City mulls subdivision proposal

PRIEST RIVER — A two-lot subdivision proposal drew a small crowd to Priest River City Council on Monday, primarily with concerns over the access location.

Timothy Stevens of Heritage North Investments, LLC, is proposing to split a half-acre parcel on Third Street into two quarter acre lots.

“We are really just trying to create two nice new single-family homes in the area at a lower price point,” Stevens said.

The property is located on the opposite side of Third Street from Warren Avenue. There is a proposal to develop and extend Warren Avenue to the east, though it is currently a stand of trees and the development of the street is not part of the subdivision proposal, said Bryan Quayle, city planning and zoning director. If the street ever were to be developed, it would run along the south side of the proposed subdivision. In addition, the right of way extending north from First Street, to the east of the property, was used as a sewer easement for the River View Ridge development near the cemetery, he said. Only Third Street, however, is developed.

Per the proposal, a driveway along the north side of the property would access both the west and east lot of the subdivision. City water would be accessed from the Third Street direction, and sewer would be accessed from the direction of First, Quayle said. The only condition Quayle listed in the Planning and Zoning report was that the final plat of the subdivision, which would be named Priest River Estates, be completed within two years.

Six people provided public comment during Monday’s meeting, with five of them noting they were not against the development, only that they did have some questions and concerns. A neighbor whose property borders the proposed subdivision to the north said the proposed driveway would be within three and a half feet of the south wall of her house.

Damage from the traffic, gravel spray and snow removal is what concerned her, she said.

She asked that the driveway be put on the south side of the property. Another community member also asked why there needed to be an access to the north. If Warren were to be developed, it would access both lots of the subdivision, he said.

Stevens said he is working with what exists at this time, not what might be there in the future as far as Warren Avenue. He said the gravel would be compacted and that from a design standpoint, it made the most sense to put the driveway to the north. Stevens said he already started moving dirt to create the driveway.

Another neighbor to the south, who would be on the other side of Warren if it were to be developed, was concerned there is not enough space to develop a street between her property and the proposed subdivision. In addition, her daughter said they would like to be notified in plenty of time if the street is ever developed, as she was concerned the large trees would have a chance of landing on her mother’s home. Therefore, she said, she would want to make sure her mother is not home if the trees are felled. Quayle said the concerns are valid, but as development of Warren is not part of the proposed subdivision, they would receive notice before anything is done with the street and would need to bring the concerns up again at that time.

Another community member from the area of proposed subdivision said there is a problem with water pressure in that area, so if he has a sprinkler going and his neighbor turns on their water, his pressure goes down substantially. All of the neighbors who were in the room, including several who did not provide public comment, murmured agreement with this.

It was later discussed by city staff and council that those in the area who had replaced their pipes from their meter to their house had resolved the issue. Councilwoman Candy Turner advised them to make sure to update the pipes inside the house as well to handle the pressure if they have the pipe replaced from the meter. The final comments were by a neighbor who was the only community member opposed to the overall proposal. Mike MacAlevy owns a larger parcel to the east and said he currently has no access to his property.

In order for him to develop his property, either Warren or First would need developed and argued he would have to put in money for the access.

“I won’t get this special privilege of just putting in a driveway,” MacAlevy said.

Turner proposed to table a decision by council because she would like to go look at the property and the neighboring area in person. The matter will come before council again at 5:30 pm. on Dec. 2. As the public hearing closed following the comments by community members on Monday, Quayle said no more public testimony will be allowed on the matter.

Mary Malone can be reached by email at mmalone@bonnercountydailybee.com and follow her on Twitter @MaryDailyBee.