Changes delay decision on zoning overlay update

Whitefish is delaying a decision on changes to the city’s planned unit development zoning code after hearing concerns regarding last minute updates to a proposed rewrite of the code.

A “redline” version of the PUD rewrite was provided to City Council the week prior to its Aug. 21 meeting outlining recommended changes from city planning staff that differ from those as suggested by the committee charged with revising the code.

Planning Director Dave Taylor said his department was asked by City Manager Adam Hammatt, at the request of Mayor John Muhlfeld, to provide a list of any items in the committee’s draft that were of concern and could be changed to keep the PUD a “more attractive option for developers to use.”

“They had concerns about the draft based on comments from the development community and they asked us to put together a version with any additional changes that we thought would make it more user friendly,” Taylor said. “We put together an alternative draft.”

The committee and city staff differed in their recommendations in a handful of areas within the code rewrite. Among those were where commercial and residential PUDs should be allowed, the density bonus for affordable housing and how open space should be counted as part of a development.

City Council ultimately voted to table the update to the PUD code until its Sept. 18 meeting.

During public comment prior to the vote, several in attendance told Council delaying a decision on the rewrite was necessary after staff changes were available to the public for less than a week prior to the meeting.

Gail Linne said Council needs public input to make a sound decision.

“I encourage you to table this until the public has time to review these changes,” Linne said. “There’s a lot of changes that have been made and some of which I find disturbing.”

During its July 20 meeting, the city Planning Board voted to recommend the proposed code amendments to Council as presented by the rewrite committee.

Commenting before Council last week, planning board member Rebecca Norton said there’s a number of areas she agrees with in the committee’s rewrite and areas of concern, but primarily she was upset that changes were suggested after the planning board reviewed the document.

“I’m shocked at the changes that have been made with very short notice since we passed this through,” she said. “I think you need to continue the public hearing to allow people to give input.”

Councilor Andy Feury dismissed the idea that Council was trying to make a decision without following the proper public process.

“We asked staff to provide us with information and we’re not just going to blindly follow that,” he said.

“We’re not trying to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes,” he added. “Never have, never will.”

A PUD overlay allows a developer of a property to apply to alter certain standards, such as lot size or building height, in exchange for providing community benefits such as affordable housing, shared trails or greater environmental protections.

During the planning board meeting, a point of concern that came forward was whether the new revision is too prescriptive for developers.

During public comment before Council, Bruce Boody said a PUD is suppose to create the ability for a flexible design that will benefit the community and proposed changes from the committee would likely make that difficult. Though he said he needed more time to review changes suggested by the planning department, he felt they would be better in keeping to the intent of a PUD.

“A PUD is suppose to challenge the developer, the designer and the community to bring forward a unique, good product,” he said.

Don Spivey, chair of the rewrite committee, said the criticism being made that the proposed changes would be too prescriptive is unfounded.

“Both Kalispell and Bozeman have PUD codes that are far more detailed and prescriptive than what we have proposed,” he said. “Both communities are using PUDs extensively.”

Spivey argued that the staff revision took away from the work of the committee by eliminating the predictability the committee was hoping to make part of the PUD code.

“That takes us back to where we started,” he said. “Negating hours of work by the committee.”

The proposed revisions, as recommended by the committee, increases the number of PUD types from two to four, which include residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use. Previously only residential and non-residential PUDs existed.

Under the proposed revisions, residential PUDs would be regulated to overlay only residential zoning districts, and they could not be blended with commercial zones to increase their allowed density unless it qualifies as a mixed-use PUD. Commercial uses, which previously were allowed for up to 10 percent in residential PUDs are now limited to PUDs of five acres or more.

City planning staff recommends four PUD types, however, it would shift where those PUDs are allowed to be used. For residential PUDs, they would be allowed in all zoning districts except the business park and industrial zones rather than as the committees recommends which is to keep residential PUDs primarily to residential zones and a limited number of business zones.

Taylor said under the committee’s proposed changes, a developer applying for PUD to span multiple properties would have to apply to amend the growth policy, then rezone the property before applying for a residential PUD. This would be a major disincentive for using the PUD process, he noted.

Taylor said the committee is worried about protecting current neighborhoods, but to only allow a PUD based on current zoning would limit the flexibility allowed as part of a PUD.

“In the changes we made in the overall document we added a lot of wording about buffering adjoining neighborhoods,” Taylor said. “Currently we look at the outcome rather than what is there already because we can’t always envision how multiple properties might be combined. This could be a huge disincentive for using a PUD.”

The committee recommends commercial PUDs be used primarily in business districts, but city staff suggests that they be allowed in some residential districts where they abut major arterials such as Highway 93 or Wisconsin Avenue.

The committee is recommending to set the high density residential and commercial dwelling unit bonus to a standard 25 percent bonus for providing affordable housing, while leaving the lower residential zone bonus as is at 10 percent. Staff, however, wanted to return the density bonus to the current 10 percent across all zones noting that “density should be encouraged over sprawl.”

Under open space, the committee recommends that areas where development is prohibited or restricted due to the water quality protection, lake and lakeshore regulations, or flood control only count at a rate of half of the gross acreage of undeveloped areas on the property.

Planning staff is recommending retaining current city regulations that allow for lands that are set aside under the water quality ordinance to fully count as part of the open space.

Taylor said the provision would “unfairly punish properties that have amenities.” He points to the former Idaho Timber property along the Whitefish River noting that under the proposed PUD changes requiring 30 percent open space without being able to count the river would encumber 45 percent of the property as designated for open space.

Under the committee’s recommendation, affordable housing wouldn’t be considered a community benefit unless the amount of affordable housing exceeds the 10 percent minimum required for a density bonus.

Taylor said he disagrees noting that affordable housing should be considered a community benefit even if only the 10 percent minimum level is met.

The revisions also look to codify the method used by planning staff to average density by acreage, requiring that PUD overlays that include more than one underlying zoning district can not exceed the maximum average density. The committee and planning staff agree on this method for average density.

In 2016 City Council placed a moratorium on blended density zoning for PUD overlays, a move that suspended some forms of new development in the city. A committee has since been working to rewrite the city’s zoning code for PUD overlays.