Post Falls Council Approves McKinley Meadows cottage‑home development over neighborhood objections

The Post Falls City Council voted to approve the McKinley Meadows special‑use permit (SUP 26‑3) for a proposed 17‑lot cottage‑home development at the dead end of Montgomery Place, after a de novo public hearing that drew dozens of written and in‑person comments.

Planning Manager John Manley presented the staff report, describing the site, surrounding zoning, and the special‑use criteria the council must apply. Manley said the proposal would preserve an existing house and add 17 cottage homes on about 2.6 acres, and that the development had been routed through the city's cottage‑home standards and PUD process. "The current land use on this is a single family home," Manley said, adding staff's view that the proposal can conform to the comprehensive plan and the cottage‑home code with conditions.

City Engineer Robert Paulus told the council staff had updated traffic data showing roughly 280 vehicles per day on Montgomery Place and estimated the new subdivision would add about 180 daily trips. Paulus said the projected volumes would remain below the city's thresholds for low‑volume residential streets and that the road classification is "local residential." "We would still be well underneath, in my opinion, the 500 vehicles per day," he said.

The applicant's representative, Scott MacArthur of MacArthur Engineering (on behalf of Wilde LLC), described infrastructure work already completed or under way, including an 8‑inch water line extended from Chase Road and off‑site improvements he estimated at more than $200,000. MacArthur said the project includes more than the minimum parking required for cottage homes and added roughly 0.5 acres of shared open space for the community.

Dozens of neighbors spoke during public testimony. Supporters, including residents of the ARC development and the applicant's wife, said the product provides affordable homeownership for younger families and veterans. Opponents focused on neighborhood character, emergency access, and traffic. "This project forces 17 ... dense cottage units onto a 2.6‑acre lot in the middle of an established low‑density R‑1 neighborhood," resident Glenn Douglas told the council, and he asked the council to overturn the planning commission's approval.

Opponents also raised a pending civil case over the dissolution of neighborhood CC&Rs and questioned the process and timing of prior Planning and Zoning votes; council legal staff clarified CC&R litigation is a separate private matter and does not alter the city's code review for the SUP.

Council members deliberated at length about competing goals in the comprehensive plan — preserving neighborhood character versus enabling increased housing variety and infill — and about whether the proposal posed demonstrable health, safety or welfare risks. One councilor noted the Planning and Zoning decision had been a split vote and said the decision would be difficult either way.

A motion to approve the special‑use permit as conditioned in the staff packet carried; the final roll call counted five yes votes, one no and one recusal (the recusal had been declared at the start of the hearing). The council attached the staff‑recommended conditions, covering cottage‑home standards, emergency access and parking, and left PUD and subdivision review items to subsequent proceedings.

The council record shows the decision is based on the special‑use criteria in Post Falls' zoning code and the specific findings and conditions included in the staff packet. The hearing record will remain part of the official file for SUP 26‑3.