Post Falls planning commission grants appeal, finds frontage and alley improvements not required for two duplex infill projects

The Post Falls Planning and Zoning Commission on June 30, 2026 granted an appeal by Tamarack Mountain Homes (Mort Construction), finding that city staff erred in concluding that frontage and alley improvements were required for two proposed duplexes on pre‑platted R2 lots.

Applicant representative Tanner Mort told the commission the two subject lots were platted in the late 19th century and that the proposal — one duplex per lot — is a redevelopment within existing R2 zoning. “We are of the opinion that the code is being misapplied here,” Mort said, arguing the project did not involve rezoning, replatting or a change in use that should trigger off‑site frontage or alley work.

Planning Manager John Manley defended the city’s determination, citing the code language that triggers site improvement requirements when there is a new land use or an expansion of an existing use by more than 25 percent. Manley said staff’s analysis found the total floor area would jump from about 1,720 square feet before demolition to roughly 4,830 square feet proposed — “a substantial increase,” he said — and that increase under the city’s interpretation triggers frontage and alley improvements.

Contractor Tyler Moore, representing the applicant, gave approximate cost figures for the required work. “I’m estimating about 30 to 40,000” for the paving portion, Moore said, and applicant testimony later estimated permitting and impact fees in the range of about $32,000–$34,000 per duplex, with total permitting budget figures for the permits and fees in the neighborhood of $60,000 per duplex (applicants characterized these as estimates).

Commissioners and staff also discussed a recent local amendment intended to ease frontage burdens for cottage or tiny‑home infill projects. That amendment explicitly addressed cottage and tiny homes and was not written to include duplexes, and commissioners debated whether the amendment’s intent should influence interpretation of the duplex proposal.

Engineering staff confirmed the alley in question is a public right‑of‑way and explained the city’s practice of extending surfacing and utilities to the ends of properties so future adjacent development can connect to the improvements. Staff described that practice as engineering policy applied in the application of frontage requirements.

After closing the hearing, commissioners deliberated. One motion to deny the appeal (uphold staff) failed. A subsequent motion to grant the appellant’s appeal — finding that the site‑improvement requirements did not apply — passed by a 3–2 vote. Commissioners Wilhelm, Schlotthower and Flock voted yes; Commissioners Shriber and Kerry voted no.

The commission’s decision directs staff to prepare a shortened written decision reflecting the finding; that written decision will be the final administrative action that can be appealed to City Council. The commission’s ruling resolves the immediate question whether frontage and alley improvements must be installed for the two duplexes, but it does not change the underlying code language and leaves open the broader policy questions commissioners discussed about how infill, tiny/cottage homes and duplexes should be treated under the city code.

Staff and the applicant confirmed the July 14 meeting will be light on business; any appeal to City Council would follow the administrative timeline described by staff.