The McCall Area Planning & Zoning Commission voted Tuesday to recommend denial of a code amendment that would have changed development standards within McCall's airport zone.
The P&Z denied the proposed changes and will ask the McCall City Council permission to come up with new language.
Commission member Phil Feinberg wanted the commission to meet with members of the Airport Advisory Committee and other interested parties to gather information to aid the P&Z to come up with a workable solution.
The commission had before it an amendment that would have deleted a section of existing code that does not subject the airport zone to more restrictive development standards upon the approval of the airport master plan.
The amendment would have also changed, height restrictions within the airport zone that currently stand at 60 feet within the zone. The amendment proposed a series of height restrictions that were stepped back from the scenic routes on Idaho 55 and Deinhard Lane.
Council member Don Bailey and P&Z Chair Bob Youde worked out the proposed amendment in July, Groenevelt said.
That was before the city council passed a development agreement with itself in September to put in place scenic route development restrictions oh the airport.
The amendment would have required airport developers to abide by a 35-foot building height restriction within 75 feet of the scenic routes' right-of-ways.
At 75 feet, the height restriction would be 40 feet, at 100 feet, the height restriction would be 50 feet and at 150 feet from the right-of-way, the height restriction would be 60 feet.
The proposal failed unanimously.
About 15 concerned citizens testified against the amendment
proposal. Most of the citizens liked the removal of the provision that exempts the airport zone from more restrictive development standards, but all were against the stepped back approach to building height restrictions.
Council member-elect Bert Kulesza wanted the changed amendment to follow the city council's more restrictive development agreement passed in September that would require airport developments to follow scenic route development restrictions.
Curt Mack, spokesperson for Community Voice, wanted a 35foot height limit retained on the
entire airport property.
"The community doesn't support airport expansion," Mack said. "Most importantly, 60-foot buildings accommodate larger private jets."
Mack also delivered a petition signed by more than 200 concerned citizens against the proposed amendment.
No one spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. Confusion over the proposed changes in the amendment juxtaposed with the city council's own more restrictive development agreement ultimately doomed the amendment in the opinion of commission member Sarah Jessup.
