Limit on steep-slope building dismissed

Most people can’t see the majority of Kootenai County’s hillsides from town, so the County Commission said it sees no need to stop people from building on steep slopes to protect the views.

The commission recently nixed the idea of limiting building on hillsides with grades that are steeper than 35 percent. The restriction would have attempted to protect hillsides from becoming covered with homes and road scars as the county’s population continues to grow.

“A major portion of the county is not viewable,” Commissioner Rick Currie said, noting that the southeastern portion of the county is very mountainous.

Currie said the commission is concerned about protecting the area’s aesthetics and already has rules in place to do so and that there’s no need to ban all development on steeper hillsides.

The North Idaho Building Contractors Association lobbied the commission to remove the proposal, fearing it would put a moratorium on building in Kootenai County. Housing prices would increase because newcomers still need a place to live, the association argued.

The association still is studying the changes but spokeswoman Pat Raffee said too many restrictions on hillside building remain, such as requiring engineering studies for some areas and considering slopes greater than 25 percent as sensitive areas.

“There’s a lot still in there,” Raffee said.

The Kootenai Environmental Alliance, which had applauded the commission for embracing the hillside building restrictions, was disappointed Tuesday to learn the proposal for preventing building on the steepest slopes was perhaps dead. Carol Sebastian, the conservation group’s development director, had not yet seen the new draft.

“If you have (hillsides) full of homes you no longer have a vista view,” Sebastian said. “And when you are building in areas with steep slopes you are increasing erosion and all sorts of other problems.”

The Kootenai County Commission will hold a public hearing Sept. 23 on the latest changes to the subdivision draft and new provisions in the county’s zoning rules.

For nearly two years, county staff and the county Planning Commission have worked to rewrite both the subdivision and zoning rules, which ultimately work together.

Currie said many of the slopes that are most visible for the more populated areas, such as the hillsides around Lake Coeur d’Alene, already have been subdivided. The hillside building ban would have applied only to land subdivided after the new rules took effect.

The commission also didn’t want to take away people’s personal property rights.

“People keep coming here and talking about uncontrollable growth,” Currie said. “We don’t have uncontrollable growth. Saying we have uncontrollable growth is a misconception.”

The hillside building restriction was initially included in the county’s new draft of rules for how land is subdivided. The proposed hillside restriction found its way into the proposed subdivision rules because county planning staff felt that locals were concerned about losing the county’s natural beauty and wanted local government to protect the hillsides.

The county was following the lead of Coeur d’Alene, which approved in March 2003 similar rules banning building on steep slopes. Yet the city’s version is far more extensive, dictating what colors people can paint their homes and how many trees must be left on the property.

County Planner Rand Wichman said the county always had rules for where and how people could build on hillsides but that the proposed restriction would go even further.

If the hillside building restriction is dumped, Wichman said it’s only a matter of time before the public will demand view protections.

Some people, like KEA representatives, say that could be too late and the county’s hillsides will be covered in homes and road scars.

Besides the hillside restrictions, the commission also changed how many homes would be allowed in the county’s agricultural/suburban areas, opting for one home for each acre.

The commission wants a transition area between agricultural and more urban areas. Currently the county allows five homes per acre.

The number of homes allowed in this transition area has changed numerous times during the yearlong debate. In June, the commission decided one home on each two-acre lot was more appropriate. But now, after getting more public comments and pressure from the NIBCA, the commission thinks that’s too restrictive for property owners who want to develop their land.

“It would take a tremendous amount of real estate off the market,” Currie said.

He added that most people are willing to maintain only about an acre of land. If the lot is bigger, it is often filled with weeds.

Wichman said the change means that developers could no longer do cluster developments in ag/suburban areas where they could build extra homes closer together, leaving more open space.

The new drafts also clarify that local highway districts must approve new roads but the roads don’t necessarily have to meet the districts’ standards.

“The intent is to let the highway district do roads and decide what is appropriate, not the county,” Wichman said.