Planned communities in draft

If you have 640 acres and a pile of cash, you could start a new town in Kootenai County. It’s a scenario possible under a proposal in the latest draft of the county’s growth plan, and it’s a hot topic of debate.

The county is looking at allowing “master planned communities” – self-contained, self-sufficient developments – in rural areas. The idea is to concentrate development in clusters with a town-like mix of homes and businesses, and a sufficient tax base to support the development.

Packed with details, the inch-thick growth plan draft is a blueprint for all land-use decisions on how and where the county should grow in the next 20 years. But the section on master planned communities is getting the most attention.

Some residents think the communities will help prevent sprawl in the county, which remains 70 percent rural. But others worry they will promote sprawl and counteract the plan’s goal of preserving rural areas.

If the change is approved, developers with at least 640 acres, or one square mile, anywhere in the county could ask the county to approve a self-contained community. The developer would have to prove the ability to fund and maintain all public services – water, sewer, roads, parks, and public safety in tandem with the county sheriff and local fire districts. The only exceptions would be public schools and libraries. Also, the communities would not have to form their own government.

The county would have to amend the comprehensive plan before even considering each master planned development – which planners argue adds an extra step of scrutiny to proposals.

Under the existing growth plan, when a large development is proposed the applicant doesn’t have to provide many details or proof of financial sustainability up front. An example is when a Spokane developer in 2006 proposed Rickel Ranch near Silverwood Theme Park. The development would have included affordable homes for park workers.

But county commissioners rejected changing the land-use map to transform a 900-acre cattle ranch south of Athol into the 1,500 homes and businesses envisioned by the developer. Commissioners argued the spot was too rural for such a large development.

At the time, plans for Rickel Ranch were vague because they didn’t have to be fully formed at that stage of approval. If the developer were to pitch the same development under the proposed new growth plan, the details would have to be spelled out, costing substantially more up front.

Even the county Planning Commission, which has worked for two years revising the new growth plan, is divided on the concept of master planned communities, already in use in other regions of the country

The idea has dominated discussion at open houses hosted by county planners, and they expect it will again at the meeting tonight in Post Falls at the Clover Leaf Grange.

“My worry is about these artificially plopped-down cities someplace it does not naturally occur,” Planning Commissioner Kathy Kolts said during a workshop at the Mica Grange last week. “That bothers me. However, it also bothers me there are places in the county where sprawl will occur.”

Planning Commission Chairman Dan Green said he also struggled with the concept, but he thinks master planned communities need to be in the growth plan to at least give developers an option for a large development.

The development community is debating whether the master planned communities model could be an avenue for winning approval of exclusive golf course retreats around Lake Coeur d’Alene, or whether it could be used to attract large manufacturing companies to the county.

Commissioner Judy Morbeck, a real estate agent, thinks it could help a company locate in the area by allowing the employer to build a neighborhood for its employees so they don’t have to commute. In that respect, master planned communities would contain sprawl, she said.

“We know we are going to experience growth no matter what we want,” she said. “We have to find places to put people. This is a very good idea so we don’t have sprawling, creeping five-acre plots all over the place ruining the rurality of the county.”

Wes Hanson, a board member of the Kootenai Environmental Alliance, said the idea undermines the county’s goal to direct growth toward the Rathdrum Prairie and established towns. He’s also concerned that if the town fails, county taxpayers will have to pick up the tab and pay for the services that were supposed to be self-funded.

“Your analogy is faulty,” Hanson told the planning commission. “You can’t invent a town … and assume you will have a self-supporting base over time. It’s a huge leap of faith.”

Green said residents need to review not just the master planned communities segment but the entire plan.

“This county belongs to all of us, and finding a balance is our challenge,” he said.

The county will take comments until June 4, then amend the draft, which will take about 45 days. The county will then repost the new version on the county Web site and have a 60-day comment period before having public hearings.

The following are highlights from the proposed comprehensive plan:

“Encourage high-density building in existing urban areas, the Rathdrum Prairie and the northern end of the county.

“Reduce the amount of lots allowed in sensitive areas such as wetlands and hillsides.

“Reduce urban sprawl while increasing by 10 percent the number of lots available for building. That means directing high-density building toward urban areas while requiring larger lots, at lease 10 acres per home, in rural areas. The current rural designation is 5 acres per home.

“Allow “rural dispersed villages” in three areas – Worley, Rose Lake and Spirit Lake – that indicated they want more density and commercial growth.

“Retain the ratio of 70 percent rural areas and 30 percent urban.

“Encourage affordable workforce and senior housing.

“Charge development impact fees to help pay for growth.