OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Post Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - September 9, 2026

Planning and Zoning CommissionWednesday, September 9, 2026
BodyPost Falls, Idaho
SessionPlanning and Zoning Commission
DateWednesday, September 9, 2026
StatusNEW · FILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:01:12

Transcript — Verbatim
0:49

Call the meeting to order.

0:50

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

1:10

All right, good evening, everyone.

1:12

Welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting on September 8th.

1:16

Let's start with roll call, please.

1:18

Carrie?

1:19

Here.

1:21

Wilhelm?

1:22

Here.

1:22

Schreiber?

1:23

Here.

1:24

Kimball.

1:25

Present.

1:26

Stevenson?

1:27

Here.

1:29

Any ceremonies, announcements, appointments, or presentations tonight?

1:33

Yeah, today is National Star Trek Day.

1:36

For the there you go.

1:38

Saw that.

1:39

May you live long and prosper.

1:41

Long and prosper.

1:44

Any amendments to the agenda?

1:46

Yeah, I do want to note that on action item B, the Montreal zone change.

1:51

That's going to be just the zone change portion, not the subdivision.

1:55

So I know it was noticed for both the subdivision's going to come back at a later date, so we'll just be handling the zone change on that.

2:01

Okay.

2:02

Noted.

2:04

Okay.

2:05

Any declaration of conflict, expert a contacts, or site visits?

2:09

Any commission members?

2:10

I do have a quick declaration.

2:11

It's not a conflict, but I do want it on the record.

2:14

Uh first is that my company does work for Greenstone primarily in Washington.

2:21

Um, but my company does not is not contracted to work on the Montrose project, nor do we expect to be.

2:28

Um therefore there's no conflict.

2:30

Um and also on the uh license field annexation.

2:35

I have a conflict, or not a conflict, um, but I do want to disclose that one of my clients has a an agreement with the potential buyer um regarding access and easements.

2:49

Um has no bearing on the the zoning of it, and so it's not a conflict there, but I do want to just disclose that's what's on the record to be um just out there.

3:01

Okay.

3:02

Noted.

3:03

Thank you.

3:03

Uh please present the consent calendar.

3:06

Yeah, we got action item A, which is the meeting minutes from the August 11th, 2026 meeting.

3:12

We also have action item B, which is the Peck and Peck Act Annexation Zoning Recommendation file number A NX 26-4.

3:21

Okay.

3:22

Any questions on that?

3:24

Somebody like to make a motion.

3:27

I move to approve the um consent calendar for the umeting.

3:36

Yeah, I have a motion on the floor.

3:38

Second.

3:39

And a second.

3:40

Roll call, please.

3:43

Oh, sorry.

3:48

Yes.

3:48

Wilhelm.

3:49

Yes.

3:50

Shreiber.

3:51

Yes.

3:51

Kimball.

3:52

Abstain.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Development█████████████████████████████████████████████72%
Engineering And Infrastructure████7%
Procedural███5%
Transportation Safety███5%
Community Engagement███4%
Water And Wastewater Management███4%
Parks and Recreation2%
Affordable Housing1%
Summary of Proceedings

Post Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - September 9, 2026

The Post Falls Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on September 9, 2026 (noted as September 8th in the transcript) to consider three public hearings: the Linsenfeld annexation and zoning recommendation, the Montrose zone change, and the Lindsay annexation and zoning recommendation. The commission also approved the consent calendar and received a staff update on a recent city council decision regarding the Tamarick Homes appeal. All zoning recommendations were forwarded to the city council with unanimous votes.

Consent Calendar

  • Action Item A: Approved meeting minutes from August 11, 2026.
  • Action Item B: Approved the Peck and Peck Annexation Zoning Recommendation (file ANX-26-4).
    • Vote: 4 yes (Wilhelm, Shreiber, Stevenson, Carrie), 1 abstain (Kimball).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Linsenfeld Annexation (ANX-26-6): No public testimony was offered.
  • Montrose Zone Change (ZC-26-1):
    • Vanessa Thompson (neutral): Asked about traffic studies and potential impacts on nearby streets, especially near Celts Elementary, and requested improved safety for school crossings.
    • Kathy Springer (neutral): Raised concerns about access on Empire Way due to trucks parked by Orgill, the possible closure of Mullen Avenue, and the need for a stoplight at the Celts/Empire intersection. Also questioned whether a small park would be affected.
    • Aaron Carroll (neutral): Asked about buffers for adjacent homes on Okanagan, the number of dwellings planned, and whether the RM zone might allow future changes without further review.
  • Lindsay Annexation (ANX-26-8):
    • Jim Lindsay (opposition, property owner): Stated that he wished to withdraw the consent to annexation due to concerns about septic system requirements and family circumstances. He requested a "will not serve" letter from the city to proceed with a septic repair permit.
    • A letter from Panhandle Health District (read into the record) clarified that the district does not require annexation for septic permits and that no repair application had been submitted for the property.

