Planning will not stop with new growth policy

Seems like a lot of people are talking about growth policies and what they could mean to Whitefish. Recent comments made by city councilors and planners might help clarify a few points and either lower people's high expectations or allay ungrounded fears — depending upon one's point of view about growth and development.

First, "growth policy" is a new name for "master plan." When created by the Montana Legislature, additional requirements were added in the hope that growth policies would more accurately reflect current land use and future needs.

But it is a plan, not zoning. Zoning, which sets specific limits and conditions on land use, is an ordinance that must undergo a public hearing process and be approved by the city council with two readings before it can be attached to a particular piece of land.

City planning director Bob Horne referred to how this could work when addressing the city council during the Karrow Glen subdivision hearing on Feb. 21. Once the city's new growth policy is completed, he said, the city will "revisit zoning."

Basically, zoning changes could be proposed if current zoning conflicts with the new growth policy. Those zoning changes, however, would need to go through the normal public process.

The city recently approved placing city zoning on unzoned land outside the city limits that is within the city's two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction. Land in the Highway 40 corridor area and around Big Mountain has already been zoned, and additional unzoned county land at the north end of Whitefish Lake is slated for a public hearing before the Whitefish City-County Planning Board on March 16.

Another planning term that has a lot of people talking is "neighborhood plans." Horne told the council residents from four neighborhoods have proposed plans — Karrow Avenue, Highway 40, Monegan Road and JP Road areas.

Neighborhood plans must be consistent with the growth policy, and he'd prefer to complete the city's growth policy before developing neighborhood plans, Horne told the council. Neighborhood residents might draft a plan that limited or stopped growth in their area, he said, hampering the larger citywide goals of the growth policy.

Karrow Avenue area residents opposed to the Karrow Glen subdivision have criticized the city for not completing a neighborhood plan for their area as promised, but city attorney John Phelps told the council the city has no legal obligation to create neighborhood plans.

Another attorney at the council hearing, Chad Wold, representing the Karrow Glen developer, argued that the subdivision could not be turned down on the basis of a growth policy or neighborhood plan that did not yet exist.

The planning board as a group and half the city council have supported the idea of a moratorium on new major subdivisions and planned-unit developments (PUDs) until the growth policy can be completed. Mayor Andy Feury cast the tie-breaking vote against the moratorium idea on Jan. 3.

There's no guarantee city planners will be able to complete the growth policy by October, the deadline imposed by the Legislature. Planning and construction activities will not come to a screeching halt if it isn't completed by then, but some restrictions will go into effect.

Councilor Nancy Woodruff, who supports the moratorium, has another concern — developers might begin shying away from applying for PUDs if they perceive the city as being too restrictive.

PUDs provide a give-and-take opportunity for the city and developers to work out a plan that benefits both, Woodruff said, but developers could turn their back on PUDs and present plans based on the current zoning — as was the case with Karrow Glen — and the city might not "get the product it wants."

Councilor Cris Coughlin perhaps summed it up best when she noted that having a growth policy in place will not solve all the city's development issues.

Having an updated plan in place — complete with some new neighborhood plans and planning regulations — will certainly help. But the difficulties of planning for growth will not suddenly go away with a new growth policy.