County studies future planning in rural Whitefish
Changes in rural Whitefish are on the horizon as Flathead County considers its options for planning and zoning in the former “doughnut” area.
Flathead County planners have charted out a handful of alternatives to replace the interim zoning currently in place in the area outside of Whitefish. The County Planning Board will study the alternatives at an Oct. 15 work session. The meeting is at 6 p.m. at the Earl Bennett building in Kalispell.
The “options analysis matrix” (See attached PDF) was created following a workshop Oct. 1 that looked at long-range planning and zoning for the doughnut.
Interim zoning in the area was adopted by county commissioners last month, and will expire at the end of one year. Commissioners may extend the interim zoning for up to one additional year.
No action
The first alternative in the analysis simply allows the current interim zoning to expire.
The county could then repeal the 1996 Whitefish City-County Master Plan and rely solely on the Flathead County Growth Policy for land use decisions in the area. According to county planners, this option eliminates planning processes that can lead to litigation, and it reduces long-term demand on county planning resources. A downside, the analysis notes, is that it offers no detailed guidance for future land use decisions.
As a second option under the no action alternative, the county could let the interim zoning expire, then administer plans and zoning adopted by Flathead County Commissioners. Those who had their property zoned by Whitefish could be unzoned or revert to county zoning. This option places the least demand on county planning resources, the analysis notes, but it could create non-conforming uses.
The county could also choose to let the interim zoning expire, then adopt “citizen initiated” zoning in the area. This option doesn’t require compliance with a neighborhood plan or growth policy, but it does require support from 60 percent of landowners in an area 40 acres or larger.
A challenge of this option, the analysis says, is that it requires separate rules and standards, separate revenue and expenditure sources to track, and separate planning and zoning commissions for each district.
Update 1996 plan
A second alternative includes updating the 1996 City-County Master Plan to replace the interim zoning.
The county could use 1996 plan “as-is” and replace interim zoning with existing county Part 2 zoning classifications. Part 2 zoning regulations must be made in accordance with the Growth Policy.
This option, the analysis notes, allows the quickest adoption of a permanent replacement for the interim zoning using Part 2 classifications. Still, county planners say, the 1996 document is dated and doesn’t reflect current trends.
The county could update the 1996 plan under a limited scope by only looking at the future land use map and associated text. The analysis says this option can be completed in a timely manner, but doesn’t allow for a full inventory of existing characteristics, projected trends, available public services and infrastructure.
A third option under this alternative is to update the 1996 plan in an unlimited scope. Planners say this could lead to a plan that serves rural Whitefish for many years. Yet, it would require substantial county planning resources.
Use 2007 Growth Policy
A third alternative includes updating the 1996 Whitefish City County Master Plan, using the city-adopted 2007 Whitefish Growth Policy as starting point.
The county could use the 2007 plan “as is.” According to the analysis, the 2007 plan recognizes the work done by the community, minimizes demand on county planning, and adopts zoning close to what was in place without “special provisions” that created controversy in the long-running doughnut dispute.
Since the jurisdiction boundary established in the 2007 plan is not the same as the 1996 plan, it would need to be expanded, or the county could create a doughnut of the 1996 boundary.
The county could also choose to limit the scope of an update to the 2007 plan. This option includes adopting a future land use map and associated text, removing portions not desirable to rural residents, a replacing the interim zoning with existing county Part 2 zoning classifications consistent with the update. This option involves a public process to eliminate or revise controversial policies, the analysis notes.
Finally, the county could adopt or modify the 2007 plan, then implement special county zoning classifications to match permitted uses in Whitefish zoning that were in place at the end of the interlocal agreement.
The county says this option provides for the most consistent land use regulations with what existed under Whitefish’s jurisdiction, and is the most compatible with Whitefish’s urban growth and zoning.
Special zones, however, can take time and introduce challenges with consistency and interpretation, the analysis notes.