Decision time here for growth policy

By WILLIAM L. SPENCE

After three months of work, board ready to vote Monday

The Daily Inter Lake

Efforts to update the Flathead County Growth Policy face a major hurdle on Monday, when the Flathead County Planning Board decides whether to recommend approval of the document.

The board has spent the last three months reviewing and modifying the initial draft policy. Its nine members have tried to find an appropriate middle ground - one that addresses the public's desire for predictable, manageable growth, while avoiding undue restrictions on individual property rights.

Given that three previous hearings have been held on the draft, as well as numerous work sessions and open houses, Monday's special meeting will not include a formal public hearing.

However, a general public comment period is scheduled at the beginning of the 6 p.m. session, so people will have an opportunity to express their views before the board votes on the revised draft and sends it on to the county commissioners for final action.

During the three months that the planning board has worked on the policy, it has put its stamp on almost every aspect of the document, rewording many of the goals and policies, deleting others, adding new ones and modifying the text.

Most of the changes were based on the almost 500 pages of public comment submitted after the initial draft was released June 30. Others were based on the planning board's own experience, as members tried to address some of the problems and conflicts that arise during hearings on new subdivisions or other land-use proposals.

All of the board's revisions can be found on the Flathead County Planning Office Web site at www.co.flathead.mt.us/fcpz/growthpolicy.html

Some of the more important changes include:

A compromise on neighborhood plans - There was a great deal of debate over this issue.

Although some board members are strong proponents of neighborhood plans, several others are leery of them. In particular, they're concerned that a limited number of landowners or smaller landowners might impose their vision on an entire neighborhood, thereby restricting what other landowners can do with their property.

Consequently, the board initially added language that would have made it much harder - and potentially impossible - to create new neighborhood plans.

For example, it added new policies requiring at least 60 percent of landowners, representing at least 50 percent of the acreage affected by a proposed neighborhood plan, sign petitions before work could even begin on the document, and again halfway through the planning process.

The petitions were intended to ensure that the plans had widespread support from everyone in the neighborhood, rather than just from a few plan proponents.

However, several people suggested that requiring a petition so early in the process, before the neighbors really had a chance to discuss whether a plan was necessary and what it might contain, would be fatal.

Consequently, the board agreed to a compromise. During its final work session, it replaced the two petitions with one petition, midway through the planning process, that would require the same 60 percent/50 percent standard.

The board also clarified that the boundaries of a proposed neighborhood plan area must be set through an extensive public involvement effort.

New language was added on existing neighborhood plans as well, clarifying that they must be brought into compliance with the growth policy within 12 months. If that doesn't happen, landowners would be free to pursue whatever zone changes they want, subject to the county zoning regulations.

Public involvement - The growth policy is intended to be a "framework" document. Rather than address every aspect of future growth, it calls for a series of more-detailed management plans, maps and neighborhood plans to be created over the next few years.

These add-on plans will provide more specific guidance on issues ranging from water quality to transportation and from affordable housing to parks.

The planning office always intended that the add-on plans would be created through a public process. However, the planning board added language that makes this explicitly clear, outlining a public involvement process that includes initial scoping meetings, public workshops, written comment and public hearings.

The board also tried to make it easier for people to understand how specific goals and policies in the growth policy relate back to the original "public vision" that the entire document is based on.

Stronger implementation - Although the growth policy contains about 50 goals and more than 200 supporting policies, it's a nonregulatory document and doesn't actually implement anything.

Chapter 9 of the growth policy addresses how the county will achieve the goals outlined in the document. The implementation tools include zoning and subdivision regulations, as well as many of the new add-on plans and maps that the policy itself calls for.

However, numerous public comments were submitted suggesting that the implementation chapter, as originally written, didn't do enough to guarantee that the growth policy will really be used. The concern seemed to be that the county could simply ignore the document once it's approved.

Consequently, the planning board revamped and strengthened the entire chapter. It now calls for the commissioners and board to create a detailed implementation plan within six months of adopting the growth policy. This plan will prioritize which of the additional plans, maps and regulations will be tackled first.

The board also wants an annual progress report created to monitor the status of the various add-on plans and basically to indicate how well the county is doing at implementing the policy.

Finally, the board wants the planning office to prepare an "initial amendment" seven months after the growth policy is adopted. This amendment would "correct any perceived flaws and oversights in the document, remedy any unintended consequences, and include final or updated versions of maps and other items referenced in the policy."

Map compromise - Growth policies typically include some sort of future land-use map to indicate how specific areas are expected to develop over time and to show where future residential, commercial and industrial growth is anticipated.

The draft policy here didn't include such a map, in part because rural property owners didn't seem to want one. Consequently, it offers the planning board no guidance as to what type of future land uses might be appropriate in unzoned portions of the county. (In zoned areas, the zoning would provide some direction.)

After several people raised concerns about this during the public comment period, the planning office suggested that the 1987 master plan land-use map could be adopted temporarily until rural neighborhoods decided for themselves what land uses are appropriate.

The planning board rejected this idea outright, however, saying the '87 map was so outdated that it would cause more problems than it solves.

As a compromise, the board agreed that current land uses and zoning could serve as a guide to future uses. A new map was created that displays the existing zoning designations; in unzoned areas, property tax assessment data provides a proxy for land use. As future development proposals come in, the map will indicate whether the proposed use is consistent with the surrounding area.

Ultimately, the planning office hopes rural areas will create their own neighborhood plans and decide for themselves what uses are appropriate.

Monday's special meeting takes place in the Flathead County Weed and Parks Department conference room at 1257 Willow Glen Drive (at the end of FFA Drive), beginning at 6 p.m.

After the planning board makes its recommendation, the growth policy will be forwarded to the county commissioners.

The commissioners aren't expected to do anything with it until early next year. At this point, it's unclear if they will schedule additional work sessions or public hearings on the document.

Once they make whatever changes they feel are necessary, they'll vote on a resolution of intent. If that passes, it kicks off a 30-day written comment period, after which the growth policy can officially be adopted.

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