'Squeezing a St. Bernard through the cat door'

By WILLIAM L. SPENC

Planning board says growth policy needs more time, details

EThe Daily Inter Lake

In their first formal reaction to the draft growth policy, Flathead County Planning Board members expressed doubts about the basic approach being taken with the document.

The draft was written in five months by the county planning staff, following two months of public meetings. It offers general guidelines for future growth and development in the Flathead, rather than specific expectations or a detailed vision.

During a three-hour workshop on Thursday, however, several planning board members indicated that this approach was vague and insufficient.

"I think the staff did a tremendous job for the amount of time they had, but it isn't complete yet," board president Jeff Larsen said. "I couldn't stand on my property, look at this policy and figure out what I can or can't do. I think the development community and the public wants more predictability, and this document doesn't give it to them."

Gene Dziza said the staff "did an amazing amount of work in the time they had," but felt it was better to have no growth policy than a bad one that didn't adequately address the public's concerns.

"It feels to me like we need to slow down," Dziza said. "We're trying to squeeze a St. Bernard in through the cat door."

The planning staff has consistently acknowledged that more-detailed management plans, neighborhood plans and land-use maps are needed to provide the clear guidance and predictability that the planning board, county commissioners and local residents want.

The issue, according to Planning Director Jeff Harris, is whether the growth policy should be put on hold for years until all these additional plans are ready, or whether it should evolve over time and incorporate more-detailed plans and maps one by one as they're developed.

"What Flathead County has today is a very outdated 1987 master plan," Harris explained. "There's a tremendous need for more current long-range planning, but we don't have the tools to get us there. Getting those tools [the maps and detailed management plans] will take time.

"So the question becomes, how do we move forward? Do you want one 'silver-bullet' growth policy, or do you see this as a living document that changes and incorporates new elements over time?"

The board didn't directly respond to that question, although most members seemed to think the draft was still in the embryo stage.

Several suggested that, at a minimum, the growth policy had to include land-use maps or the proposed development predictability map before they would be comfortable recommending it for approval.

"If we're really going to take public comment seriously, there's no way we can have this ready after three workshops," Randy Toavs said. "Everyone wants to see maps - maps that indicate what [land uses] we have now and what would be allowed in the future. We need to slow down, take some time and get some of these details."

Kim Fleming, on the other hand, noted that the land-use map included in the 1987 master plan has done nothing but invite litigation and promote false expectations.

"Even though it's only a guide, people cling to the map - and the ones who cling to it are the ones who don't want anything to happen," Fleming said. "They don't accept that developers can do something different than what the map says. I don't agree that we need maps" in the new growth policy.

Charles Lapp said land-use maps and the growth policy go hand-in-hand, so he was reluctant to adopt one without the other.

He also wanted a definitions section that spelled out what the terms used in the growth policy actually mean.

"We've heard over and over that people want things to be more clear," Lapp said. "They want to open up the growth policy and know where we're going, so it isn't subject to interpretation. We need to take individual interpretation out of this thing as much as we can."

After everyone had their say, the board began its review of the draft, discussing each goal and policy individually and making minor modifications to most.

The only notable change was to delete Policy 4.2, which addressed transferable development rights and voluntary open space preservation. Some board members were opposed to transferable development rights; others felt the concept could be addressed elsewhere in the document, without needing its own policy.

The board will continue its review of the draft growth policy on Tuesday and Thursday. Both work sessions will be in the second-floor conference room of the Earl Bennett Building, beginning at 6 p.m.

The board is currently scheduled to offer a recommendation on the draft policy on Sept. 19, but it could hold more work sessions if it chooses.

Copies of the draft growth policy, as well as a report listing public comments and the planning staff's suggested revisions, are available on the planning office Web site at www.co.flathead.mt.us/fcpz/growthpolicy.html

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