Planning a key issue in commissioner race

From shopping malls to major subdivisions, few things in the Flathead seem to attract as much public scrutiny as land-use planning and growth-related issues.

People here have strong opinions about what constitutes good development or good planning, and what constitutes meddling. They aren't reluctant to voice those opinions, either - or to go to court when they don't like the response.

Consequently, local elected officials spend a fair amount of their time addressing land-use concerns and making decisions that affect how the valley will grow. A review of the Flathead County commissioner minutes, for example, indicates that about half their agenda items deal directly with land-use planning or growth issues.

The Inter Lake asked commissioner candidates Joe Brenneman (Democrat) and Denise Cofer (Republican) to discuss their views on planning.

Their responses:

. What's been your personal experience or involvement with the land-use planning process here?

Brenneman: I served for four years as a county member on the Kalispell City-County Planning Board, from 1996 until just before the board was dissolved.

When I first came on the board, it seemed to be more balanced. There were a number of 5-4 votes. In the last two years, after several members had been replaced, the vote on similar issues seemed to be 8-1, with me being the one.

I'm not going to pretend that I was always right, but citizen boards only have value if they're balanced. It makes no sense to appoint nine people who think the same way I do. There needs to be different perspectives; only then will the board's recommendations have value.

Cofer: I haven't had any personal involvement with the planning board or planning office. I have watched the process closely.

If I'm elected, I would anticipate a steep learning curve - but I'm a quick learner. When an issue comes up, I always study it carefully and look at both sides before making a decision.

. Four years ago, the county announced that it was withdrawing from the Flathead Regional Development Office (which had previously handled planning for the county and the three cities) and forming its own planning office.

At the time, there was a great deal of concern about that being the end of a 25-year joint planning relationship. Have there been any significant consequences from that split?

Cofer - I think Flathead County should be proud of itself for [initiating] that split. If you look at Missoula, they're going through the same thing right now. We were years ahead of the curve.

The planning process here works about as well as any. When someone starts through the process, they go to the planning office and it works with them and walks them through the requirements. And when someone doesn't like what's being proposed, the office works with them, too, and walks them through the process. I'm not saying it's perfect, but overall it's a good system.

Brenneman - I don't think the case could be made that there was any savings of tax dollars, which was one of the reasons given for the split. However, this is what we have now. The issue is what's the best way to move forward, rather than casting stones about who was at fault.

. Planning in the Flathead currently seems to be developer-driven. For example, a local developer recently saw a need for more industrial property in the valley. He requested a master plan amendment to accommodate that need - as opposed to the planning board realizing that there was a need and calling for a public hearing to determine where the community as a whole wanted to locate such uses.

Is there necessarily a problem with this approach?

Brenneman: It's certainly reactive, rather than proactive, and in my business I'm way ahead if I can be proactive.

Cofer: Rather than "developer-driven," I would use the term "citizen-driven" - and I think that's what we do want. Given that they'll have to follow the process and that there will be an opportunity for public comment, I think planning should be citizen-driven.

. In the unzoned portion of Flathead County, the commissioners have historically encouraged a five-acre minimum lot size for new subdivisions. However, they seem to be gradually getting away from that. Should five acres be a strict minimum? If not, how do you decide what's appropriate in a given area?

Cofer: I'm not that familiar with the five-acre issue, but when it comes to planning and zoning, the process needs to be flexible. None of us has a crystal ball. We don't know what's going to happen in 10 or 20 years, so there needs to be flexibility in whatever we plan.

We need to use something as a guideline [when addressing small-lot subdivisions in unzoned areas], but we also have to remember it's only a guide. There's a property rights issue: The process needs to be open and willing to allow citizens to retain their rights.

Brenneman: I think five-acre lots are about the worst possible use of the land. They're too small to farm and too big to take care of.

I think the character of the valley can be preserved in better ways than by chopping it into five-acre lots, but it's a difficult situation. Ideally, a new growth policy that's developed with a lot of community input would give [the commissioners] some idea about what land uses are appropriate in a given area. Absent that, there are some basic criteria - for example, none of us wants to compromise water quality. It's also not fair to allow developers to come in all over if it results in taxes going up for all the rest of us.

It's a matter of deciding whether the benefits outweigh the concerns. That might be difficult, but lots of people here make difficult decisions every day. That's the nature of the commissioner's job.

. Last year, the county amended its open space requirements for cluster subdivisions. Previously, developers received a 50 percent density bonus if they were willing to set aside open space in perpetuity. Now, it only has to be set aside temporarily, "until such time as the planning and zoning documents for the area are amended to facilitate further development."

Was that an appropriate amendment?

Brenneman: No. It negated the whole point of the cluster provision. The "perpetuity" restriction scares some people, but current law allows the commissioners to set aside that requirement if it's no longer appropriate, by exchanging the open space for a similar amount of land elsewhere. The people who wrote the state statutes understood that conditions change.

If we want to maintain a vibrant, diverse economy, we have to protect our quality of life. If we chop the valley up for short-term gain, we're going to have a long time to think about how we could have done things differently.

Cofer: Probably. Perpetuity … that's a long time. We don't know what the future holds - and with more than 80 percent of the county in open space, no one has to drive more than 20 minutes to get to it. So [this change] was probably a good move.

. What is good planning?

Brenneman: Good planning is a community-involved process that seeks to benefit the most people.

I don't mean to imply that tough decisions won't have to be made, but the best decisions come when you have the most creative input. To a large degree, the attitude of the planning board and of elected officials is what makes people want to get involved. If we can get away from name-calling, it gives us a better chance to make good decisions.

I think taxpayers also have the right to expect that the commissioners state their reasons for doing something. Any decision I make would have that type of explanation.

Cofer: Good planning is having the right people on the planning staff, having the right people on the planning boards and having the right commissioners in place to listen to the staff and the board recommendations and make a final decision.

It also means having [planning documents] that provide general guidelines, but that are flexible enough to grow as the county grows.

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