Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

MINUTES -- As amended and approved December 15, 2005

November 17, 2005

Members present: Jim Paulus, Jeff Mellinger, John Kellogg, Delton Amoth, Barry Davis, Rod Barcklay, Tom Hollingsworth, Toby Schnuerle. Staff present: Mike Weland. Members absent: Doug Reoch.

Paulus opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and called for reading of the October minutes. Kellogg made motion to waive reading and adopt as presented, Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Paulus read the procedure for public hearing.
Paulus opened public hearing on Phases II and III of SUB 05-11 by Gary Williams. No member cited conflict of interest.

Steve Klatt, representing Williams, described that the subdivision project was being built in three phases with a combined total of 42 lots on 292 acres. He stated that Williams had purchased the property in 20-acre parcels in good faith to develop under the provisions of a designed development. He stated Williams could easily break the properties down into 10-acre lots, but after looking at the potential of the property, determined that a designed development would benefit the community and take full advantage of the property, setting aside 20+ acres in a common area along Fall Creek to preserve a traditional swimming area. He stated roads would be paved to county specifications, land has been dedicated to the South Boundary Fire Protection District for a fire station serving the south half of Boundary County and that, should the application be approved, Williams would construct, at his expense, a fire station to department specifications. He stated the water system would be expanded to allow fire protection, that soils had been tested and found to be suitable for septic systems. He stated the plan called for a public trail system and that the average parcel size of the proposal was seven acres. He described surrounding land uses and the number of sub-sized parcels in the area and said what was being proposed created lots an average of seven acres in size. He requested the commission confirm their recommendation of approval on Phase I by recommending approval on Phases II and III. Paulus stated that considering the existing adjoining subdivisions was not appropriate as they were created prior to the adoption of a zoning and subdivision ordinance, and asked if the common area, owned by property owners within the subdivision, was being set aside to preclude building in the flood plain. Klatt stated that the open area was designed to beautify the entrance and preserve the existing view from County Road 4 and to allow continued public use of the swimming hole and other recreational uses on the creek. He stated that if this were left in common area, it would remain open. There was no staff report. Schnuerle asked if, since the common area would be under the ownership of the homeowners association, if it would become a “no trespassing area.” Klatt stated that until a super-majority of the lots were sold, Williams would retain a controlling interest in the association, and that his intent was to retain its availability to the public. He said that if the public abused access by littering or abusing the area, it was possible it could be posted off limits, but he said the intent was to keep the area open to the public. Hollingsworth said that the commission last month only forwarded a recommendation of approval on Phase I, yet the applicant was already building roads. He said he’d like to see no road development until final approval had been received. Klatt stated that the property is currently being logged and that roads are being put in, and stated that both activities were within the right of the property owner. He stated that the road would be built regardless of whether the subdivision application were approved or not, as the property will be developed for residential use.
There being no further questions, Paulus called for public testimony in favor of the application. Tony Rohrwasser, chief of the South Boundary Fire Protection District, stated that Mr. Williams approached him and asked what was needed for fire protection, including fire hydrants, green space and other factors, and said that in every case Williams has adopted those recommendations. He stated Williams gave the department land for a station regardless of whether the application is approved or not, and they met with Jeff Gutshall and now have an approved access. He said the location of the station will greatly assist the department and spoke of a fire earlier in the week that destroyed a two-story home near McArthur Lake because of the length of time it took for response from existing stations. Had there been a fire station at Fall Creek, he said they may have been able to have saved that home, and said that a station there will improve services throughout the southern end of Boundary County and result in a better fire protection rating.
Mary Peterson pointed out her home on the map provided by the applicant and stated she lived within walking distance of the proposed subdivision. She stated that this application raises the bar on what will be required for subdivisions and said that dividing 292.4 acres into 42 lots averaging seven acres in size was well within reason. She stated that based on the number of parcels that already exist below minimum parcel size shows that this area is conducive to smaller lots. Paulus asked if she was in favor of eliminating agricultural land and she stated she was definitely not, but that Copeland and other areas were where prime agricultural land was and that except for nurseries, there were few using large tracts in Highland Flats for agriculture production. Paulus called for comment from those uncommitted on the proposal.
Clarence Jones, Naples, stated that he had no opinion on the proposal, but that he was concerned that member Jeff Mellinger had a conflict of interest and should resign from the commission. He described a 20-acre parcel Mellinger developed in which he was involved and in which he felt he was consistently mislead, and stated that as a Realtor, Mellinger stands to benefit in the future from parcels created today. He called for Mellinger’s resignation; Mellinger explained his side of the 20-acre development and Jones disputed.
