C. Falls Planning Board rejects rezone

Blue Moon development now goes to City Council

Despite conceding that land near the junction of U.S. 2 and Montana 40 is destined for development, the Columbia Falls City-County Planning Board said the right plan is not in hand yet.

Board members turned down a rezone request from Columbia Falls Land Associates Tuesday night for 212 acres southwest of the Blue Moon Nite Club.

Their recommendation for denial now goes to the Columbia Falls City Council, which has the option to approve or deny the rezone.

The bottom line was that the San Francisco-based developer did not submit enough detail on how commercial and residential portions would be filled.

"I think this will be about a $90 million project," board member Dave Renfrow estimated. He based his figure on probable selling prices for the developed lots.

"I'm offended," Renfrow continued, arguing that developers could have researched and refined their proposal. "It's a joke to have a rezone request based on no information."

But the planning board also told Johna Morrison and Eric Garber of Schwarz Architecture and Engineering, who represented the developers at the board meeting, that the potential housing was too dense, there was too much commercial acreage and a phasing plan and timeline should have been submitted.

A more-detailed master plan for the site may solve the dilemma, the board suggested.

Columbia Falls Land Associates is asking for a zone change that would dedicate 65 acres of the 212 to a business park. The Columbia Falls Business Park plat, tentatively set for review in October, includes a 21-acre parcel, four four-acre parcels, and 16 lots of about an acre.

When rights of way and open space are removed from the equation, about 56 acres are left for commercial buildings.

The remaining 147 acres would go to single-family homes and a buffer zone that could allow apartments, day cares, professional clinics and the like. The requested zoning would pave the way for 802 housing units. But Tuesday night Morrison insisted developers plan no more than "the heavy 400s, possibly 500."

After beginning talks with City Manager Bill Shaw a year ago, developers approached the board in March 2006. The board supported 45 acres of commercial land, but asked for a more detailed master plan.

Board members Tuesday night received a map labeled as a master plan, but they were not satisfied.

"I need something to hang my hat on," board member Trent Miller said. Typically, he said, he has been able to explain details and why he voted for rezones and plats this year.

"But with this, I have nothing to tell them (regarding) what we just voted on," Miller said.

Board Chairman Sarah Dakin questioned whether this would be seen as a wise move 20 years from now.

"This will hurt our commercial. We need a more vital commercial zone" along Nucleus and the U.S. 2 corridor, Dakin said. She reminded colleagues of in-town shopping options that have dried up since the 1970s. "I want to let that come back, not start with this way out by the Blue Moon."

During the public hearing, resident and business owner Barry Conger said commercial development was his biggest concern, particularly at an entryway to the city. "Games are being played" with acreage numbers, he said.

"But it's still 65 acres of pavement and neon," Conger said.

The city's growth policy calls for careful development of entryways and preservation of its small-town ambiance.

Later, Garber expressed his frustration with the board seemingly not holding to its own growth policy standards after his team worked to comply.

"Your growth policy has industrial" zoning projected in that area, Garber said, "and we're not asking for that." He argued that the proposed residential-commercial mix would present a more pleasing entryway. "How do we keep the small town ambiance?" he asked.

"We followed the growth policy and now you tell us you want more detail."

A few minutes earlier, Morrison had voiced the same frustration.

"I feel like you guys have told me to go paint a picture and given me no colors to work with," she said.

In her presentation earlier, Morrison said the board would see 25 pages of architectural design standards for the business park at next months' meeting, "but I hesitate to draw anything for the residential portion until I hear from you," she said.

She tallied some directives to date - no piecemeal development, interconnected bike trails, landscape buffers, a sense of community and visual corridors. She advocated an access at the wooded area midway through the property, and asked for ideas for the park or open space.

Traffic on the two highways will be a prime concern. Morrison said developers will push for traffic lights at all access points, but must comply with what Montana Department of Transportation dictates.

In the public hearing, Kris DeMeester of Citizens for a Better Flathead handed board members an information packet and read a letter of protest based on a long list of factors, affordable housing and agricultural land loss among them.

Hidden Meadow Lane resident and former hospital developer Bill Kane urged developers to put their housing intentions in writing, decried adding to Montana 40 congestion, and said this zone change would detract from existing businesses "and fragment the city more than it already is."

He also questioned what the board knows of these developers.

"There's no key partner here to do a presentation. That's embarrassing," Kane said. "I'm not in the middle of the road. It's either fish or cut bait, and I'm opposed to this."

Kelly Road resident Veronica Honthaas argued for growth to focus closer to the center of the city.

"The size is just too big and too much," Honthaas said. "There will be too much impact on our little town of Columbia Falls."

Board member Joe O'Rourke argued that this could be a boost for the city. Restaurants in the development could stem the tide of families driving out of town for dinner, he said, and increased housing stock is a positive.

"Perhaps this could be a reasonable opportunity for young people moving in to choose Columbia Falls," he said.

The board discussed offering the option, at the developer's election, to table action until a revised plan could be submitted. But Garber said Schwarz Architecture has no authority to make those decisions.

Renfrow, opposing the sudden growth but advocating for the location, said a conversation needs to take place over six to 12 months.

O'Rourke cautioned his colleagues against negativity.

"I sense this board and council are putting up massive road blocks," he said, and sending out the message "we're happy just as we are."

"I disagree," board member Erick Robbins said. "We're just saying we're going to be careful."

Vukonich said the project "intrigues" him, but he has doubts about what the city would get until he sees a firm plan.

"We've been discovered," Dakin said. "But we live here, so let's tell the people what we want for our community and not let them tell us."

Final vote to recommend denial was 6-2, with O'Rourke and Sue Haverfield voting against the recommendation and board member Lindy Key absent.