Neighbors urge denial of Summit Drive setback variance; commissioners approve it on consent calendar

Kootenai County residents told commissioners on July 21 that a requested setback variance for a Summit Drive property would create a blind corner, harm neighborhood character and set an undesirable precedent.

Troy McCollum, a resident of unincorporated Kootenai County, urged the board to deny the variance sought by Joe Nipper, saying the applicant asked to cut the standard 25-foot front setback by 13 feet to place the proposed structure about 12 feet from the street. "The bend on Summit Drive ... will likely pose problems for vehicular and pedestrian traffic regarding a safe line of sight if this variance is approved," McCollum said. He added that the rendering did not include dimensions and that a 20-by-30 shop would likely stand about 14 feet high and "not blend in with the current structural and architectural flow of the neighborhood."

McCollum also told the board that neighborhood notice was inadequate: he said only a couple dozen nearby residents were contacted for the initial meeting and that, of roughly 20 respondents, 18 opposed the variance while two — he said, the next-door neighbor and the HOA president/treasurer — supported it. "A variance is not to be determined on whether somebody's a good guy or not," he said.

Katie McCollum, of Coeur d'Alene, said the lot sits on a horseshoe-shaped curve with no sidewalks and that children and people commonly walk and bike in the street. "It makes a blind corner for people who are driving, walking dogs, riding bikes," she said, urging commissioners to deny the variance.

Michael Chris, the property’s next-door neighbor, told the board the detached 20-by-30 workshop would be an "eyesore" and recommended that, if additional space is needed, the building be attached to the existing house instead of being a freestanding structure.

The board’s consent calendar — which included VAR 25-0018 as part of items approved en bloc — was adopted earlier in the meeting. When McCollum later asked whether the variance had been set aside, the chair confirmed it had been approved as part of the consent calendar.

The public comment record therefore reflects neighbor opposition and safety concerns, while the commissioners’ vote on the consent calendar resulted in the variance being approved.