Board recommends Two Rivers proposal on 7-2 vote

The Two Rivers growth policy amendment survived a last-minute "coup attempt" and earned a favorable recommendation from the Flathead County Planning Board on Wednesday.

Following five hours of public testimony and discussion, the board voted 7-2 to support approval of the proposal, which would change the land-use designation on 1,460 acres located north of Kalispell and Evergreen to allow for higher density development.

About 70 people attended the meeting, although few stayed around for its conclusion. Thirteen people offered testimony, not including the applicants, with 10 speaking in opposition.

Several agency representatives also spoke to the issue, including Kalispell City Manager Jim Patrick and Flathead City-County Health Department Director Joe Russell, both of whom encouraged the board to approve the amendment.

The amount of agency comment was unusual, but the most surprising proceeding on Wednesday was a last-minute submittal by four of the planning board's nine members.

Despite four public work sessions over the last two months - during which the board as a whole offered minimal feedback on the proposal - these four members recently met on their own and came up with a major revision of the Two Rivers application.

The group modified many of the land uses outlined in the amendment, and vastly expanded the area it covered, incorporating essentially all of the land between U.S. 93 and U.S. 2, from Birch Grove Road south to West Reserve Drive.

Board president Don Hines said the revision was his doing.

"I contacted a couple of other board members to get their thoughts ahead of time," he said.

The other members involved were Kim Fleming, Kathy Robertson and Cal Scott.

The "sole purpose" of the move, Hines said, was to methodically address some of the complex issues raised by the Two Rivers amendment, rather than wait until Wednesday and rush the board discussion.

The board as a whole has struggled with this application since it was first submitted. Understanding the potential long-term impacts on traffic flows, public safety, sewer infrastructure, affordable housing and other issues has been difficult, given the proposal's size and scope.

Rather than postpone consideration of these items until the zoning and subdivision stages of the planning process, as has happened in the past, these four members apparently tried to resolve some of them upfront, on their own.

"I want us to start setting precedents as far as what we think is a responsible [growth policy] amendment, and let developers know what we expect," Scott said. "We're going to take a responsible position and we want them to start stepping up."

However, the revision went well beyond anything that was discussed during the public workshops. It ended up becoming a new land-use map for the entire central valley.

Furthermore, the Two Rivers applicants didn't even see the revision until Wednesday afternoon, which gave them little opportunity to respond. The public - including the many landowners who might ultimately be affected by the use designations being dictated for their neighborhoods - never saw it at all.

Consequently, the four board members chose not to introduce the revision during Wednesday's hearing.

Instead, they offered a handful of amendments to the application, most of which were based on previously available information.

Scott, for example, wanted a 120-foot easement set aside along Whitefish Stage Road (60 feet on each side of the centerline) and along West Reserve Drive, with 80 feet along Trumble Creek Road and at least 80 feet along Rose Crossing.

He said he intended to apply that same standard to any other planning applications that come before the board.

He also proposed a 100-foot building setback from the edge of any river, stream or the 100-year floodplain.

Robin Street, one of the Two Rivers applicants and a long-time Flathead Conservation District board member, suggested that the planning board adopt the setbacks and best-management practices recommended by the state's resource experts, as opposed to "just coming up with your own standards."

The state guidelines recommend a 50-foot setback, according to information that Street provided to the board.

The board adopted that standard and the road easement amendment on 8-1 votes. It also took the recommendations provided by the Kalispell City Planning Board and appended them to the application.

(Given the likelihood that Kalispell will end up providing sewer service to at least a portion of the Two Rivers area, the county invited the city board to comment on the proposal.)

Despite the changes, Fleming said she still couldn't support the Two Rivers application because it only covered a portion of the central valley. By approving it as written, she said, the board was simply inviting an endless series of growth policy amendments from private developers and landowners.

However, board member Jeff Larsen said the basic question was whether this area was appropriate for higher-density development.

"Being this close to Kalispell and to city services, I think it's obvious that it is," he said.

Gene Dziza said he hated the application when he first saw it. Over time, though, he became convinced that the public safety, health and welfare could be safeguarded through the imposition of conditions during the zoning and subdivision stages.

"When I look at these proposed land uses, I can't find fault with them," Dziza said. "And I'm not going to tell Mr. Street or the other applicants that I enjoy the aesthetics of their farms and want them kept that way."

The Two Rivers proposal now goes to the Flathead County commissioners for final action. They could adopt, revise or deny the application, or bump it back to the planning board for further consideration.

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com