Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

MINUTES – November 16, 2006

Members present: John Kellogg, Jake Negley, Doug Reoch, Rod Barcklay, Barry Davis. Staff present: Mike Weland. Members absent: Tom Hollingsworth, Toby Schnuerle, Bruce Behrman, Henry McMahon.

1. Reoch opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and called for reading of the October minutes. Davis made motion to waive reading and adopt as presented, Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Reoch reviewed the public hearing procedure.
2. Reoch re-opened hearing on SUP 0510, no member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Scot Lindsay stated that members had his proposal and stood for questions, there were none. Staff report presented. Negley asked the applicant what type of manufacturing was involved, Lindsay said it was light manufacturing of wood and plastic, saying there were a range of potential items. Barcklay asked how many employees, Lindsay stated nine, including he and his wife. There being no further questions for the applicant or staff, Reoch opened hearing to those in favor; there was none. Speaking uncommitted, Norman Williams asked how much business is wanted in Paradise Valley and asked if the area is for business or residential use. He stated that this is rural, agricultural land. Speaking in opposition, Don Fleetwood, an adjacent resident, said that as the business is right now, he has no complaints, but that he is opposed to its enlargement. He stated he can currently hear the planer when it’s running, though the sound is light. He said if it expands, the noise would increase. He stated that adding an espresso stand was adding an additional business, and he said he didn’t think that should happen. Jacob Epstein, Copeland, stated that the Special Use Permit is a form of amendment, and stated that Scot has had good luck with his home business and used that avenue to full advantage, but stated that he has outgrown the home use. He said it would set a bad precedent to grant a special use permit to accommodate his success, and that it was not to change the character of the neighborhood. He stated Lindsay should instead look for an area zoned for commercial activity to accommodate the proposed expansion and not over extend the constraints of a home business.. Mark Sheldon, Post Falls, stated that his parents own land adjoining the Lindsay property and he was speaking on their behalf. He stated that last year, Scot was talking about expanding an existing business, now it appeared he was adding additional businesses. He stated that the proposal to add a cemetery annex sounded like he wanted to subdivide as well. He stated the scope of the proposal keeps expanding; that keeping the business as it is would be okay, but that he opposed expansion. He stated that the proposal did not go along with the way of life in that area. There being no further comment, Lindsay stated that he hasn’t yet outgrown the current building, that the map presented is the same as presented initially. He stated that an espresso stand would not attract new traffic, but would capture existing traffic. He stated that currently there isn’t enough traffic to support an espresso stand, but with increasing traffic counts a business that might become viable. He stated that the proposal for the cemetery annex was an alternate should the business go elsewhere; and that if it were to become a reality, it would replace the structures proposed on the site plan, not be in addition to them. Barcklay asked regarding the site plan, and Lindsay stated that the only current plan is to add an espresso stand. He stated that the plan was drawn envision the highest potential use, and would likely not be built out. He stated that he had no intention to make additional noise, that he wanted to remain a good neighbor. There being no further comment, Reoch closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Discussion was held on the number of employees, Kellogg stated that based on the number, it did not appear to fit as a home business. Weland stated that the ordinance sets no limit on employees in a home business. Davis said the business is good for the community, but said we had to be careful not to allow unlimited expansion. Kellogg stated that the commission had asked several times for a specific plan, and by the applicant’s admission, the enterprise wasn’t at its limits. He stated he feels that applicant was seeking an open checkbook that would allow unlimited expansion. He made motion to forward to commissioners a recommendation that application SUP 0510 be denied based on the fact that at present, the business had not expanded beyond its existing limits. Negley seconded. Davis recommended approving a special use permit to allow continuance of the existing business, stating he did not want to see a good business shut down. Staff explained that the use was grandfathered, and could continue for the life of the use provided it did not expand. Reoch called for a vote; the motion carried, with three members voting “aye,” and one abstention.
3. Reoch opened public hearing on AM 0607, no member cited conflict of interest. Craig Wheatley, HCR 85, stated that the parcel being sought for rezone was contiguous to commercial property he already owned, and stated that the parcel was retained as ag/forestry by the previous owners for tax purposes. He stated he and his wife are pilots, and that his prime concern was to prevent incompatible uses, such as residential use, around the airport. He stated that he planned to expand his existing business, and stated that he wanted zoning that was exclusively commercial, but that the ordinance did not provide such a zone. Discussion was held of the airport easement and flight path; Wheatley stated he was working with the airport on an agreement for an IFR. Citing the Lindsay hearing, he stated that as commercial land, the area lent itself as a nest for home businesses that had outgrown existing accommodations and needed a place to expand. He stated that a commercial subdivision was a possibility, sensitive to the needs of the airport. He stated the proposal protected the local quality of life by providing more space suitable for small business. Staff report was given. Reoch opened the hearing to those in favor; there were none. He called for testimony from those uncommitted. Jean Plato, who owns land in the area, asked what Wheatley planned to build, he explained that he planned to expand his existing business. Plato, hearing the proposal, changed her testimony to favoring the proposal. Reoch called for testimony in opposition, there was none. On rebuttal, Wheatley stated that the request was in compliance with the comprehensive plan and would benefit the community, providing a place for clean, quiet business. He stated that under the comprehensive plan being drafted, there is a strictly commercial zone established, and he said the property better fits that zoning, but the application was his attempt to accelerate the rezone to allow time for adoption of the new comprehensive plan and development of new ordinances. There being no further testimony, Reoch closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Barcklay