City-county planning board approves draft growth policy after short debate

By RICHARD HANNERS

Whitefish Pilot

It only took the Whitefish City-County Planning Board about 40 minutes on Sept. 20 to wrap up its review of the city's draft growth policy and unanimously send it on to the city council.

But the board's action followed 1 1/2 years of work by city staff and a growth policy steering committee and several work sessions by the planning board.

Board members Scott Sorenson and Jack Quatman were absent last week as the board wrestled with the contentious issue of regulating growth and directing it toward infill.

As developed by city staff and the steering committee, rural or rural-residential lands surrounding the city "shall not be encouraged for redesignation through a growth policy amendment or neighborhood plan until at least 50 percent of the entitled and potential development is actually constructed."

Conservative estimates by planning staff had found 1,200 units currently entitled by approval of plats, planned-unit developments and conditional-use permits and 1,200 units potentially existing on vacant or underdeveloped land.

Planners also had estimated that Whitefish adds about 200 units a year, meaning 12 years worth of infill-type growth exists, and the 50 percent trigger point would theoretically be reached in about six years.

The number of entitled units, however, was revised upward at the board meeting to 1,573 since Sept. 1, 2006, and the number of building permits issued during that time period was 89, not 200, consultant Bob Horne said.

"There's been a lot of hand-wringing about this, but the idea has public support," board member Steve Qunell said, making a motion to approve the draft as presented. "It's worth a shot passing as is."

"We've heard from that part of the public but not the others," board member Peggy Sue Amelon countered.

Amelon noted that the draft growth policy states it will not try to set population limits but then makes it difficult to develop.

In an attempt to reach consensus, the board discussed two changes — a sunset clause and dropping the potential units while keeping the 50 percent trigger.

Qunell noted that the original proposal was "not an absolute prohibition" against redesignating outlying areas, but conceded that changing their land-use "would be difficult."

Board member Ole Nettenberg said the growth formula was supported by "a vocal minority," not the majority. He was also concerned about "bad subdivisions" that would count as entitled units but never be built out, thereby delaying the chance for outlying areas to be redesignated for development.

Pointing out that his own property could count as "potential" but that he had no immediate plans for development, board member Kerry Crittenden said he expected infill will take place on the edges of the city because provisions in the growth policy to protect neighborhood character could slow infill inside the city.

"I never liked the 50 percent rule from the get-go," board chairman Martin McGrew said. "The growth policy acts like a regulatory document, which it's not. Some subdivisions don't have a stick on them — when will they get built on? They were purchased as retirement investments."

McGrew said he'd like to see another way to regulate growth, such as basing it on infrastructure like transportation. He also expressed concern that the sunset clause could kick in after a different city council or planning board was seated.

Amelon noted that the growth policy's emphasis on concurrency meant new development should be accompanied by city infrastructure.

"I don't like leap-frogging either," she said.

In the end, the board's decision was unanimous on changes to the growth formula — the 50 percent infill trigger remained, potential development was dropped, and a 24-month sunset clause on the formula was included.

Board avoids 'spot planning'

By RICHARD HANNERS

Whitefish Pilot

Once a growth policy designates land-uses on a map, zoning is expected to conform with the map.

Some Whitefish landowners saw the creation of a new growth policy as an opportunity to change their zoning, but most were unsuccessful.

In some cases, the Whitefish City-County Planning Board agreed that a land-use designation was not logical, but generally they tried to avoid what might be called "spot planning" as compared to "spot zoning."

Board member Steve Qunell noted at the board's Sept. 20 meeting that numerous individuals had petitioned city staff, the steering committee and the planning board for changes to parcels of land.

"This is not the correct place to do that," Qunell said.

Among the requests by individuals:

? The growth policy will call for several corridor studies, including one for U.S. Highway 93 south of Highway 40 where property owners wanted a gateway-type commercial area rather than residential.

Implementation of the corridor study could take time, but the planning board gave it a high priority over other items that must be implemented after the city council adopts the growth policy.

The question is whether all this work can be completed before the growth policy's two-year review comes up.

? A request by businesses on Highway 40 near Dillon Road to designate a "business center" there was defeated. A majority of the board felt the property owners should apply for the change through the normal public process.

? The Kauffman family's request to designate their 18 acres north of Second Street at Cow Creek urban rather than suburban residential was turned down.

The problem is that the property is zoned agricultural, planning consultant Bob Horne said. Under the proposed land-use designation, the Kauffmans could request estate residential zoning and a planned-unit development (PUD) that would allow three units per acre — similar to surrounding land.

Horne also noted that the land is listed for sale.

The city is currently negotiating an easement to run a sewer main across the Kauffmans' land then under the railroad tracks to Edgewood Drive.

? Planning staff were concerned about current high-density zoning in the O'Brien and Lupfer area west of the post office. Developers could easily come in and remove homes and put in multiple-family housing, Horne said.

The steering committee, however, opted to leave the area designated high-density residential, saying any request for a change should come from the residents there. The board agreed.

? The Karrow Avenue corridor north of Seventh Street was changed from suburban residential to rural residential, decreasing the density. Residents there were concerned about protecting neighborhood character.

? The planning board agreed to redesignate BNSF Railway land south of the tracks near Kalispell and Columbia avenues from planned industrial to urban. This would conform with the city's Downtown Master Plan.

? City staff supported the idea of allowing offices and galleries along the west side of Baker Avenue between the river and 10th Street. The land is currently zoned WR2, and a text amendment will allow for those land uses.

? The owners the Whitefish Motel were concerned that current zoning would limit their ability to do a major remodel. Planning staff, however, worried about setting "a dangerous precedent" by putting WB2 zoning in the residential Kalispell Avenue neighborhood, recommended the motel owners consider a deed restriction rather than conditional zoning

? Tee Bauer's request to designate land he owns at the southeast corner of Highway 40 and U.S. Highway 93 as commercial was turned down.

? Seventeen acres of land in the Northwoods subdivision owned by Robert Galbraith was changed from rural to rural residential.

? A request by Brent Card, Earl Holbeck, Dennis Bee, Josh Joseph and others to change the "important farmlands" designation of their land in the Monegan-Voermans area to allow residential development was turned down.

Land near JP and Monegan roads owned by the Wartnow family and others was also turned down for residential development.

? Bayard Dominick, representing a property owner wanting to develop land north of Edgewood Drive east of Texas Avenue, requested changing the property's rural designation but was turned down.

? Andy Hudak's request to change the designation of his property on River Lakes Parkway near the JP Road bridge from urban to hospital/medical/offices was turned down after his neighbors, the Howkes, said they preferred the urban designation.

? A finger of land on lower Iowa Avenue owned by Richard Zielke will remain designated urban and not commercial, as he had requested.