Coeur d'Alene council approves zone change for Fruitland Lane parcel, directs development-agreement talks on attainable housing

Coeur d'Alene — The City Council on March 17 approved a zone change for a 0.522-acre vacant parcel at 3620 North Fruitland Lane, adopting findings that the request conforms with the comprehensive plan and adding a condition that staff and the applicant negotiate a development agreement addressing attainable or workforce housing.

Planning staff told the council that public facilities — streets, water, stormwater and sewer — can serve the site and that the property has no topographical constraints. Staff relayed a city-engineer estimate that the R17 theoretical maximum would generate about 59 trips per day if built to the maximum of nine dwelling units; staff emphasized that figure represents total trips generated by residents, not trips originating from the parcel.

Under current zoning (MH8) the lot could be used for mobile-home sites or subdivided into two lots given frontage; the R17 designation allows higher density (up to 17 units per gross acre in theory), greater building height (up to 45 feet in some cases) and different setback requirements. Staff said a special-use permit for a mobile-home park could yield about seven sites; at R17 the parcel’s theoretical maximum was nine units, subject to setbacks, parking and design constraints.

Applicant Michael Reezer, sworn as part of the quasi-judicial hearing, said the rezoning request is intended to enable some form of “affordable housing, something along those lines,” and offered no detailed site plan at the hearing. Longtime neighbor Shelley Porsche opposed the change during public comment, raising concerns about on-street parking, speeding on Fruitland Lane, proximity to a bus stop and the timing/visibility of the hearing notice. “If they’re going to put nine apartments in a half an acre, where are they going to park?” Porsche asked.

Council discussion centered on whether the city should require a development agreement as a condition of approval to secure commitments on affordability or unit mix. Some councilmembers urged staff to negotiate with the applicant to seek provisions for attainable housing; others cautioned that development agreements are typically negotiated for larger projects and that parking and design constraints may limit how many units ultimately fit on the lot.

After discussion and a brief procedural exchange over a motion to postpone, council members moved to adopt the findings and approve ZC1-26 with one written condition: staff and the applicant will conduct a development-agreement discussion regarding attainable/workforce housing and return an agreement to council for approval. The motion passed by roll call vote (Miller: I; Gabriel: yes; Sheckler: yes; English: yes; Wood: yes; Evans: yes).

The city attorney and staff noted that an ordinance implementing the zone change will need to be published and that development-agreement terms may not be finalized immediately; council and staff said they will return with any proposed agreement and the ordinance for further council action.

Next steps: staff will meet with the applicant to negotiate terms of a development agreement that would be presented to council for approval; if council finds the agreement unacceptable, the condition would fail and council would reconsider the zone change as required by municipal code.