No consensus on Whitefish growth policy

The people of Whitefish spoke; the City Council listened.

End of story?

Not quite. Support for the Whitefish growth policy was evident on several levels at Monday's public hearing, even though opponents were more vocal and even boisterous at times about their views.

After a couple of hours of testimony, the council opted to schedule a work session for 5:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 22, to review testimony and changes made to the draft by the Planning Board.

A final vote on the growth policy likely will be in November.

Former Whitefish Planning Director Bob Horne, who helped draft the plan and is now a hired consultant, stepped the standing-room-only audience through the document, reminding the public that the plan is based largely on a series of "visioning" sessions that provided neighborhood input.

The policy is broken down into seven general elements - natural resources, economic development, land use, community facilities, housing, transportation and implementation/intergovernmental.

Land-use issues dominated the hearing.

In response to U.S. 93 South residents who want the flexibility to develop their property for commercial uses, a proposal to create corridor plans for five major gateways into Whitefish was added to the growth policy. It drew praise from citizens and land-use planners.

The corridor plans will focus on neighborhood issues surrounding the transition from residential to commercial areas, with the overall goal of avoiding strip development. Much of the land near the city's entrances was designated residential or rural residential in the draft growth policy, but property owners argued that particular zoning is no longer appropriate because of the noise and existing commercial activity. They said it also hamstrings their ability to sell their property.

David DeGrandpre, a land-use planner hired by local property owners, applauded the city for going the extra mile to include corridor plans.

"The Planning Board recognized the importance of corridors," he said. "I know it takes time and resources, but this is worthy of special study."

Corridor plans have not been drafted yet, but should provide some wiggle room for development in those areas before the proposed 50 percent infill threshold is met.

"Prior to that trigger being met, the corridor plans, when adopted, may suggest changes from rural or rural residential to another designation," Whitefish Planning Director David Taylor explained in a memorandum to the City Council.

LAND-USE designations along the Montana 40 corridor also were contentious early on during growth-policy discussions. Property owners subsequently worked with the city to develop a business service center designation for the Montana 40/Conn Road area.

Don Anderson, a spokesman for a group of Montana 40 business owners, said the new designation "fits us very well."

There's still work to be done on land designations along the Wisconsin Avenue corridor, said Chad Wold, a Whitefish attorney representing Wisconsin landowners. Twenty-three businesses operate on the southerly stretch of Wisconsin, yet the growth policy proposes high-density residential, not commercial, Wold pointed out.

NOT EVERYONE is happy with the 50 percent infill threshold, even though the Planning Board has recommended using only the number of entitlement lots on the books, not all lots with development potential. Citizens argued that many property owners have lots they never intend to develop, and that those shouldn't be considered a part of the developable land inventory.

An amendment to the policy calls for the city to review the infill policy in two years, and if it fails to do so, it could be suspended.

Ken Stein suggested doing a full-blown survey to determine which property owners don't intend to build on their extra lots.

"This 50 percent needs hashing over," Stein said.

Several property owners in the city's unincorporated planning area said the infill requirement is unfair to those who want to develop their property outside the city.

State Sen. Jerry O'Neil, R-Columbia Falls, testified on behalf of property owners in his district, noting the growth policy "is telling my constituents what they can do with their property."

Jack Silliker said he moved "way out of town" to get away from city government and now finds himself in the planning jurisdiction.

"Now I'm tired and want to quit and you're telling me I can't sell and subdivide my land," Silliker testified. "This two-mile thing sticks in my craw … leave us alone."

Pat Arnone was moved to tears when she stepped to the podium to praise Whitefish's planning efforts. Growth is running rampant and unchecked elsewhere in the county, but "Whitefish is at least trying to do something.

"You're taking your time to do it right and I applaud you, because the rest of the valley isn't" doing it right.

Several suggestions from Citizens for a Better Flathead have been incorporated into the draft policy, but spokeswoman Mayre Flowers said there's still work to be done in carrying forward specifics of the 1996 Whitefish master plan that are still relevant.

Stormwater, hillside development, sign policies, landscaping, and density in sensitive areas are topics that need further tweaking, Flowers said.

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