Council works through Land Use and Housing elements

SWAN VALLEY - The Swan Valley Community Council met for a special meeting Oct. 23 to review and discuss public comments to the third and fourth elements entitled Land Use and Housing of the Swan Valley Regional Draft Plan. The members paid particular attention to wording that sounded regulatory and either amended or deleted it.

In the section Non Residential Land Use, a comment suggested that the wording identifying where businesses could be located sounded too regulatory. Members of the Council voted to remove the sentence stating that businesses should locate along Highway 83. They also deleted the paragraph which stated that businesses should be located adjacent to each other to avoid strip development along the highway.

In the section entitled Asset Based Approach to Future Development, the Council responded to a comment that said the whole section was regulatory and had excess verbiage and suggested it all be deleted. The Council agreed that the paragraphs describing the assets of the Swan were as Council member Lacey McNutt said “beyond their [SVCC’s] realm”. However, the Council voted to leave the first three introductory paragraphs which includes the list of assets: clean air and water, wildlife and habitat, rural, wild character of the community, open spaces and scenic views and vistas. They agreed to remove the introductory words “into the future” which lead to the deleted paragraphs.

In the section entitled Areas for Additional Residential Development, the resident’s comment took issue with the density of one unit per five or ten acres recommended for the area. The resident was suggesting that one unit per one acre would be more affordable. Council member Kathy Koors said that stating any density could stir up a hornets’ nest indicating that it is a controversial topic. We need to leave it to the county said McNutt. The Council voted to delete the final sentence that listed specific densities and moved the remaining sentence to the bottom of the previous paragraph. It references where additional development could take place within two miles of Highway 83 and would likely not break up wildlife habitat or their travel corridors.

The Council members agreed to delete the entire section entitled Section 31 because the land is no long available to serious buyers. Council member Henry Westra said that he didn’t think the plan needed to point out specific land that is available for sale. McNutt added that it would always be changing and the Council wants the plan to stand up through the years.

In the section entitled Future Development Potential, the Council agreed to reduce the first paragraph to defining what subdividing is and what Missoula County’s regulations can do to protect natural resources and provide for the needs of the community. Sentences were removed about using subdivision as a planning tool. The Council agreed with the comment that the tone of the last sentence of the section was not positive and removed it.

The Council agreed to add the sentence which reads “Private property land owners’ rights must be protected and acknowledged” to the end of the section entitled Access to Public Lands. The Council members agreed that it was important to add because it reflects what the community had said in the 2010 envisioning process and a planning premise that reads property owners are “an integral part of the landscape and ecosystem.” It also agrees with the 2014 Visioning Goals Draft Report.

The first action in the Goals, Policies and Actions section was changed to read that the Missoula County Planning Board would explore forming a subcommittee to develop standards to protect the scale and rural character of the Upper Swan instead of a subcommittee of the SVCC. The Council agreed with the comment that Missoula County has the authority to develop standards where the SVCC does not.

McNutt felt the wording of the fourth action that designated areas for residential development was regulatory. The Council agreed and it was deleted.

In the sixth action, the latter half was voted on to be deleted because mentioning that the valley should not become a “major destination” is not clear and excessive.

The Council agreed to leave the sections in the fourth element as written as the two comments didn’t have reasons for their suggestions and the Council felt that the section was clear as originally written.

To view a copy of the current draft plan and the visioning report visit http://www.missoulacounty.us/government/community-development/community-planning-services/projects/active-projects/swan-valley-plan-update

The Council agreed to start with the comment on the fourth section entitled Road Maintenance, of the fifth element entitled Transportation at another special meeting, Nov. 6, at the Swan Valley Community Hall at 7 p.m.