Paulus called for comment from those opposed to the proposal. Tim Patton, Fall Creek Subdivision, read a petition into the record and stated that 40 people had signed in opposition. He stated that if people in Highland Flats wanted a fire station, they would figure out a way to pay for one. He stated the application amounted to spot zoning which would ruin the rural lifestyle of the area.
Art Pilch, County Road 4, said that if the zoning required a 10-acre minimum lot size, that minimum should be maintained. An unknown speaker who resides adjacent to the proposed subdivision, said she moved to the area for the 10-acre minimum parcel size, and pointed out that there were a number of tree farms in the area.
Chris Currie, Naples, said he was a lifetime resident who enjoyed the area he grew up in, and stated he was raising a daughter and did not want her to have to grow up in a subdivision.
Mark Owens, County Road 72, stated he moved to the area for the scenic beauty and wide open spaces and stated the county was at a fundamental crossroads and poised on the verge of going the way of communities that allowed rampant small-parcel development. He stated that the area was an important wildlife corridor. He stated that such development will destroy why we live here and that in their decision, planning and zoning was deciding what Boundary County will look like in a few years.
Kirby Green, Highland Flats, questioned whether Williams would live in the development and stated he thought he’d sell and move on.
Don Jordan, Brown Creek, requested confirmation that a letter submitted by Wilma Wallace had been received and was told it had been distributed. He stated the proposal looked like a good plan, but stated the 10-acre zoning should be maintained.
Tim Patton, Fall Creek Subdivision, stated that despite the comments on the favorable aspects of the proposal, this was not a good plan, but that the planning and zoning commission didn’t know any better. He stated that if the property were developed right, it could save the land.
There being no further public comment, Paulus called for a closing statement. Klatt said that Williams does plan to build his home in the development. He stated that as a 50-year Bonner County resident, he has found that wildlife tends to favor space opened by such developments and that the development would most likely improve the wildlife corridor rather than detract. He stated that as far as fire protection, the fire chief should carry weight as to what the area needs for fire protection. He iterated that the total development comprised 42 lots, and that Williams had purchased the property in April and filed application in August. Based on this, he stated that the commission had to consider the application on the basis of the regulations then in effect. He stated that P&Z recommended approval on Phase I, which is the heart and essence of the project. He stressed the benefit of preserving Fall Creek for public use and stated that the application as proposed would bring benefits to the entire area. He stated that the proposal as presented reflects the highest investment, and that developing the properties into ten-acre parcels would bring a higher return, but at the cost of the community. Barcklay asked if the easements were included in the parcel dimensions, Klatt said the easements were a separate description and that parcel boundaries extended to the edge of the easement.
Staff said that county attorney John Topp stated that the application had to be heard on the basis of what laws were in effect at the time application was made, and that an application for designed development had to be considered along the same lines as a zone map amendment in that each area of the comprehensive plan had to be considered in rendering a recommendation. Hollingsworth asked if granting the proposal would change the underlying zone district, staff said it would not, but had to be considered on the same basis.
Paulus stated that 500 people were at the high school for the emergency ordinance hearing, and that the consensus of those in attendance was that the county had to live within the zoning ordinance. He stated that the commission needed to use foresight, and ask what the community wanted. He spoke of road standards, and Davis said that he spoke with Jeff Gutshall and county commissioners regarding roads and said that the county will take in roads if brought up to county standards, but that the ordinance gave no authority to impose road standards. Paulus reiterated the will of the community.
Hollingsworth stated that other communities that have allowed rampant growth to their detriment, and stated that both county commissioners and the people of the community wanted them to maintain minimum parcel size standards. He said that allowing this proposal will open the door to a multitude of subdivisions and asked if that is what is best for the county.
Paulus stated that this was a nice plan, and if the parcels were 10 acres he would have no objection. He stated that it was important to hold against rampant growth.
Hollingsworth stated it was not his intent to deprive Williams of economic gain, but to maintain ordinance standards. He stated that he did not vote in October, but if he had, he would have voted against a recommendation of approval.
Barcklay said he did not vote for Phase 1 because of the emergency ordinance. He stated that this was a good project, but under the minimum 10-acre parcel size. He asked that if the commission opens the door to less, how can they maintain the trust that we’ll uphold the plan?
There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a motion. Hollingsworth made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation of disapproval based on parcels being below minimum lot size requirements to maintain zoning as proscribed. Barcklay seconded. Four members voted “aye,” three voted “nay” and the motion carried.

