Whitefish water saga will be continued

Facing two very different drafts of a proposed stormwater law and a wealth of new information, the Whitefish City-County Planning Board on Thursday postponed a decision until it has time to study the proposals.

Whitefish's controversial critical areas and groundwater ordinance has been inching its way through the city planning process since October.

The Planning Board rejected the initial proposal largely because of a proposed 30 percent slope restriction for building. The City Council took public comment on the proposal in November and after several amendments were added at the request of developers, the council sent it back to the planning board.

The proposal is now in its fourth draft.

The planning board will meet for a work session at 5 p.m. on Jan. 18, but will continue the matter to the February meeting to give new board members time to get up to speed. A second work session will be scheduled in late January. The board agreed to separate the components of the proposals for discussion purposes and will begin with the stream setbacks at the Jan. 18 work session.

SINCE THE first two proposals have been essentially scrapped, the board now must weigh the merits of the third draft that supports a number of stricter setbacks for streams and the fourth proposal, which was drafted by a committee of developers, real-estate agents, civil engineers and a lawyer.

City Council member John Muhlfeld, the principal hydrologist for River Design Group in Whitefish, proposed the new stream setbacks.

The Planning and Building Department has not recommended one draft over the other.

Public comment at Thursday's hearing fell on opposite ends, with environmentalists and conservationists supporting draft No. 3 with tighter stream setbacks and developers lauding draft No. 4, the version they'd had a hand in drafting.

Draft No. 3 "probably provides the greatest resource protection of the four," Planning and Building Director Bob Horne said in a staff report. "It reinstates the 30 percent slope standard, keeps the protection area expansion to include slopes in escess of 15 percent and contains significantly increased buffers and setbacks for rivers, creeks and wetlands."

While No. 3 also states that trees and timber stands may be managed, it isn't a "no cut" ordinance for critical areas, Horne stressed.

The city planning staff's assessment of No. 4 is that it "provides the least amount of resource protection."

"It troubles me that a select group of people have drafted [No.] 4," Doug Chadwick said, calling himself a member of the "wacko" environmental community. "Why wasn't there an [environmental] group who want more regulations" assigned to develop a draft. "Why don't we come up with a No. 5? Otherwise you'll look at a compromise between 3 and 4."

Greg Carter, a member of the committee that drafted the developer-friendly version, said the third draft has many good qualities but lacks three things: it's not specific, it's not measurable and it's not timely. He asked why Muhlfeld's streamside proposal was incorporated into a draft without review or a critique.

Muhlfeld's proposal in draft No. 3 sets a 200-foot structural setback from the ordinary high-water mark on Whitefish River and Swift and Haskill creeks, the first 75 feet of which can be a natural-vegetation buffer. The stormwater review committee's proposal (No. 4) calls for a 50-foot setback landward of mean high water on Whitefish River and 25 feet on Whitefish area streams.

The wetlands setback is increased to a 50-foot buffer in the stream setback version, while the committee's version has a 25-foot buffer for wetlands.

Draft No. 3 sets protection zones for slopes in excess of 15 percent and outlines specific activities and development that may be permitted in areas where the slope is between 15 and 30 percent. Draft No. 4 seems to sidestep the slope issue, calling for the city Public Works Director or an applicant's qualified professional to determine protection-zone limits if they're not apparent on site.

The slope issue continued to be a hot-button issue at Thursday's hearing.

"Thirty percent is an intermediate ski run," Dee Blank pointed out.

Several in the audience had concerns about the degradation that would occur to Whitefish Lake from sediment runoff caused by construction on steep slopes.

Ron Buentemaier, general manager of F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Co., said he's concerned that the original ordinance has gotten "off the track" by lumping in slopes, stream setbacks and other issues.

"It's very easy to write in what we'd like, but we have to see what the needs of our resources and community are - not our wants.

"We're floundering," Buentemaier continued.

He said there's confusion about which areas would be included as critical areas, and maintained it's not right that the city of Whitefish would be exempt from its own ordinance.

"You have a tiger by the tail; take time to review this," he urged.

Former council member Tom Muri said the city is currently the "largest polluter" within the Whitefish jurisdiction. He also said the city shouldn't be exempt from the stormwater law.

Muri wondered how much it will cost to enforce the forthcoming law.

"It's irresponsible to pass legislation when you don't know what it will cost," Muri said.

Both versions of the stormwater law are available on the city's Web site, www.whitefish.govoffice.com

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com