Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zone Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves zone change for 3620 North Fruitland Lane, conditions development‑agreement discussions
Summary
Council approved changing a 0.522‑acre parcel at 3620 North Fruitland Lane from MH‑8 to R‑17 with a condition that staff and the applicant undertake negotiations for a development agreement addressing attainable/workforce housing; council asked that any development agreement return to council for approval.
The Coeur d'Alene City Council approved a zone‑change request on March 17 to rezone a 0.522‑acre parcel at 3620 North Fruitland Lane from MH‑8 (mobile‑home, 8 units/acre) to R‑17 (17 units/acre) with a specific condition: staff and the applicant will negotiate a development agreement, focused on attainable/workforce housing, and return that agreement to council for approval.
Senior Planner Sean Holm presented the staff report and said the parcel, located north of I‑90 near Highway 95, is in a compact‑neighborhood place type and is served by water, sewer, stormwater and fire; engineering staff estimated a theoretical maximum buildout at R‑17 would generate about 59 trips per day. Holm also described constraints and typical setbacks and explained that a zone change would increase permitted heights and alter setback requirements.
Applicant Michael Reeser said he sought the rezoning to enable affordable housing. Neighbor Shelley Porsche opposed the change at the public hearing, raising traffic, speeding and on‑street parking concerns and asking how a theoretical nine‑unit buildout would provide required parking.
During discussion, several council members urged using a development agreement to secure attainable‑housing commitments. City attorney Randy explained that the municipal code allows a development agreement to be required as a condition of approval, but if parties cannot reach an agreement, the zone change condition would fail and the zone change would not proceed. Council adopted the required findings and approved the zone change on a motion that included a condition directing staff and the applicant to negotiate an acceptable development agreement and to return the agreement to council as soon as possible.
The council did not finalize the ordinance at the meeting because the city attorney noted an approved ordinance must be published within statutory timelines; staff said they will return with the development‑agreement outcome and the ordinance later.