Paulus called for a five minute recess, and upon reconvening, announced that the next hearing on the agenda was SUP 05-09, but that because the applicant had requested postponement of hearing on SUB 05-13 and to save those in attendance for that hearing further time, he was moving SUB 05-13. Hearing was opened and staff reported that the applicant, John Taft, had requested the delay to allow refinement of the preliminary sketch resulting from consultations with Cabinet Mountain Water District, and that the city attorney, Tim Wilson, who had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing be tabled until annexation proceedings were completed and who requested to speak to that letter, had called prior to the hearing and had no objection to tabling the hearing until the next regular meeting. Based on this, Barcklay made motion to table SUB 05-13 until December 15, Kellogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Paulus opened public hearing on application SUP 05-09 by Gene and Arlene Sloan. No member cited conflict of interest.

Tim Tucker, representing the applicants, explained that the proposal was to amend two existing special use permit applications to allow development of a condominium community catering to active adults.
Paulus requested a review of the existing special use permits, and staff explained that a permit had been approved in 1998 to allow establishment of a bed and breakfast, subsequently purchased by a third party, and that the application applied specifically to the 10-acre parcel occupied by the Paradise Valley Inn, hence should not be considered in this application as the permit now belonged to the new owner, and that a subsequent permit had been issued allowing construction of a sign for the Inn. A third permit had been issued in 1999 allowing construction of a 100-capacity restaurant and 30 guest cottages.
Tucker said that the parcels upon which the proposal was made, totaling 46-acres, lie within 400-feet of a residential zone district, hence was located near existing development. He stated that required services were at the parcel or were available. He stated that the proposal was for a 72-unit condominium development of upscale one and two-story units and a two-story activity center. He said that such condos would allow seniors to own their homes in a setting where maintenance of homes and grounds would be accomplished by facility staff, filling a gap in senior housing. He stated that the applicants met with Ed Minden, Minden Water Wells, and were informed that adequate wells had been drilled in the area, and said that they were assured by Minden that a well providing 21,000 gallons per day could be drilled on the property. He stated that a tank would be installed to maintain 1,500 gallons of water per minute for 20 minutes as required by the International Fire Code for fire protection. He said that Panhandle Health had tested soils and determined the property was suitable for septic expansion, and that Northern Lights and Avista would provide electricity and gas. Discussion was held regarding water, and Tucker stated that the system would be engineered to meet requirements based on water availability. He stated that the primary impact of the development would be roads; and said that the current special use permit requires only dust abatement. He stated that with approval of the current proposal, the applicants would either chip seal or pave Eagle Way from County Road 22B to its end prior to the onset of construction, would donate $25,000 to county road and bridge for chip sealing County Road 22B by the end of 2006, and would post stop signs and speed limit signs at their own expense. He stated that an analysis by an Idaho-certified traffic impact specialist indicated that the proposed use would reduce traffic allowed under the current permit by 38%. He stated that the applicants met with the Paradise Valley Fire Chief and that they would comply with the standards submitted, providing sprinkler systems to both structures and the grounds and abide by the county Fire Safe Program. He stated that the applicants would also donate $25,000 to Paradise Valley Fire for the purchase of additional equipment if approved. Tucker stated that the economic benefits to the community both during construction and through operation of the facility. He stated that the proposal complies with the intent of the comprehensive plan in that in supports property rights, reduces the impact of an existing allowed use and in that it’s arranged so as to minimize adverse impacts.
Kellogg asked if Eagle Way is a 60-foot easement, and whether it would be brought to county specifications. It was unknown whether the easement was 50- or 60-foot.
Paulus called for testimony in favor of the application. Roko Govorchin, a 23-year resident of Bonners Ferry, stated that this proposal allows seniors to own their own place and brought benefits over other senior facilities which were rentals. He said the community center provided a place to socialize and having a nurse available was a benefit. He stated that there was easy access to Bonners Ferry and that this was a good project for Boundary County. Paulus asked about availability of medical care, Tucker stated it would be part of the community center provided for residents, Govorchin said he knew it wouldn’t be 24-hour care, but would save trips to the doctors office.
Paulus called for testimony from those uncommitted on the proposal. Bill Sills, Eastport, said he was a new resident of the area and asked regarding residential density, saying that by his calculation the density would be one residence per 0.6-acre. He asked if the size of the main building had been factored in for fire flows.
