Board considers interim planning standards

With a few major changes, a set of interim criteria for new growth-policy amendments could get a favorable recommendation from the Flathead County Planning Board next week.

The board Wednesday took public comment about the proposal.

The interim criteria were developed by the Flathead County Planning Office at the request of the county commissioners.

If approved by the commissioners, these new requirements would apply to any growth-policy amendments submitted during the next year, until the overall growth-policy update is completed.

The criteria would not affect any amendments submitted prior to their approval - including the 2,800-acre Riverdale amendment, which came in during June, and three other amendments near Bigfork, Somers and Kalispell.

A total of nine interim standards were proposed. They deal with such issues as the minimum sizes or acreages as specified by amendments, what type of information must be included in the applications, and what issues must be addressed.

Applicants also would be required to meet with the neighbors prior to submitting amendments, to work out any disagreements ahead of time.

Planning Director Jeff Harris said these criteria are intended to give his office a little "breathing room," slowing down the recent deluge of amendments just enough so that his staff can finish work on the overall growth policy by next year's statutory deadline.

"It's no secret that the county is tasked with preparing a new growth policy," he said Wednesday. "We have precious little time to do that. I have an awesome staff. They're working overtime, weekends - but they still can't keep up. We're spending so much time handling applications, we can't develop tools to fix the process. We're trying to buy a little time."

Of the 16 people who spoke at Wednesday's hearing, one-fourth supported the new criteria, though they suggested that the language and procedures be clarified somewhat.

Five other speakers opposed the proposal, in part because of one criterion that would block any amendment seeking a higher residential density than what planning and zoning regulations allow.

Given that most amendments are requested specifically to pursue higher densities, opponents thought that this requirement amounted to a de facto moratorium.

Board member Cal Scott agreed, saying-growth policy amendments "are inherently for the purpose of change."

"Why have an amendment that doesn't seek change?" he asked.

Oddly, most speakers Wednesday supported the idea of a moratorium, saying it's important for the Planning Office to focus on developing a growth policy for the entire valley.

Their comments came about a month late: The commissioners held a public hearing July 5 on the moratorium proposal. Only three people spoke in favor of the concept, and a dozen others spoke in opposition.

Given that lopsided response, the commissioners essentially tabled the moratorium idea. Instead, they asked the Planning Office and Planning Board to develop these interim standards.

After Wednesday's hearing, the board discussed the nine criteria in detail.

Board members seemed to conclude that the density criterion was inappropriate. They also panned a proposal to prohibit amendments that include any area that's been subject to a previous amendment within the last four years.

"I think four years is too long," said board member Tim Calaway. "We know how fast things change here."

The board and county planning staff will hold a work session at 4 p.m. Tuesday to hammer out the specific language and criteria to be included in the interim standards.

The document will be considered by the board Wednesday for a recommendation, after which it will go to the commissioners for final action.

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