Two Rivers amendment comes back before planning board

An ongoing debate about how the valley should grow continues on Wednesday, as the Flathead County Planning Board holds its second public hearing on the Two Rivers growth policy amendment.

The proposal, which was initially submitted last fall, would allow higher density residential and commercial development on 1,460 acres located immediately north of Kalispell and Evergreen.

The application raised many of the same questions that are being wrestled with across the Flathead, including:

. What is the proper balance between those who want to get the most value from their land and those who want to conserve and protect the values they already enjoy - values that could be diminished by adjacent development?

. Where, and to what extent, should rural homeowners have to accommodate unwanted growth and urbanization? Why should farm families - some of whom have worked the land for generations - be denied the ability to manage their assets and be forced to accommodate their neighbors' desire for open space?

. When considering substantially changes to the growth policy, should the planning board delay consideration of specific proposals until an overall community vision can be established? Given that the county hasn't managed to overhaul its growth policy in 18 years, how long should developers or landowners have to tread water before they're finally allowed to present their own proposals?

The Two Rivers amendment was submitted by 13 landowners, including several farmers who own large tracts of land. They're proposing to change the land-use designations on their property from largely agricultural to a mix of commercial, residential, industrial and open space.

The land is split into almost two dozen parcels. An estimated 260 acres would be designated as commercial, 210 acres as high-density residential (8+ units per acre), 410 acres as urban residential (3-8 units per acre), 150 acres as suburban residential (2 units per acre), 172 acres as rural residential (1 unit per acre), about 40 acres as industrial, and about 200 acres as open space.

All of the high-density residential parcels would be located south of Rose Crossing and north of West Reserve Drive. There would also be a large commercial/industrial block located on the east side of U.S. 2, just north of Reserve, as well as several open space areas along the Bonneville power line easement and along the Whitefish and Stillwater rivers, plus a large block of urban and rural residential just south of Rose Crossing, adjacent to the Whitefish River.

North of Rose Crossing, there would be a mix of urban, suburban and rural residential designations, with more open space along the Whitefish River and the Bonneville easement, and a block of commercial between Trumble Creek Road and U.S. 2.

These proposed land-uses would help determine what kind of zoning each individual parcel could accommodate. The zoning, in turn, would dictate what type of permitted and conditional uses could go there, as well as the minimum lot size and setback requirements.

Dozens of letters have been submitted regarding the amendment.

A handful of nearby property owners - including a real estate division of the Hagadone Corp., which owns The Daily Inter Lake and the Mountain Villa apartment complex on West Reserve Drive - expressed their support for the change.

Most of the letters, though, were in opposition. They cited a variety of concerns, including excessive density, inadequate traffic and sewer infrastructure, potential costs to taxpayers and the overall size of the amendment proposal.

"A [1,460-acre] chunk with every possible use and zoning mix makes it impossible to accurately assess what the true impacts from any single portion of the proposed changes might be," said one letter. "Do you really want to be responsible for the annihilation and destruction of all character and scenic integrity throughout the entire Flathead Valley?"

"As a neighbor, I'm disturbed that this proposal would allow such high-density [land uses] far beyond the present infrastructure, with no clear plan and no corridor defined for joining to that infrastructure," noted another.

The letters consistently opposed higher-density residential development, as the neighbors sought to preserve the generally rural character of the area. There were also numerous suggestions that the Two Rivers amendment be tabled until the county growth policy update is completed.

Beyond that, the complaints were often at polar opposites.

Some people, for example, suggested that this amendment amounted to "spot planning." Others, though, said it was too general and that it should be resubmitted as a series of smaller, individual amendments.

Some opponents were concerned that the application didn't specify who would provide sewer service to this area; others, though, were more concerned because it said Kalispell might provide service.

Traffic infrastructure and pedestrian safety were major issues for the opponents, and for the planning board, which held several workshops to discuss the proposal.

The applicants tried to address these concerns by offering to dedicate road easements and bike path easements along all of the major roads adjoining their property. Together with the proposed open space along the river corridors, this could result in several miles of connected bike trails once the area is fully developed.

The planning office report suggests that the Two Rivers amendment "provides a concentric growth area for Kalispell, with like uses clustered together," and says it "appears to qualify for the requested designations because they are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Flathead County growth policy."

The public hearing on this proposal takes place in the second floor conference room of the Earl Bennett Building, beginning at 6 p.m. After the planning board makes its recommendation, the issue goes to the county commissioners for a final decision.