Flathead County devising guides for housing density

A plan to figure what housing densities would be desirable on unzoned Flathead County land might soon be put out for public feedback.

The Flathead County commissioners expect to decide at 11:30 a.m. Monday whether public meetings should be held on the concept in April.

The concept is called a Development Predictability Map.

Its purpose is to map out the most ideal densities for the county's unzoned land, without zoning's regulatory clout.

The concept is strictly for the county's unzoned land, which is about two-thirds of its private lands.

And the concept is a political compromise filled with tricky nuances.

The idea is to lock down some factors and figures that developers and county planners can use to predict an ideal density of houses per acre on unzoned land.

"This map is a guiding tool for density," said Flathead County Planning Board member Randy Toavs, who is on the board committee that drafted the plan.

The Planning Board, the county commissioners and about 15 others discussed the concept at a Wednesday workshop session.

The draft plan covers only proposed densities.

But the plan cannot enforce those formulaic densities. However, developers would be required to consider those densities and come up with valid reasons not to comply with them.

The plan -using computer-crunched density maps -would not be used for other subdivision-related decisions such as land uses, setbacks, building heights and other factors.

A controversy is unfolding on whether the density recommendation ultimately will lead to zoning previously unzoned land. The plan's designers - a Planning Board committee and some county planning staff members - said it is not intended for that use.

"This has nothing to do with land use. If someone wants to buy a lot and build a convenience store out there [on unzoned land], that's OK," county Senior Planner B.J. Grieve said.

If the commissioners approve the proposed six public meetings in April, the Planning Board will seek feedback on whether a Development Predictability Map approach is desirable, what factors should be used to determine an ideal density for an area, and what the actual numbers should be to choose one ideal density over another.

The proposed meeting sites are Canyon Elementary School, the Badrock Fire Hall, Creston School, Somers Middle School, Marion School and Olney Bissell School.

A basic thread throughout the proposed Development Predictability Map is measuring the times it takes to drive from specific basic services to a new house or new group of houses in an unzoned area.

Planning officials cited this example at least twice: Should a large group of homes be located several miles of gravel road away from the nearest emergency services?

The Planning Board committee suggested that the following factors be considered:

n Fire-station locations and response times for fire trucks to reach a burning house over back roads.

n The time and distance that a home or homes are from basic commercial services such as gas and food.

n Is a development on a 100-year flood plain?

n What type of roads connect a group of homes to other services?

n Driving distances and times to schools.

Planning officials said this list could be expanded, trimmed or otherwise changed after receiving public feedback.

The concept drew mixed responses at Wednesday's workshop. One reason cited for the six proposed meetings is to hear from people unaffiliated with land-use interest groups from both sides of the political spectrum.

Some people opposed the concept entirely.

"I believe this is the wrong kind of planning. People should be able to do whatever they want with property that is unzoned," Planning Board member Rita Hall said.

Russ Crowder, president of the property rights group American Dream Montana, said: "The first time you turn down a property owner because of what's in [the Development Predictability Map], it becomes regulatory. … You're going to end up with zoning in the county without calling it zoning. … If this is adopted, inevitably, there's going to be lawsuits."

Others liked the basic concept, but wanted changes or had qualms about the narrow line it treads between an advisory plan and a regulatory plan.

"I'm comfortable with the concept of it as long as everyone guarantees that it doesn't get into land usage," Columbia Falls builder Charles Lapp said.

Mayre Flowers, director of Citizens For A Better Flathead, thought a few more factors -'such as proximity to agriculture lands -'should be considered in figuring out ideal future densities. The raw information alone would help developers and planners, she said.

"This information is a tool that will help us have a more predictable system" of the county staff advising developers, Flowers said.

Rick Breckinridge said: "Keep it simple. Keep it to things that are the top health priorities, the top safety priorities."

Reporter John Stang may be reached at 758-4429 or by e-mail at jstang@dailyinterlake.com