The Columbia Falls City Council voted 5-1 not to rezone half a dozen properties on U.S. 2 East with a new CB-3 limited commercial corridor zoning district.

The vote followed a lengthy discussion at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, with input from affected property owners and neighbors. Councilor Shawn Bates cast the lone nay vote.

That same night, the council unanimously approved the creation of the CB-3 zoning district in the city code with a second and final vote. The new zoning district was created with U.S. 2 East in mind and will remain available if another rezoning request comes to the city.

The Columbia Falls City-County Planning Board recommended rezoning the neighborhood at its June 11 meeting. The vote was 6-1. Mayor Don Barnhart cast the lone nay vote, noting that there seemed to be little demand for the zoning change at this point and no clear commercial interest.

Planning consultant Eric Mulcahy, who sought to strike a balance between the residential character of the neighborhood and commercialization of the U.S. 2 strip, drafted the proposed zoning text. City staff and some residents also wanted to protect the look of the east entrance to the city.

Another concern was if buyers would still be able to get mortgages for homes changed to a commercial zone. City manager Susan Nicosia said she asked around and learned that buyers would be impacted by federal loans but not conventional bank loans.

“If it looks like a house, then it can get a conventional loan like a house,” Nicosia said.

The city received several letters about the proposal, and two people addressed the council during the public hearing. In both cases, the comments were split about 50-50 for or against rezoning the area.

N. Kelly and Crystal Ferguson wrote that they had lived in the neighborhood but moved to Tamarack Lane to escape noise and pollution from highway traffic. Now they were trying to sell their former home, but prospective buyers commented on it being too close to the highway. They said five other owners in the neighborhood were also trying to sell their homes without success. Kelly and Ferguson supported rezoning the area “lightly commercial.”

Mike and Melissa Hahne opposed rezoning in their letter. They said they bought their property on U.S. 2 East in 2006 because they liked the views of the river and mountains and for the peace and quiet. They also noted that numerous empty commercial lots could be found for development half a mile west on the highway.

Addressing the council, Ilse Knight opposed the change. She described traffic hazards and congestion on U.S. 2 that were made worse in summertime by the Teakettle Fishing Access Site next to the bridge.

“There was an accident there just last week,” she said.

Judy Territo told the council she was in favor of rezoning the neighborhood. She noted that the Montana Department of Transportation provided four lanes and a middle turn lane, so the area was prepared for development.

“Let’s catch some of the passing tourist traffic,” she said.

As the council took up the proposal, councilor Darin Fisher said he was concerned about whether it might be considered “spot zoning.” He said he’d rather see more commercial development on Nucleus Avenue and on empty commercial lots around the city.

City attorney Justin Breck advised the council about the legal meaning of “spot zoning.” Referring to a recent ruling by Flathead County District Court Judge David Ortley and Montana Supreme Court precedent, Breck said spot zoning refers to a significant change in the current zoning in a small area where few people benefit rather than the community at large.

Councilor Dave Petersen said he was looking for a “compelling reason” to approve the zoning change.

“We already have lots of good sites that are zoned commercial and already have city water and sewer,” he said.

Petersen also agreed with Knight about traffic hazards on U.S. 2 East.

“Why would we want to add to that?” he asked.

He also raised a point made by local Realtor Bill Dakin that back lots on many commercial properties tend to become eyesores over time. This would impact any residential properties located behind a business.

Councilor Shawn Bates said he favored the rezoning proposal. He said he was pro-business and the highway traffic never bothered him.

When Barnhart asked if individual property owners could come back and ask for the new CB-3 zoning, Nicosia said yes.

“But I always advise people buying property not to assume they will get the zoning changed to what they want,” she said.

Nicosia said the city was trying to be proactive by coming up with a new highway corridor zoning district after several property owners approached the city about rezoning the neighborhood.

“It’s been a very good process,” she said. “We learned a lot from the neighbors and got a lot of input that could be used if the request comes back.”