She stated that the traffic estimates stated in the application were based on figures provided by a similar facility in Lewiston. She stated that with the current zoning, those parcels could hold up to nine homes, and said the impact from the proposed use would be less than if the parcels were developed for residential use. Paulus opened the hearing to public comment. Liz Bigsby spoke in favor, saying the community had a need for such a facility and that it would provide jobs and revenue for the county. No one spoke uncommitted. James Whittaker, Gig Harbor, Washington, stated that he owns property near the proposed development and that he’s opposed to the proposal because of lights, increased density and increased traffic. He stated he felt the idea was commendable, but the location was not. Margaret Whittaker stated her parents live in a home similar to that proposed in Florida, and said she didn’t feel the elderly would like the local climate. Laurie Soriano, who lives adjacent to the proposal, said she was concerned over the availability of adequate drainage for a septic system and that there were 30 to 40 children living on County Road 22B, which would be a concern due to the traffic increase. She stated guests at the Inn routinely speed and show no regard for children, and stated she would prefer the addition of nine homes to a residential care facility. John Soriano stated that the Sloans misrepresented their plans when the Inn was built and said he had no faith they’d build what was being proposed. Mark LaVoie, who lives in Paradise Valley, stated he purchased property to build his dream retirement home, and said this proposal takes away that dream. Matt Bryan, Bonners Ferry, stated that he owns property near the proposed site, and said he worked at the Inn for a year. He said one of the things that should be considered for such a use was the addition of bike and walking paths. He stated that he had concerns over the drainage and stated that he felt adjoining property owners would see the structures despite Sloan’s assertion they would be hidden. Margaret Mouat, Bonners Ferry, said the Sloan’s track record at the Paradise Valley Inn indicated they were creating a situation beyond their ability to manage. John Poston, adjacent property owner, expressed concern over having a single route of ingress and egress for 127 units, and said traffic would be greater than estimated. He said he could not feature people coming to a remote area away from available health care to retire. David Heigel concurred. Donald Fleetwood, who recently retired to Paradise Valley, expressed concern over water and sewer and the impact such development would have on wildlife. He stated he was concerned over emergency access. Norman and Sandra Fleetwood, who moved from Bonners Ferry to Paradise Valley to retire, said the idea had merit but the location was wrong. Diana Williams presented the chair a petition of opposition with 74 names; she said she’d rather hear children playing than ambulances. Connie Rosco, a Paradise Valley resident for 32 years, expressed concerns over increased traffic. James Copp, County Road 21A, said he was concerned with drainage and the possibility of a septic system leading to slope instability. Dennis Johnson, County Road 21, questioned the Sloan’s desire to proceed with such a proposal in the wake of their attempts to sell the property. Janice John expressed concern over the availability of enough doctors in the area and questioned access should a fire or other disaster occur. She questioned whether the Paradise Valley Volunteer Fire Department could handle a fire in a three-story structure. Karen Bryan said she worked for the Sloans for a year, and said the building that houses the Paradise Valley Inn began as their retirement home, went to a bed and breakfast and had most lately been approved for expansion to a conference center. She questioned the Sloans ability to follow up on something new when they haven’t been able to maintain what they already have. There being no further public comment, the applicant was asked to give a closing statement. Arlene Sloan stated that walking and bicycle paths were a viable proposal, that having demand would help attract physicians to the area. She said that concerns over drainage had not been fully addressed as yet. She said lighting from the proposed use would be similar to residential use. She stated that based on the letter from the Hospital regarding the uses impact on existing facilities, the alternate plan offered would reduce density and eliminate adverse impact to those facilities. She introduced a revised plan which featured larger cottage units and reduced traffic load. She stated that their financing plan called for presale of each unit prior to the onset of construction, and said the initial, more affordable units would be first made available to local residents. There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed to public comment. Kirby stated that to her, five acres was five acres, and said that the commission had earlier recommended that a less intrusive subdivision proposal be denied. Paulus stated that to him the proposal represented nothing more than a subdivision, and he concurred with Kirby’s assessment. Barcklay raised concern over the mudslide of 1996, and said he was concerned about construction on the rim for fear of similar catastrophe. Luedtke concurred with Paulus, saying no matter what you called it, it was a large subdivision which brought the attendant problems. She stated the alternate plan proposed did not change that. Following discussion, Barcklay made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application SUP 04-06, both the initial and revised proposals, be disapproved. Luedtke seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

7. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission bid zoning administrator Mike Weland farewell. Because of the time, review of application AM 04-01 by the Planning and Zoning Commission was tabled until the August meeting.

8. There being no further business, Kirby made motion to adjourn. Kellogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.