stated that this area was perfect for commercial zoning, that it was in an ideal location to allow commercial expansion. Kellogg asked the applicant about proposed airport expansion, Wheatley explained that negotiations were underway with the FAA. He stated the advantage of having no structures in the airport flight path, and that he concurs and has no plan to build in the flight path. He stated the land is not suitable for residential development. Instead of building, he stated that the area could be used for drain field or underground utilities. He stated that the primary area for development would be on the west boundary of the property. He stated that he is working with the airport, and is receptive either to purchase of land or purchase of an easement necessary for airport expansion. He stated that the airport is his perfect neighbor, and that commercial zoning on the property was a good fit. Discussion was held on rural community/commercial zoning, and staff explained that under the designation, both residential and commercial use was allowed. Staff stated that if the property were proposed for residential development, it would likely require a subdivision process. Davis made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application AM 0607 be approved as the proposal meets all criteria of the comprehensive plan; Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Reoch called a five minute recess. The meeting reconvened and public hearing was opened on a request by the City of Bonners Ferry to add the Sloan property to the area of impact. No member cited conflict of interest. Mike Klaus, representing the city, stated that the Sloans did forward a request to the city to be included in the ACI. He stated that city planning and zoning considered the request and recommended approval to the city council by a 4 to 1 vote, and the city council approved the request by a 3-2 vote. He read a letter from the city, and stated the city would not have actively sought inclusion of this area but agreed that the Sloan request was reasonable. He stated he had no technical objection to the staff report, but pointed out that item 7 does not have direct correlation with the request. He stated that it is legal for the city to cross county roads. Davis asked if the road situation had been part of the discussions, Klaus stated they had. Kellogg asked if the city was contemplating annexation, Klaus stated that there is presently no need to annex, but that the city council and P&Z agreed that this might someday become part city. Reoch pointed out that the city would have to annex a lot of ground to reach this area; Kraus concurred that land annexed would have to be continuous to city limits. Discussion was held of jurisdiction, Kraus concurred that the county retains jurisdiction in the area of impact until land is annexed. Negley asked if city water service still extended only as far as McCall Street, Kraus said it did, and that extending water to the Sloan property would be feasible, but it would be a stretch. He stated that city policy is for developers to fund expansion. It was also determined that the city fire station nearest the Sloan property was also on McCall Street. Staff report was given and the Williams letter was read into the record. Reoch called for testimony from those in favor of the proposal. Tim Tucker, Moyie Springs, stated he was representing the Sloans and distributed to members and staff information on six areas in the state where access from a city crossed county roads so as to address item 7 in the staff report. He said it is known that roads are an issue, but that crossing county roads was not a limiting factor. He stated that the property sought for inclusion was suitable for residential development, and that inclusion was a step in planning for the future. He stated that the city needs multiple types of housing to accommodate growth, and that the rim property held great advantages; the views, its adjacency to existing ACI, it lie across the road from the city golf course. He stated that annexation was not out of the realm of possibility as the city will see growth as the baby boomers retire, and that we need to be ready for such growth. Davis asked about utilities; Tucker stated that if the city annexed, city water could be brought to the property. Negley asked about the engineered septic system; Tucker stated that the Sloans had done a great deal of research and invested considerably in having the septic system analyzed, and said there is a plan in place to build a community septic to accommodate the proposed facility. Reoch called for comment from those uncommitted, there was none. He called for comment from those in opposition. Norman Williams, who lives adjacent to the proposed development, asked that the area be retained as five-acre minimums. He said he was not against growth, so long as the growth conformed to the zone district. He stated that were the Sloan proposal to be approved, he would lose his investment in his home. Jerry Griffin, Eagle Way, said he bought his home in 2004 thinking the five-acre zone district would be a benefit. He stated he is not opposed to development or economic growth, but said he was opposed to expanding the city area of impact for capital gain. Roger John, adjoining property owner, submitted a petition and read it into the record, and said it would be an extreme expense for the city to expand services. Mark Devoie concurred, saying addition to the area of impact was premature and just another way for the Sloans to get approval of a project denied three times in the past. Mike Klaus said he could not present the opinion of the city council, and said he saw valid points made. He stated that the city is growing and the community will need housing. He said that when development comes, the cost for expanding infrastructure goes to the developer, not to existing citizens. He stated that prior to approval of proposals, the city does require a development agreement, and he said it would be up to the developers to provide the plan for such expansion. He was asked how many lots had been proposed in the past year; Klaus stated the three development applications had been proposed in the last six months, but none had been filed. Discussion was held on access and the amount of land between the area proposed and existing city limits. Hearing was closed to public testimony and Reoch called for discussion. Backlay said he doesn’t see the need of adding this area to the area of impact based on concerns over access over county and private roads. He stated that services are barely adequate for current density. He stated that the proposal was not conducive to orderly growth and that emergency response would be a problem. Kellogg stated that we already expanded the area of impact in areas that made sense, and that this proposal didn’t. Kellogg made motion to forward to commissioners a recommendation that the city’s request be denied, as there is currently sufficient land within the ACI to accommodate anticipated city growth. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
5. There being no further business, Kellogg made motion to adjourn, Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.