Riverdale plan bounced back to board

Like a battered ball in a pinball machine, the 3,800-acre Riverdale Neighborhood Plan continues to ricochet its way through Flathead County's planning process.

The plan, which would allow significant residential and commercial development along the west side of U.S. 93 between Big Mountain Golf Club and the county landfill, was bounced back to the county Planning Board on Tuesday.

Even though the board has twice failed to reach a decision on the proposal, the county commissioners want it to take another shot. Commissioners voted 2-1 on Tuesday to give the board "approximately 120 days" to revamp the Riverdale plan and turn it into something the commissioners can support.

"And if we aren't happy with what they send back in 120 days, then we'll send it back to them again," Commissioner Gary Hall said. "I want them to work on it until they get it right."

Hall's comments came near the end of a 2 1/2-hour discussion about Riverdale.

The plan was submitted by about a dozen major property owners. As presented, it would convert the land-use designation from agricultural to residential and commercial, allowing up to 3,700 homes and business to be built in an area that currently has fewer than two dozen homes.

When the Planning Board first reviewed the proposal last March, it tabled the application for two months. Some members felt a plan of this magnitude shouldn't be adopted before the countywide growth-policy update is completed later this year. Others had concerns about the 320 acres of commercial development included in the plan, as well as traffic impacts and infrastructure availability.

However, tabling the application did nothing to address these concerns. When the board resumed its discussion of Riverdale earlier this month, no effort was made to tweak the proposal, change it or modify it in any significant way. Board members voted on it as initially presented, producing a 3-3 tie.

At the time, some board members specifically said they didn't feel it was their job to rewrite the plan.

Previous boards have displayed this same reluctance, particularly with large development proposals and growth-policy amendments. Some board members don't want to impose their views or preferences on the property owners; others feel they're busy enough as it is without doing the applicants' or Planning Office's job for them.

On the few occasions when they have attempted to revamp a proposal, it's been marginally successful.

For example, the board held several work sessions on the 1,460-acre Two Rivers growth-policy amendment last year, after it was bumped back to them by the commissioners.

The additional review resulted in some improvements, such as dedicated road easements along major transportation routes and a new north-south road corridor to accommodate future traffic increases.

However, those concessions were volunteered by the property owners. The Planning Board itself asked for and made very few changes. Several members didn't even attend the work sessions. Some suggested that if a proposal still needs substantial modifications by the time it gets to the Planning Board, then it would be better to reject it and make the applicants start all over.

The commissioners apparently don't share that viewpoint.

"I was very disappointed in the planning board by their work on Riverdale," Hall said. "I think this is a good plan. It does need some work, but I'm not comfortable denying."

Hall said the commissioners learn from previous decisions, and one of the things they learned from Two Rivers is that plan amendments need to be very specific about how development proceeds.

He said he wants the revamped Riverdale plan to address such issues as the phasing of development, how infrastructure needs will be addressed - such as road corridors and public sewer and water - and how the proposed commercial development along U.S. 93 should be handled.

Commissioner Joe Brenneman cited a number of statements in the application that he felt were unsupported by any evidence. He wanted the Riverdale property owners to provide additional information so that the application and planning staff report "are as lawsuit-proof as possible."

He also suggested postponing a decision until the county growth policy is finished, but he wanted to keep working on Riverdale in the meantime.

"I think neighborhood plans are an excellent tool, and the best way for them to happen is when people get together, like these landowners have," Brenneman said. "But I continue to feel that adopting a neighborhood plan while we're waiting for the growth policy is like overhauling an engine while the engine is running."

Commissioner Bob Watne said sending Riverdale back to the planning board wasn't going to do much.

"It's been to the planning board and they couldn't make a decision. Now it's to us and we can't make a decision. Someone needs to make a decision," he said.

By giving the Planning Board "approximately 120 days" to revise the plan, the commissioners almost guaranteed that Riverdale won't be finished until after the growth policy update is complete.

By state statute, the growth policy has to be adopted by Oct. 1 - 123 days from now.

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