C. Falls City Council denies Twin Peaks Farms proposal

By NANCY KIMBALL

The Daily Inter Lake

In a unanimous move Monday night by the Columbia Falls City Council, Idaho developer Ron Mayhew was dealt a significant setback to his Twin Peaks Farms proposal.

Taking issue with the staff report's finding that Mayhew's tract just east of the U.S. 2 bridge over the Flathead River is best suited to urban residential zoning, all seven council members voted against the findings of fact that recommended rezoning from suburban agricultural to city density.

His request to rezone those 10 acres of high-groundwater land on the north side of the highway stood as a test case of sorts.

If successful, it could have smoothed the way for two other developers with a combined 82 acres of nearby land along what has been called the Columbia Falls gateway to Glacier National Park.

Those developers now will decide whether to proceed with original plans or to alter their zoning and development requests.

With the Twin Peaks Farms zoning, Mayhew could have developed as many as 32 lots. Although he had not yet presented a proposal, he has said he would consider duplex condominiums or homes as the market demands.

The council decision came after members tabled their discussion and final vote when the June 5 public hearing ran late into the night.

City Manager and Planning Director Bill Shaw wrote in his staff report that, though "there may be some conflict between adjacent agriculture uses and residential uses," the site's proximity to the city and its immediate access to U.S. 2 "makes [the tract] a reasonably suitable area for urban development."

He also wrote that "urban scale development would seem to be the most logical pattern of development for this site."

"I don't agree," council member Doug Karper said.

He said the staff report was well done, the city followed proper procedure, the report included necessary technical background, the owner gave an impressive presentation and the public gave good comments.

Still, he wasn't convinced it was the best move for the city.

"It boils down to density. That's a ton of housing," Karper said. "I see that as more of a transition area, not the city. This [proposal] makes it become more of an extension than a transition.

"To me, the character of that area is just what it is now - low density, a transition area from the city," he said.

kkellogg 6/20/06 Recounting Mayhew's words that he was attracted to the area when he spotted it a year or so ago, Karper reasoned that Mayhew himself must have liked its rural character.

"I would like lower density, if possible," Karper said. "That would make it easier to approve."

Mayor Jolie Fish echoed Karper's thoughts.

"It is so important that every move we make" is done carefully, she said.

Earlier, City Attorney Eric Kaplan had cited two court decisions, one from 1981 on a master plan decision, and the other from last week on Bucky Wolford's Glacier Mall proposal. From those, Kaplan said, it is clear the council must show it considered public input on any decision it makes about Twin Peaks or other zoning requests, and that it must substantially, but not strictly, comply with the city's growth policy.

"It would be great if it's an ideal development, but we have not seen the plan," Fish said. "Timing for the city of Columbia Falls is wrong to rezone this district."

kkellogg 6/20/06 Karper added that the development could be more appropriate on the south side of the highway.

"It is a very different area to the south," Fish agreed.

Council member Don Barnhart cautioned his colleagues to consider both sides of the issue, reminding them that the growth policy targets this area for urban residential zoning.

"We decided this was OK," Barnhart said. "We can change our minds, but we've got to bear it in mind."

Council member Julie Plevel, a real-estate agent accustomed to working with property development, said professional oversight was needed.

kkellogg 6/20/06 "The geotechnical investigation and report tells me this is a complex piece of property, and it will need professional oversight in many phases," Plevel said. "My biggest concern is that we don't have the planning director or engineer to oversee this. If we approved this, would be have the staff to follow it?

"This site is definitely destined for development," she admitted, "but this is premature."

"This might not be the right place for this development to occur," council member Harvey Reikofski agreed with Karper.

Council member Mike Shepard said he would have argued for an open-space designation instead of residential zoning in the growth policy. He also said he doesn't like the strip development Mayhew's request fosters.

kkellogg 6/20/06 Barnhart reminded his colleagues they still could guide development in the future.

"If we approve this, we can come up with a lot of controls on the PUD (planned unit development plat)," he said. "We could put on restrictions that we feel are necessary to fulfill the [concerns]. Both sides have to be weighed."

Karper conceded the point, but held firm on his premise.

"The one thing we can't condition is density," Karper said. "Once we establish the zone, we live with the density the zone allows."

Applying the 12 statutory criteria that the staff report must address is important, Barnhart said. Fish said she could understand both sides when viewed in that light.

Council member Charlie McCubbins questioned whether conditions of approval set forth in the zone-change recommendation could require Mayhew to address the standing water on the land and prevent runoff to neighboring land.

Shaw said it is rare to ask for mitigation at this point instead of waiting until the plat is submitted, "but I've seen it done."

"There are several other tracts of land there," Shepard said. "This is going to be precedent-setting."

With the council's final vote not to accept Shaw's findings of fact, any vote on a rezone became a moot point.

Shaw said Tuesday that Mayhew now is asking to submit a rezone and planned-unit-development proposal, but his permission is the key now.

"Once we have a rezone denied, then it becomes the discretion of the zoning administrator," Shaw said. He is advising Mayhew to "come up with a brief report on what has changed and I will decide," with timing no longer an issue. The city has 90 days to respond to a development application.

"I would encourage them to let things settle, to review what the council has let them know. There's no deadlines now."

Reporter Nancy Kimball can be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at nkimball@dailyinterlake.com.