Board not in favor of greenbelt zone

On a 6-2 vote, members of the Flathead County Planning Board recommended earlier this month that the county commissioners not add a section to the county zoning regulations dubbed “general business highway greenbelt.”

Board members Jim Heim and Jeff Larsen voted against the motion. Heim supported adding the new section while Larsen wanted the Planning Board to continue working on the new zone.

Planning Board members held four workshops about the topic between September and December, yet some board members this month said they still weren’t ready to make a decision.

In spite of not endorsing the idea for a new zone classification, the board members voted to accept the findings of fact related to the creation of a new zone.

Their somewhat contradictory actions caused some concern by the county planning staffer who attended the meeting. Allison Mouch said the findings of fact “are basically in support” of the new zone designation.

“The findings need to support your recommendation or your recommendation needs to tell the commissioners why,” she said.

But Planning Board members did not elaborate in their motion to the commission to reject the new zone.

County commissioners are not bound to accept the board’s recommendation.

County commissioners are scheduled to discuss the issue Monday. A public hearing must be held before the county commissioners, and their Monday agenda lists authorizing the required advertising for that hearing.

Planning Board member Charles Lapp said the uses in the new zone “match up pretty good with light industrial,” and because of that he wondered why another zone was needed.

Board member Gordon Cross said he would prefer to issue conditional-use permits for businesses that might otherwise fall into the new zone, instead of creating a new zone. That process provides “a better way to mitigate some of the concerns of a neighbor,” he said.

Cross further suggested language that states all commercial uses would be considered on a conditional basis in the new zone, rather than listing allowed uses, as the proposal sent to county commissioners does.

Mouch said that approach “would be a pretty big leap from how we do things now.” The rest of the zone classifications include defined lists of what uses are allowed, she said.

Board member Gene Shellerud worried that the county’s zoning book would “be a foot thick” if zones continue to be created.

“I’d rather be able to look at individual applications, requests and uses,” Shellerud said, “not approving a whole list of things that we don’t know what might be coming down the pike.”

Heim supported the greenbelt concept. “The berm, the trees, the shrubs are pretty nice,” he said.

 Development in the new zone would require mitigation of visual impacts of commercial development along major roads, unlike other business zones. Special attention would be paid to setbacks, landscaping and signs.

The new zone would recognize that highway corridors are attractive for business because of high accessibility and visibility, but are often times in undeveloped areas of the county, according to the planning office staff.

Commercial development along a highway can result in a strip sandwiched between rural residential or agricultural uses, which may result in conflicting land uses, the staff commented.

Reporter Shelley Ridenour may be reached at 758-4439 or by email at sridenour@dailyinterlake.com.