People chime in with views about growth

Flathead County residents seem to have some common things they like, but what they

dislike is all over the map, according to written comments provided at several recent growth

policy meetings.

Flathead County residents seem to have some common things they like, but what they dislike is all over the map, according to written comments provided at several recent growth policy meetings.

The meetings, which started in November, continue next week, with sessions scheduled in Kalispell, Marion and Whitefish. They're intended to give people an opportunity to question the county planning staff about the growth policy and provide input about the type of development they'd like to see here in the future.

Among other questions, participants are being asked to describe three things about the valley that they don't want to change, as well as three things that should be changed.

An analysis of about 200 comments provided during the first seven meetings found a fair amount of similarity on the first issue, with five broad attributes being cited most often as things that shouldn't change.

Open space, the area's natural beauty and mountain views were mentioned on almost half the comment cards.

People also want to preserve the valley's small-town and rural character, as well as the clean air, water and environment.

Access to public lands and recreational opportunities was cited by at least a quarter of the participants, as were individual freedom, respect for private property rights and a desire for minimal regulation.

"Don't make it wall-to-wall houses," one participant urged.

"Keep the largest growth/subdivisions closest to towns," another wrote.

A third person didn't want to change "the wide-open spaces and farm landscape, the small-town feel, and the unique character of the communities in the county."

"Allowing development outside of the incorporated cities" was something a fourth participant felt was important, while a fifth wanted the growth policy to maintain "the ability to develop private property, especially farmland, to meet the area's population growth needs."

Assistant Planning Director BJ Grieve said balancing these potentially conflicting values won't be easy.

Nevertheless, developing land-use goals and policies that try to protect what people like about the valley will be easier than trying to change all the things they don't like, he said.

That's due partly to the nature of planning and regulation, but it also stems from human nature. As indicated in the comment cards, there are a lot of things people would like to change about the valley.

"The way growth is happening," said one.

"Evergreen, Bigfork and any other [rapidly] growing areas should be forced to incorporate," said another.

A third urged the county to "do away with planning as a concept in the USA," while a fourth suggested that "updating the growth policy sooner than 20 years" might be worthwhile.

One of the more detailed responses came from someone who wanted the growth policy to "encourage the 'village' concept. Allow a cluster of smaller-lot subdivisions in the county, so small wastewater plants can be justified. These village designations should allow mixed uses, to help reduce the need for residents to drive to town as often. People could work at home, small markets and businesses could be permitted in the village centers, and density bonuses could be offered as incentives to increase open space and other amenities."

While the "dislikes" that people want to change cover a much broader range than the "likes," a handful of concerns seemed to stand out.

About a quarter of the comment cards said traffic and roads need to change and improve.

People also didn't like uncoordinated growth, sprawl or strip development. Farmland development and just the size and amount of development taking place here were issues as well.

Several respondents suggested that subdivision and zoning standards should be a little tougher and that developers be required to pay more to offset the impacts associated with growth.

Signs and billboards were mentioned on about 10 percent of the comment cards. One person said the "Everywhere USA look" has to change, possibly by requiring signs to comply with a unifying architectural theme.

All of the written comments from the first 10 growth policy meetings, including responses to several other questions, are posted on the planning office Web site at www.co.flathead.mt.us/fcpz

Overall, Grieve said the office is thrilled with the level of participation at the meetings.

"We're averaging 30 to 35 people at every meeting," he said. "We're seeing a lot of local faces, a lot of average Joes. It isn't the same people night after night.

"I think the comments make for compelling reading. They definitely fall along a bell curve. A number of authors are going to be difficult to [satisfy], just because they want something extreme, but there's a critical mass in the middle. My sense is that most people think 'no regulation' is no longer a viable option for the Flathead. They just don't want too much regulation."

The growth policy meetings will continue through January. Four "summary" meetings will take place in February or March, so the planning staff can summarize what they think the public told them and discuss how some of their concerns might be addressed.

The time and location for next week's meetings are:

Kalispell - Tuesday, 1 p.m., Earl Bennett Building, second-floor conference room, 1035 First Ave. West.

Marion - Tuesday, 6 p.m., Marion Elementary School gymnasium, 205 Gopher Lane.

Whitefish - Thursday, 1 p.m., North Valley Hospital, Lake Room, 6575 U.S. 93 North.

Kalispell - Thursday, 6 p.m., Earl Bennett Building, second-floor conference room, 1035 First Ave. West.