Mary Peterson, Highland Flats, asked for clarification of the existing special use permit and stated that a 100-seat banquet facility would not generate as much traffic as residential units.
Chuck Anselmo, Panhandle Health, stated that a water system for such a development would have to be engineered to meet Idaho Department of Water Quality specifications for that use, and said the septic system for such a development was not what most people are familiar with but would be a large community absorption system, which would have to be engineered to DEQ specifications. He stated that he had tested soils, and determined they were suitable for such a system, but that the system would have to be designed to fit the project.
Bob DelGrosso, Deep Creek, said he was neither in favor of nor opposed to the proposal, but he was concerned over emergency access to the site, saying that despite the site’s proximity to town, the route to reach it was a considerable distance. He stated adult retirees require medical attention more frequently, and said he was concerned over response time, especially in winter.
Paulus called for comment from those in opposition to the proposal. Karen Bryan, address not given, stated she spoke with emergency medical technicians and learned that the response time for an ambulance to the site was 15 minutes. She stated a two-story lodge with stairs was not a safe prospect for senior citizens.
Norman Williams, a neighboring property owner, said he represented several neighbors who were unable to attend. He stated that he purchased his property and invested in his home with the understanding that the minimum lot size for a residence was five acres. He stated he was concerned over the potential for fire, saying the project was served by a single dead-end road, and that if fire came up the steep slope to the north, it could quickly endanger residents.
Diana Williams, a neighboring property owner, stated she didn’t feel the public notice she received in the mail was adequate because it didn’t adequately explain the scope of the proposal. She questioned whether the Sloans actually had a valid permit with the sale of the Paradise Valley Inn. Staff explained that the permit for the bed and breakfast was specific to the 10-acre parcel, and that while the project on the 1999 permit had not been complete, work had started, and that the planning and zoning commission would have to determine whether or not the work done to date was sufficient to preclude lapse of that permit. She stated that the proposal would adversely impact all residents in Paradise Valley.
Matt Bryan, Bonners Ferry, stated that the Sloan’s track record spoke for itself, that people do not like to do business with them as they have not followed through on any of their previous plans.
Vinten Helmer, address not noted, stated he was an advocate of retirement communities but questioned the location of this proposal as well as the availability of adequate management. He stated that he was concerned that if the plan failed, the development would be opened to rental.
There being no further comment, Paulus called for a closing statement. Tucker stated that the response time for emergency vehicles was good and that the county maintained the access routes to the site well not only for emergency vehicles, but for school buses as well. He stated that a 20’ treed buffer would be maintained on the east and south sides of the project to provide privacy both for adjoining property owners and residents. He stated that cottages would not all be built at once, but as they were purchased to preclude the project become a rental facility. He stated that the proposal fulfills a need and reiterated the economic benefit to the county.
Paulus stated that he felt the commission needed more specifics on which to base a recommendation, and asked if there were CC&Rs developed, he was advised they were not. Paulus asked how much of the project allowed in the existing special use; Arlene Sloan stated that two guest cabins had been finished, along with two additional pads and much of the infrastructure. She stated that one of the cabins had been sold with the bed and breakfast.
Schnuerle asked if there would be an age limit imposed, Tucker said there would not, but that the project would be an upscale development that would naturally preclude purchase by younger homeowners.
Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Amoth questioned why this proposal was not considered a subdivision, staff advised the proposal did not partition the property. Barcklay asked whether the existing special use permit was valid, Paulus stated that construction had begun. Mellinger read from the ordinance that a special use not established within two years was deemed to lapse, and noted that the special use permit issued for the sign on US 95 specified that it was to be no larger than 32 feet square, and stated it was obviously considerably larger than that. He questioned whether the applicants would follow the terms of an amended special use if it were granted.
There being no further comment, Paulus called for a motion. Barcklay moved to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application SUP 05-09 be disapproved based on the established minimum parcel size of five acres per residential unit, Kellogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Paulus opened public hearing on AM 05-14 and no member cited conflict of interest.