Discussion Items

  • Linsenfeld Annexation (ANX-26-6) – Recommendation for CCS Zoning:
    • Planner Ethan Porter presented the request to annex 3.04 acres at the northeast corner of Chase and Prairie and recommend Community Commercial Services (CCS) zoning. The property is within a commercial node and the Central Prairie focus area of the comprehensive plan. The applicant, Connie Krueger, described plans for a neighborhood convenience store with fuel, voluntary design limitations (35-foot height, 25-foot enhanced buffer, limited hours 5 a.m. to midnight), and coordination with the city on roundabout expansion and sewer infrastructure. The city engineer noted the roundabout will likely be expanded to a multi-lane configuration by 2035. No adverse impacts were identified from notified agencies. The commission found the CCS zoning consistent with the future land use map and comprehensive plan goals.
  • Montrose Zone Change (ZC-26-1) – Recommendation for RM Zoning:
    • Planning manager John Manley presented the request to rezone 76 acres from R1 (single-family) and I (industrial) to Residential Mixed (RM) within the Montrose development. The applicant, Kevin Schneidmiller, explained that the RM zone allows greater housing diversity and a commercial component, consistent with the West Ridge focus area. A bubble map showed a transition from single-family detached to higher-density housing and commercial near Celts Way. The property is adjacent to a new city sports complex. Public speakers raised traffic and access concerns, which the applicant addressed by noting future connections via Clark Fork Parkway and ongoing discussions with the city. The commission determined the RM zone aligns with the comprehensive plan’s goals for infill, diverse housing, and economic balance.
  • Lindsay Annexation (ANX-26-8) – Recommendation for R1 Zoning:
    • Planner Ethan Porter presented the request to annex 0.66 acres at 200 South Sequoia Court and recommend R1 (single-family residential) zoning. The property is a county island with an existing home. The property owner, William Lindsay, had signed a consent to annexation but later expressed desire to withdraw. The commission noted that their role was only to recommend zoning; the annexation decision rests with city council. The Panhandle Health letter indicated the property may not need annexation for septic repairs. The commission found R1 zoning consistent with the low-density residential future land use and the Maplewood focus area, with no demonstrable adverse impacts from the zoning itself.

Key Outcomes

  • Linsenfeld Annexation (ANX-26-6): Unanimous vote (5-0) to recommend approval of CCS zoning. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council.
  • Montrose Zone Change (ZC-26-1): Unanimous vote (5-0) to recommend approval of RM zoning. The bubble map and development agreement will accompany the recommendation to city council.
  • Lindsay Annexation (ANX-26-8): Unanimous vote (5-0) to recommend approval of R1 zoning. The commission directed staff to include in the minutes the applicant's request to withdraw from annexation.
  • Administrative Staff Report: Staff provided an update on the Tamarick Homes appeal. The city council reversed the commission’s earlier 3-2 decision, reinstating frontage improvement requirements (due to expansion of use by more than 25%) but not requiring alley paving. The planning department had appealed the commission’s decision for policy clarity.

Meeting Transcript

Call the meeting to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting on September 8th. Let's start with roll call, please. Carrie? Here. Wilhelm? Here. Schreiber? Here. Kimball. Present. Stevenson? Here. Any ceremonies, announcements, appointments, or presentations tonight? Yeah, today is National Star Trek Day. For the there you go. Saw that. May you live long and prosper. Long and prosper. Any amendments to the agenda? Yeah, I do want to note that on action item B, the Montreal zone change. That's going to be just the zone change portion, not the subdivision. So I know it was noticed for both the subdivision's going to come back at a later date, so we'll just be handling the zone change on that. Okay. Noted. Okay. Any declaration of conflict, expert a contacts, or site visits? Any commission members? I do have a quick declaration. It's not a conflict, but I do want it on the record. Uh first is that my company does work for Greenstone primarily in Washington. Um, but my company does not is not contracted to work on the Montrose project, nor do we expect to be. Um therefore there's no conflict. Um and also on the uh license field annexation. I have a conflict, or not a conflict, um, but I do want to disclose that one of my clients has a an agreement with the potential buyer um regarding access and easements. Um has no bearing on the the zoning of it, and so it's not a conflict there, but I do want to just disclose that's what's on the record to be um just out there. Okay. Noted. Thank you. Uh please present the consent calendar. Yeah, we got action item A, which is the meeting minutes from the August 11th, 2026 meeting. We also have action item B, which is the Peck and Peck Act Annexation Zoning Recommendation file number A NX 26-4. Okay. Any questions on that? Somebody like to make a motion. I move to approve the um consent calendar for the umeting. Yeah, I have a motion on the floor. Second.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com