Draft Nears Completion, Discussions Continue

SWAN VALLEY - The Swan Valley Regional Planning Committee (SVRPC) is in the final stages of editing the draft regional growth plan. At the Dec. 8 meeting, the SVRPC addressed comments and concerns from those on the committee and others that have been active in the process. Following the January meeting, the committee hopes to have a working draft to present to the community.

Swan Valley resident Rick Ferguson suggested including the label “Crown of the Continent” for the Swan Valley in the Natural Resource Element. “It’s a good reminder to Missoula County that we are different,” said Ferguson.

Planner Bob Horne expressed his concern that including the label puts a red flag in front of the community. He did not feel that it would be good language for a policy document.

Co-Chair Cilla Moseley agreed that the Swan Valley is a special place but also agreed with Horne’s assessment. She said that particular label is a “hot button for many.”

For committee member Dwayne Forder, the label adds the perception that the document is taking away power from the local people and gives more to the national level.

The committee agreed that the ecosystems are described in enough detail that the label does not need to be included in the document.

The committee agreed to add a bibliography of sources at the end of the plan. While Horne said this is not necessary since all sources are referenced in the text, committee member Dave Johnson felt that a list would be very helpful to users.

“There are statements made in the plan that need to have a bibliography,” said Johnson specifically addressing the multiple places where Best Management Practices (BMP) are referenced without giving the reader any further guidance on how to implement those BMPs. “I also think it gives more credit to the document.”

Co-Chair Diann Ericson requested that a paragraph be added to the Land Use Element under the 3.6 Asset Based Approach to Future Development that included a recommendation of one structure per 40 acres on any developable land greater than 40 acres in additional to the assess based approach.

“This protects quantitatively the asset based approach,” said Ericson. “How do we keep the valley from being chopped up? I feel the asset-based approach is not enough.”

Ericson met a lot of resistance from the rest of the committee with her suggestion with the exception of committee member Pat Sinz who agreed.

Forder questioned why 40 acres was the magic number. The majority of the committee agreed that 40 acres is arbitrary.

Ericson responded that the 1:40 density was established in the 1996 plan and that is why she used it. She did not care what the acreage was as long as it was 40 acres or larger.

Forder said that it intrudes on private property rights and does not necessarily account for the land values laid out in the plan. “As soon as you put in the density, the values go out the window,” said Forder. Co-chair Moseley and Horne agreed.

Horne told the committee that numbers are easy for planners and subdivision reviewers to understand and implement. However, he cautioned that the number then may become more important than the assets that the committee has worked so hard to define.

“The asset value system leaves it up to a variety of densities whether it is smaller or larger but the important thing is the value is protected,” said Johnson. “As long as the [building] doesn’t compromise the value you are trying to protect [defined in the plan], you don’t state what the density is. The values that are being protected dictate what the density can be.”

The committee agreed that the language already included at the end of that section was sufficient, “In general, lands that contain or exhibit one or more of these assets should have residential densities of no more than one unit per 40 acres. Some clustering may be desirable where it will preserve and/or enhance the asset or assets in question. But clearly, the primary objective in these areas is to preserve and enhance the assets that residents value even as new development occurs.” They will leave it as it is worded and let the public comments decided if it needs to be changed.

Due to lack of time and because he was not in attendance, the committee was not able to address all of Swan Valley resident Gary Lazarowski’s comments. The committee did address his concern about stronger language for higher sanitation standards in the plan. Following Horne’s advice, the committee agreed to include a policy statement that encourages Missoula County to use, “the highest policy standard possible in regards to sanitation requirements in the Swan Valley.”

The SVRPC will meet again Jan. 13 at 4 p.m. at the Swan Valley Fire Hall. Their goal is to approve a working draft to present to the community.