Applicant Stan Mastre stated that he lived on County Road 21D and owned a parcel approximately 600-feet in length that he wished to divide into four parcels. He stated that a son and a daughter were interested in the parcels at either end, and that he wanted to sell to additional lots.
Hollingsworth raised questions regarding annexation, staff stated that the county could only zone residential land in municipal areas of impact, and that the parcel proposed for amendment was included in the current agreement being negotiated by the City of Bonners Ferry and Boundary County, though that agreement had not been finalized. Staff stated that until the agreement was formally entered into, the property could not be zoned residential, therefore a recommendation of approval would be conditioned upon finalization of the agreement. He stated that the area being considered by the city for annexation has not been defined as yet, but that it could not include this parcel because it was not yet encompassed within a valid area of impact agreement. Staff stated that there was no minimum parcel size within the residential zone within the Bonners Ferry area of impact, and said that technically, at least one of the parcels shown in the drawing could be considered for a variance as the parcel was divided by county road.
Paulus called for comment in favor of the proposal; there was none.
Paulus called for comment from those uncommitted. Bruce Spratling asked if the applicant had plans to improve the road as dust was a problem; Paulus and other members of the commission said that the only roads involved were county roads which were not the responsibility of the applicant.
Paulus called for comment from those opposed; David Macinich, address not noted, stated that the area was zoned for a five-acre minimum parcel size and should be maintained.
There being no further public comment, Paulus called for a closing statement, the applicant had none. Paulus called for discussion among members. Kellogg stated that continuing to allow parcels to be split because of roadways was going to create a problem.
There being no further discussion, Hollingsworth made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application AM 05-14 be disapproved based on the fact that all surrounding areas were zoned agriculture/suburban, Kellogg seconded. Three members voted “aye,” one member voted “nay” and three members abstained and the motion carried.

Paulus opened workshop on the comprehensive plan review and staff outlined his proposal for public informational meetings with the aim of gathering public opinion and inviting public participation. He requested that a tentative schedule be determined with a proposed location and a member appointed to conduct the meeting. Following discussion, staff was directed to develop a public questionnaire, subcommittee sign-up sheets and a script for conduct of the meetings. Staff stated he would attend each meeting to maintain minutes and facilitate. The time of each meeting was set at 5:30 p.m. Members went through the meeting schedule proposed by staff and agreed to the following schedule based on availability of venue:

December 6, Bonners Ferry, venue not suggested, Barry Davis
December 8, Naples Hostel, Jim Paulus
December 20, Moyie Springs/Curley Creek, Saters, Hollingsworth/Amoth
December 29, Copeland/Porthill, Copeland Hall, Barcklay/Kellogg
January 3, Eastport, Good Grief, Mellinger
January 5, Planning and Zoning workshop to select subcommittee members and set initial subcommittee meetings.

There being no further public hearings, Mellinger raised earlier testimony regarding allegations of his conflict of interest and asked the members if there was a concern. Paulus stated he felt there had been no problem and members concurred.
There was no new/unscheduled business.
There being no further business, Kellogg made motion to adjourn, Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.