Residents say PUD zoning regs favor developers

Whitefish City Council wants a complete overhaul of the city’s planned unit development regulations after hearing complaints from residents who say the regulations unfairly favor developers looking to create housing subdivisions.

“I agree we have some issues with our PUD [regulations] that should have been addressed,” Councilor Frank Sweeney said. “We shouldn’t be in this position. We should have had this done already.”

An amendment to the PUD regulations came before council Feb. 1 with the goal of clarifying how density is calculated when the PUD overlay spans multiple underlying zoning districts. However, after hearing roughly a dozen comments against the amendment, council voted to deny the change and asked for a rewrite of the PUD regulations by July 1. It is also considering a temporary moratorium on blended density PUDs.

Barbara Morris said homeowners are forced to hire an attorney to defend their neighborhood anytime a PUD development is proposed next door.

“Why would you consider an amendment that puts the developer at an advantage over homeowners?” she asked. “If developers want to make zoning changes why wouldn’t they be required to go through rezoning?”

A PUD overlay is designed to allow a developer flexibility to respond to environmental characteristics of a site, neighborhood character and the community housing demands. A developer gets increased flexibility and the opportunity to vary standards of the underlying zone, and the city gets some community benefit such as increased critical area buffering, trails or affordable housing.

Currently, most of the PUDs approved over multiple underlying zones have some form of density averaging to determine the maximum allowed density. Each zoning district is assigned a maximum density, so where a PUD spans multiple districts, those densities are average based on the area of each district.

“Although it was never an issue in the past, recently the lack of specificity regarding how density is calculated within the code has been challenged by opponents to these types of developments,” City Planner Wendy Compton-Ring said.

The PUD chapter of the zoning code does not specifically address how density is calculated where there are multiple zones. The proposed amendment would have added that formula for calculating the density to the code so it was clear how maximum density is calculated.

Don Spivy said he is not opposed to PUDs or blending zoning, but he believes the formula doesn’t support healthy growth for the entire community.

“When used properly they represent useful development tools in a community such as Whitefish,” he said. “We think the best way to deal with all the current PUD challenges is to rewrite the regulation in a manner that better protects citizens, homeowners and the city.”

Attorney Tom Tornow, who represents the River’s Edge subdivision, challenged the legality of blending density saying it was not a clarification, but an entire rewrite of the regulations that is necessary.

“All a developer has to do is whisper PUD and the density can be double or triple in the adjoining property,” he said. “This is a particular problem when the development includes property along the highway that’s adjacent to a residential area.”

Several residents of the River’s Edge subdivision said they have concerns about a recently proposed affordable housing complex on Highway 93 South adjacent to their neighborhood. They said while they support affordable housing the density of the project would negatively impact the quality of life and their home values. The project last month was denied an application for federal tax credits, but had been looking to develop property south of Les Schwab with up to 64 units.

Wendy Coyne, a resident of River’s Edge, said it’s important that the zoning laws be updated to meet the needs of Whitefish neighborhoods.

“We always supported the idea of affordable housing in Whitefish, but did not feel the high levels of density changes on the proposed property was fair to the existing neighborhood,” she said.

Councilor Jen Frandsen said she will be looking to residents to participate in the rewrite of the PUD regulations.

“There is a lot of comment that lies at the issue of the constant ‘not in my back yard,’” she said. “The public has concerns about how these PUDs work. I look to these neighbors to help get us through this phase so we don’t have to hear, ‘not in my back yard.’”

Planning staff in its memo to council, pointed to five approved developments in the past decade that have used PUDs while spanning multiple underlying zones and mix density and uses — Lookout Ridge, 93 LLC, Railtown Gardens, High Point on 2nd and Hampton Inn.

Lookout Ridge is a 139 unit project on 267 acres zoned both agriculture and residential. “The units are distributed equally across the project avoiding steep topography and environmentally sensitive areas,” the memo notes.

The Hampton Inn is one parcel that has both residential and commercial zoning. “The commercial PUD expanded the commercial uses to the residentially zoned portion of the lot,” according to the memo.

Council was mixed on whether a moratorium on blended density PUDs was the right move. It directed the city attorney to draft a moratorium ordinance, but it will come before council for a public hearing and final vote before it would be in effect.

“I hesitate to put a moratorium on PUDs,” Councilor Pam Barberis said. “I would hate for us to miss the opportunity for affordable housing just because we don’t trust ourselves to make a good decision.”