Columbia Falls council approves annexation, PUD and preliminary plat for 421‑unit Tettle Heights development

Columbia Falls — The City Council voted in a series of actions on Jan. 2026 to annex 78.05 acres, change the zoning and approve a planned-unit development (PUD) and preliminary plat for the Tettle Heights subdivision, clearing the way for a proposed 421‑unit development north of town.

Planner Eric Mcki told the council the applicant seeks annexation and an initial zoning of CR5 (two‑family residential) with a PUD overlay and a preliminary plat that would create 125 single‑family detached lots, 56 single‑family attached lots and 240 apartment units. "The applicant is proposing a density of 5.4 dwellings per acre," Mcki said during the presentation.

The project site is 78.05 acres and was described in staff materials as part of the former SEFAC holding; Mcki said the specific 78‑acre portion proposed for development does not require EPA remediation under the SEFAC record of decision. The PUD requests a 45‑foot height deviation for multifamily buildings (the city standard is 35 feet) and includes roughly 26.3 acres of parks and open space, about one‑third of the site.

Council members and residents spent more than two hours questioning staff and the applicant about traffic impacts, sewer capacity, wildfire access, buffers between the apartments and the adjacent Tracy's Aluminum City neighborhood, and how the project would interact with monitoring wells and institutional controls tied to the Superfund boundary.

Public comment at the hearing was extensive and divided. Allison Smeltz, a nearby resident, asked the council to "table" action until EPA cleanup plans and monitoring rules are finalized, arguing the council should have more complete information before approving legislative land‑use decisions. Many neighbors cited wildlife‑habitat loss, traffic increases and groundwater concerns; others urged the council to approve the plan to add a diversity of housing in Columbia Falls.

EPA and state environmental officials participated in the meeting online and told the council that long‑term groundwater monitoring wells will remain accessible and that the portion of the site under review did not require surface remediation. An EPA representative explained restrictions on new groundwater wells in the Superfund boundary are intended to avoid inducing contaminant migration by creating new pumping gradients.

Council members amended multiple conditions tied to the preliminary plat before the final votes. Changes included staff wording fixes to the developer financing offer (clarifying the advertised mortgage concession as "1% below market"), a requirement that CC&Rs disclose Superfund history and that the same disclosure appear on the face of the final plat, a council‑added waiver of protest language related to special improvement districts for park maintenance, and preferred language for native plant palettes in the landscaping plan.

To reduce impacts on adjacent homeowners, the council directed the developer to swap the four westernmost apartment buildings and their parking—placing the apartment structures farther from existing property lines and shifting parking behind the buildings—creating an approximately 120‑foot setback from western property lines for those buildings as a condition of approval.

One condition originally read by staff (a comfort‑status letter referencing six EPA steps) was removed after staff and EPA said the six steps were not applicable to the specific 78‑acre portion being approved. The council voted to delete that condition.

Council action and final votes: the record shows the annexation staff report and related resolution and ordinances were approved in roll calls taken during the meeting. The preliminary plat CCP‑2601 and the PUD CPU‑2601 were approved with the amended conditions described above.

Developer‑offered financing: The PUD application included an owner‑financing proposal intended to expand buyer access (an alternative financing package with 2% down and an interest rate concession). Council directed staff to clarify the contract language so the concession is described in the condition as "1% below market." Council and commenters discussed disclosure and title reporting; staff noted CC&Rs will be recorded and appear in title searches and preliminary title reports for purchasers.

What happens next: With annexation, rezoning, PUD and preliminary plat approvals in hand, the developer will move to final plats and engineering. Conditions require final engineering approvals, fire‑chief signoff on hydrants, verification of downstream sewer capacity (with developer responsibility for required upgrades), MDOT approach permits for North Fork Road access, and the preservation of EPA monitoring wells/access easements. Several council conditions require details (native plant palettes, landscaping caliper sizes, buffer planting standards and CC&R disclosures) to be resolved in the construction and final‑plat documents.

Council members said the decision balanced the city’s stated housing goals with additional protections added at the meeting. The council held multiple votes and amendments during the session and closed the meeting after approving the package of land‑use actions and scheduling routine city business.