City Council creates working group to tackle PUD revision

Whitefish City Council decided last week that a rewrite of its planned unit development zoning code needs more work.

Council Sept. 18 voted to continue a decision on the matter and formed a working group to continue hammering out details of changes to the PUD overlay regulations that allow a developer of a property to alter certain standards in exchange for providing community benefits.

The decision came following extensive public comment with many saying that changes to the regulations presented by city staff and those created by the PUD rewrite committee don’t mesh.

Councilor Andy Feury said the message was clear that rather than voting during the meeting more work needs to be done on the update to the regulations.

“I’m afraid if we go back to the committee it will take another year,” he said. “I’d like to move forward.”

Feury said the PUD overlay should create a system to allow the neighborhoods to be happy and also provide those incentives for the development community to use the process, and those two points need to be part of the PUD zoning tool.

Council last week decided a group made up of two councilors, two committee members and city staff will work to bring an update of the regulations back to City Council for a vote.

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.

During public comment, several people raised concerns that the suggested changes from city staff differ from the committee’s proposed changes.

“You see the work the committee has done, but now it’s all falling apart,” Wendy Coyne said.

A decision on the rewrite was also delayed last month after a version of the PUD rewrite was provided by city planning staff included changes that differ from those recommended by the committee charged with revising the code.

Planning Director Dave Taylor outlined the changes suggested by his department.

One of the sticking points for committee members seems to be the difference in where they would like to see commercial and residential PUDs allowed to be used. 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. 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.

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 a PUD to span multiple properties would have to apply to amend the growth policy, then rezone the property before applying for a PUD. He said that could present a challenge specifically for residential development.

“There needs to be the flexibility to combine multiple zones,” he said. “The areas of the city that are available for residential development are commercial property and that would require an extra step. They are concerned about the density, but language has been added for protections for neighborhoods.”

Mayre Flowers, with Citizens for a Better Flathead and one of the committee members, disagreed, noting that one of the concerns with the original PUD regulations was that it allowed the blending of density of commercial and residential uses.

“We want it to be predictable with a set of fair standards,” she said. “Blending high and low density will not protect neighborhoods. A PUD should not be a loophole to skip a zone change.”

A point of concern appears to be whether the committee’s suggested revision is too prescriptive for developers. Some of have said the PUD is suppose to create the ability for a flexible design to benefit the community.

During public comment, Judy Spivey disagreed saying it’s important not to let Whitefish become “Anytown, USA.”

“If the regulations are too stringent — too bad,” she said. “Who has precedence — the hopes of the residents or the developers?”

Councilor Frank Sweeney said he would be unwilling to support either the city or committee’s draft update of the regulations as presented.

“The idea that the development community is uncomfortable with [the committee’s draft] falls on deaf ears,” he said. “They will work with whatever we present them — what we want to do is present them with something that they want to work with. If we ask them to use it and make it easy to use we will get better projects.”

Another area where the city draft and the committee’s recommendation differ is for 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, while planning staff recommends allowing for those lands to fully count as part of open space.

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 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.

Bob Horne, who served on the committee, said community benefits are “suppose to be above and beyond” the basic requirements and thus affordable housing should only count as a benefit if it’s above the minimum.

In 2016 City Council placed a moratorium on blended density zoning for PUD overlays that has since expired.