Two Rivers amendment put on hold
The Flathead County Planning Board on Wednesday tabled a major land-use change covering more than 1,800 acres north of Kalispell to give itself more time to consider all the information and comments.
The board will resume its discussion of the the Two Rivers master plan amendment at a Dec. 15 work session. No public comment will be accepted during that meeting; the applicants also are prohibited from submitting any additional information.
Wednesday's public hearing on the amendment lasted almost four hours. About 60 people attended the session; other than the applicants, three people spoke in favor and 14 spoke in opposition.
At stake was the type of growth that will take place between U.S. 93 and U.S. 2 in the future, and whether that growth will occur on a piecemeal basis or according to some sort of comprehensive plan.
The Two Rivers proposal would change the land-use designation for much of the area just north of Kalispell from predominantly agricultural to a mixture of commercial, residential, industrial and open space. If approved, subsequent zone change and subdivision requests would allow higher-density development to take place there than currently exists.
For example, the application indicates that there were currently 15 to 20 homes on the various properties involved in this amendment, with the bulk of the land is still being farmed.
However, if the area were ever actually built out to the densities allowed under the requested residential designations, anywhere from 4,300 to more than 6,700 housing units could be added on 1,836 acres.
By comparison, Kalispell covers about 4,700 acres and it had 6,532 total housing units in 2000, according to the 2000 Census.
"We moved out of Kalispell to get away from the urban hubbub," said Andrea Baumgardner, one of several neighbors who spoke in opposition to the amendment. "The last thing I'd want is for that hubbub to be brought out to me. I'm asking that you maintain the rural flavor of the area, with no more than one or two homes per acre and no commercial development."
Eric Bergman said he was concerned that taxpayers would end up paying for the infrastructure improvements needed to support this level of development.
The Two Rivers proposal, he said, would accommodate a population about the size of Kalispell's, yet it offers no insights as to how to pay for road improvements or utilities and doesn't set aside any land for new schools.
"At some point, these issues need to be addressed before you agree to a rezoning that would promote growth on this scale," Bergman said.
However, Wade Fredenberg said the farmers and longtime property owners who are involved in the Two Rivers amendment didn't create the demand for commercial or residential space that has supported record levels of subdivision development and real estate sales in recent years.
Fredenberg is a trustee for the Bauer Trust, one of about 14 applicants who came together to submit this amendment. The trust manages 157 acres in three parcels that were owned by his two great uncles.
"They spent their entire lives on this property," he said. "They didn't initiate the development that's taken place in this area. A whole series of events have brought us here tonight. You can either approve an amendment that was spearheaded by the families who were caretakers of this property since the valley was first settled, or you can see further uncoordinated, piecemeal development done by outsiders who have no roots in the community."
Erica Wirtala with Sands Surveying, which is representing the applicants, said the Two Rivers proposal offers a cohesive, long-term vision for how growth can take place in the central valley. She also noted that this is a logical extension of the higher-density growth that's moving north from Kalispell.
"This isn't sprawl," Wirtala said. "Development has moved out from Kalispell all the way to Reserve Drive, and this [Two Rivers area] is the next concentric layer for growth. As much as we all hate to lose farmland and open space, these farmers deserve to get the highest and best value possible for the land that they've worked for so long."
The latter argument struck a chord even with the opponents. However, given the size of this proposal, several speakers also felt the community as a whole should have some say in how the area develops.
"I believe in and respect the rights of the property owners who are my neighbors and the people I go to church with," Helen Hammer said. "But the rights of the neighbors need to be balanced with the rights of the applicants. We built our homes there thinking that the existing character of the area would be maintained. I think two homes per acre should be the maximum density allowed north of Rose Crossing."
There were also concerns that Kalispell would extend utilities and annex some of these neighborhoods, and almost all of the opponents said Rose Crossing couldn't handle the thousands of additional vehicle trips per day that would be generated by this development.
Johna Morrison, deputy director of the Flathead County Planning Office, reminded the audience that this is just the first of several public steps the applicants would have to go through before the property could actually be developed.
Issues such as annexation, traffic mitigation and commercial uses would be addressed later, she said. Furthermore, the master plan "isn't intended to be carved in stone."
"It's never intended to have a final, end product," Morrison said. "Planning and amendments are an ongoing, never-ending process."
However, Citizens for a Better Flathead executive director Brian Mau said trying to achieve a balance between property rights and the public's legitimate interest in managing growth will remain contentious until Flathead County updates its 17-year-old master plan.
"Until we have a community vision regarding where we want to accommodate growth, we will continue to pit neighbors against neighbors and create winners and losers," he said.
Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com