Planners table Riverdale proposal

After a number of meetings, workshops and postponed planning board hearings, Riverdale community members had good reason to hope their proposed neighborhood plan would get a verdict from the Flathead County Planning Board on Thursday night.

They were wrong.

The planning board made more than 60 changes to the draft plan before they called it quits for the night at about midnight.

Board member Kim Flemming proposed a motion to table the plan indefinitely but the motion failed to gain any support.

The board voted to temporarily table the hearing, but did not reschedule.

"After six hours, there was just no appetite to schedule a continuation," Planning Director Jeff Harris said.

The future of the 3,000-acre plan now lies in the hands of the planning board. Until a board member moves to re-examine the plan, it will sit on the shelf.

The neighborhood plan encompasses the area located west of U.S. 93 between Church Drive and the Flathead County Landfill.

Eleven members of the public spoke at Thursday's meeting.

Hank Galpin, one of the major landowners within the plan area, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood. He said that despite the frustration of having the plan put on hold a number of times, he was glad that it had been delayed.

"This is a much better plan because we were forced to wait for the growth policy," he said.

Galpin said he saw the neighborhood plan as "balanced guidance" that would help the area prepare for the future.

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead expressed concern that there was no compatibility between the land-use designations in the neighborhood plan and the county's zoning regulations.

Setbacks from U.S. 93 were another concern for Flowers. Her presentation included a slide show of different corridor setbacks around the valley. She touted Riverdale's neighbor, the Silverbrook subdivision, as a example of good setbacks because the developers created berms to help block the sight and noise created by the highway.

Flowers and a few others spoke about their concern that the area north of Kalispell might become overrun with commercial development if Riverdale's proposed mixed-use development was allowed along U.S. 93. Flowers noted that across Church Drive from the plan area is the Silverdale subdivision that includes 16 acres of planned commercial development.

Sharon DeMeester suggested that including all the nearby subdivisions and planned commercial centers, the area between Kalispell and Whitefish would soon have approximately 690 acres of approved commercial development.

"There is no way it will be used up in the next 20 years," she said.

Gary Kruger, a Riverdale resident, who in the past was very vocal about his opposition of being included in the plan, also spoke at Thursday's meeting.

Kruger said that his recent lack of opposition was more about exhaustion than acquiescence.

Kruger, who operates a gravel pit, is also in the process of applying for another gravel pit permit and a batch plant permit. The Riverdale plan does not include a designation that would allow for gravel operations.

The planning board asked Kruger questions pertaining to the location of gravel in the Riverdale area.

Later Kruger said, "I think the planning board is figuring out how important it is to know where the gravel is. We can't build subdivisions on top of our resources."

According to Harris, the board's major concerns dealt with the commercial development planned and whether is was necessary.

The board eliminated a goal stating that "general commercial development to sustain the viability of business operation within the Highway 93 corridor."

The board felt that the commercial development in Riverdale should focus on supporting the Riverdale neighborhood, not the entire corridor.

The board also changed a policy to reduce the total acreage allowed in neighborhood commercial areas. It stated that neighborhood commercial clusters would exist on no more than four acres. The board changed that to no more than two acres.

Harris explained that there were comments from the board saying the plan was good, but there was a need for more information on surrounding commercial development and additional infrastructure, such as roads. The board also requested further guidance on land-use policies.

Though the board did not make it through the land-use categories, Harris said that the changes the board was making to the plan's text appeared to be leading to either amending or eliminating the mixed-use land-use designation.

Flowers said she was pleased with the type of changes the planning board made to the plan. "The planning board was clearly listening to the concerns of the public."

Reporter Amy May may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at amay@dailyinterlake.com