Great for developers, but homeowners pay the price
It’s half right to say that those of us who oppose the use of blended density are opposed to development. What we are opposed to is development when its design is not respectful of the interests of neighboring homeowners.
We all recognize that when people consider buying new homes, not only do they evaluate the home itself but also the surrounding environment. So for many prospective homeowners, considering new homes next to undeveloped land, learning that the adjacent property is zoned for single family homes is a huge relief.
To find out subsequently that the city planning department is proposing an addition of language to the city code that would allow developers by right to effectively rezone property to a higher density or to different uses (say commercial rather than residential, or high-rise apartments rather than single family homes), other than those for which the property is currently zoned, through an overlay zone process called a Planned Unit Development is of great concern to me and should be to you as well.
While this zoning code change was recommended for denial by the Whitefish Planning Board after extensive public comment in opposition, it now goes the Whitefish City Council on Feb. 1 for another public hearing. If passed this city code change would allow major zone changes in established neighborhoods as a matter of right for the developer just by their applying for a PUD.
This city code change, if passed, would place adjoining property owners and city residents in the unfavorable position of having to prove that a proposed development, which a developer has now invested many thousands of dollars in, is too dense or includes uses for which the property was never zoned and that degrade their neighborhood or the overall character of the city.
Just to complete the PUD zone application process and to secure options for purchase of the property, partnerships with investors, or traffic and other studies, is a huge risk and investment for a developer. In turn the City Council would more often than not be placed in the no-win position of trying to find some sort of compromise for a development that too often would result in an outcome that no one really supports including the City Council.
As proposed, the changes to the city’s PUD regulations are not fair or predictable for city residents, homeowners, or developers, or for the long-range planning Whitefish needs as one of the fastest growing cities in Montana.
Transferring density and uses across two or more zones appears to be a mechanism designed entirely to accommodate developers so that they can maximize their financial return. For city residents or those considering investing here, it calls into question the integrity of zoning designations in Whitefish.
I don’t know with certainty how important it is to Whitefish to attract people to the area who are looking for retirement or vacation homes, but I would imagine these are desirable groups in terms of supporting the local economy. Predictability is critical when it comes to zoning, particularly for any prospective home buyers.
And what about current residents? How do you think it makes us feel to know under this proposed city code zoning change that we will be pitted against developers who are being told that they have a new right to propose virtually any mix of zones, densities, or uses by blending zones across zoning districts? This, even though, it puts our lifestyle and our home values at risk to accommodate a developer’s economic interests.
For example, from the outset, homeowners in my neighborhood have consistently maintained that if a recently proposed affordable housing project for vacant land next to our homes was exclusively focused on the 3.5 acres of commercial property, which is appropriately zoned for such a high density development, we would enthusiastically support it. However the proposal called for extending the high density housing, across the remainder of the lot adjacent to our homes and zoned for single family homes, which would have a detrimental impact on neighboring homeowners.
It is reassuring to know that there are communities who have refused to compromise their neighborhoods to the development of apartments and other multi-family housing. Eugene, Oregon is one. When their City Council was asked to approve a strategy which involved rezoning single family neighborhoods in favor of transit corridor development, they directed the city manager to take low density residential “off the table”. The result is that most single family neighborhoods will no longer be at risk.
Whitefish has always struck me as a town that is highly respectful of its homeowners’ interests. Whether in terms of extending the pedestrian/bike path along the Whitefish River or lengthening streets as anticipated in Whitefish’s Transportation Plan, the city has generally chosen not to move forward until permission is granted from property owners whose land would be crossed, or development is proposed for the land parcel.
Nevertheless, in this proposal, the city is being asked to approve a change to the city code which would invite developers to, in effect, rezone lots which have more than one zoning designation to whichever one suits their objectives, irrespective of the impact it would have on neighboring homeowners. How is this consistent with the respect shown for homeowners in other city policies??
A year ago, the Planning Board voted to send a proposed PUD amendment very similar to what is being presented this year, back to the planning department for a more in-depth analysis and re-write of the PUD ordinance. This re-write was never done. In the interest of accomplishing this very necessary and worthwhile objective, I encourage the City Council to endorse the action by the Planning Board last Thursday to vote down the text amendment in favor of a total rewrite of the PUD chapter of the City Code and a moratorium on all density transfers until the new chapter is adopted.
— Barbara Morris, Whitefish