Not yet ready for prime time?

Planning board flooded with testimony at draft Whitefish growth policy hearing

By RICHARD HANNERS

Whitefish Pilot

The Whitefish City-County Planning Board learned a lot they didn't know about the city's draft growth policy last week — this despite a year and a half of work by city planners and a growth policy steering committee and several work sessions by the planning board itself.

The flood of testimony from 26 people who addressed the planning board's first public hearing on the draft growth policy didn't alarm board members. It was hailed as good, solid information that needs to be discussed and possibly incorporated in the final document.

What's this all mean? It demonstrates both how important and how complicated a growth policy can be, especially in a community that has seen its population increase by about 50 percent since the 2000 census.

While some of the public input dealt with missing words or acreage left off maps, other input was more significant and substantive, ranging from the philosophical approach to dealing with growth to neighborhoods unhappy with their future land-use designation.

Some of the issues that emerged at the Sept. 6 meeting:

? A large contingent of property-owners along U.S. Highway 93 were united in their opposition to designating their land rural or rural-residential.

One by one, owners of businesses there talked about the need to regulate the area for commercial development that would make an attractive entryway to Whitefish, while homeowners described how they were unable to sell their homes because the area is unsuitable for residential living and buyers couldn't set up a business there.

Planning board chairman Martin McGrew said the issues were too complex to be dealt with in a growth policy, and a consensus was reached to develop a corridor plan for the area.

Three other corridor plans were then tacked on to a list for consultant and former planning director Bob Horne to work on, including a section of Wisconsin Avenue south of Denver Avenue, part of Highway 40 and U.S. Highway 93 west of downtown.

? Members of the public, the steering committee and the planning board itself questioned the growth policy's central formula for controlling how the city grows.

As proposed, rural or rural-residential lands "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."

According to conservative estimates by planning staff, 1,200 units are currently entitled by approval of plats, planned-unit developments and conditional-use permits. Another 1,200 units potentially exist on vacant or underdeveloped land.

Planners say 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.

But while some opponents to the formula questioned how potential development was identified, and other opponents pointed out that real estate sales have slid and Whitefish is adding less than 200 units per year, some supporters of the formula in principle wanted to increase the trigger point to 80 percent.

When McGrew mentioned that an earlier straw poll conducted by the planning board indicated the 50-percent rule would fail on a 5-4 vote, board member Kerry Crittenden posed "another scenario for how it will all come down."

Crittenden suggested dropping the 1,200 units of potential development and leaving the 50 percent trigger in place, so rural or rural-residential lands could be redesignated in about three years, not six.

Board member Scott Sorenson said he'd prefer to see the board work toward consensus and have a unanimous vote.

? Board member Steve Qunell admitted he was "soapboxing" when he cited a development next to his home, but he suggested the board take a second look at the growth policy's emphasis on infill.

"Infill is great as ideology, but it ruins neighborhoods," he said. "Some neighborhoods will have to change if we support infill."

Most of the homes in Whitefish are single-family residences, Qunell said.

"This has been brought up in prior meetings, but the public is just not ready to talk about this," he said. "Where should higher density growth go? Where should we downzone?"

? Two planning board members representing county residents in the city's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction expressed dissatisfaction with the overall approach of the draft growth policy.

"Whitefish is changing, and this growth policy is designed to keep it from changing," said Jack Quatman. "It's not fair to tell people who have farmland that they can't sell it for development until 50 percent of infill takes place. I think it's wrong."

Board member Ole Nettenberg echoed Quatman's remark.

"Just because people can look at your big piece of property and enjoy it doesn't mean they should be allowed to tell you what you can do with it," Nettenberg said. "I'd like to know just how much of this designated farmland is actually farmed."

Flathead County commissioner Gary Hall also criticized the draft growth policy, particularly with respect to landowners on Highway 40 who wanted to be zoned commercial.

"I understand the need for gateways, but I think it's gone way too far," he said. "It has not been very cooperative so far. I tried to talk on behalf of the Highway 40 owners and was, I won't say, shouted down."

Hall said architectural review could make commercial development attractive along the highway, but so far he hasn't had much success dealing with Whitefish.

"I sense Whitefish doesn't want any development at all there," he said.

? The planning board agreed to continue the hearing on the draft growth policy until Sept. 20. No more public input will be taken at that time.