Post Falls Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2026: Tamarack Mountain Homes Appeal Decision
Post Falls Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2026: Tamarack Mountain Homes Appeal Decision
The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order on July 1, 2026, at 00:30 UTC (transcript indicates meeting started on June 30, 2026, but system date is used). Commissioners Carey, Schlotthauer, Shriber, Wilhelm, and Flock were present. The sole action item was an appeal (file APL-26-1) by Mort's Construction dba Tamarack Mountain Homes of an administrative decision by Planning Manager John Manley requiring frontage and alley improvements for two duplexes on pre-platted lots along 21st Avenue.
Discussion Items
The appellant (Tanner Mort and Tyler Moore) argued that the code was misapplied as the project is an infill redevelopment on lots platted in 1891 with no rezoning, subdivision, or change of use (residential to residential). They contended that requiring a sidewalk on a street lacking any continuous sidewalk would create an isolated hazard, that the alley paving requirement was excessive, and that the city's recent amendment allowing up to three cottage or tiny homes without frontage improvements showed policy intent to support affordable infill housing. They noted their project (two duplexes, four total units) is less intense than three tiny homes which would not trigger improvements, and that the cost of improvements ($30,000–$40,000) would increase rents by about $50/month.
Staff (John Manley and Chris Schneider) defended the decision, citing a change of use from single-family to multifamily (duplex as a different use category) and an expansion of existing use by 281% (from ~1,720 sq ft to ~4,830 sq ft). They argued the alley is primary access and paving is required per code 18.24.020(H), and that frontage improvements are standard policy for intensification. Staff noted that the cottage/tiny home exception was specifically designed for ownership-oriented projects, not rental duplexes, and that the site improvements are intended to eventually connect to a future network.
Commissioners deliberated on code ambiguities, the inconsistency between allowing six tiny homes without improvements while requiring them for two duplexes, the "island" effect of isolated improvements, and the overall intent of the housing policies. They discussed the difficulty of interpreting code language on "new land use" and "expansion of use."
Key Outcomes
The commission voted on three motions:
- Motion to grant the appeal on the alleyway and deny on frontage (Commissioner Carey): Failed 2–3 (Shreiber aye, Wilhelm nay, Schlotthauer nay, Carey aye, Flock nay).
- Motion to deny the appeal entirely on the basis of change of use and expansion of use (Commissioner ?): Failed 2–3 (Shreiber aye, Wilhelm nay, Schlotthauer nay, Carey aye, Flock nay).
- Motion to grant the appeal, finding it is not a new land use and does not meet code requirements (Commissioner Flock): Passed 3–2 (Shreiber nay, Wilhelm aye, Schlotthauer aye, Carey nay, Flock aye).
The appeal was granted. Staff will prepare a written decision, and further appeal to city council is available.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, we'll call the June 30th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. And we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Yes, sir. So let's see if I can do this right. Commissioner Carey? Here. Commissioner Schlotthauer? Here. Shriber. Here. Commissioner Wilhelm. Here. And Commissioner Flock. Here. Okay. And the r a lot of this uh agenda is kind of holdovers from our standard agenda. Um unless there's no objection, I think we could just move on to the one item on the meeting tonight, uh, Commissioner Schlotthauer. Yeah, that sounds good. So our action item is Tamarek Mountain appeal file number APL dash 26-1. And I I'll just uh just for the benefit of uh uh the commissioners that might not have heard me and the applicants. Uh so we what we have tonight is an appeal of an administrative decision. It's a little bit different than our normal hearing process in that the applicants uh will go first and do their presentation, have some time to explain why they think the ruling of the uh of uh the planning manager was incorrect, and then uh John will respond, the city will respond uh go second, uh and then they'll have the chance to close at that point. We'll uh have deliberation and hopefully come to a decision. Um the what we're really doing is it's the appeal tonight, unless you if you had a chance to review the agenda and the materials, it's the appeal of a determination of uh site improvement requirements for uh uh a development happening uh by application of Mort's construction. Um so with that, if there's any other questions as to the process, uh I have a question, Chris. Yes, sir. The you know, sometimes the our we're quasi-judicial, sometimes there's more leeway, sometimes there's less. Are we just are we strictly trying to interpret the code or is there any leeway on the code or so what we're what we're doing, uh what I'd like the commissioners to to consider tonight is a uh what the code says and and if it makes sense the way it's being interpreted uh and applied uh somewhat of the precedent value of of how we've done it in the past, just to consider the evidence as you hear it tonight and then come to uh a deliberation on your own. The appellate uh Mort Construction would have the right to appeal this decision to city councils, so at the end product tonight, after decision, we'll issue a decision and a shortened version of a written decision uh that they can then take and appeal further. Uh so standards, um, because it is a quasi-judicial uh hearing, we don't have heavy standards. Um we want the interpretation to be reasonable and make sense. Um so if we come up with something that is clearly out of bounds or anything else, uh then that would be something that would certainly be challengeable. But uh there's not much more guidance than that, other than listening to a common sense application of the code as it's re being written and interpreted. Does that help? Okay. Uh and then like I said, IT in the back is gonna uh I'm sorry, uh media is gonna run the clock for uh the applicants and us. So with that, uh it's your guys' show. Thank you. Test. Um could we go ahead and pull up the uh presentation, please? His name is You got the mouse. Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry about that. His name. Yeah, and if you can give us your name and address for the record. Yeah, my name is Tanner Mort. Address is 11837 West Fenwick Drive, Post Falls, Idaho.
openpublica.com