Land plan for south entrance finally set for vote

Whitefish City Council is expected on Monday to make a decision on a land use plan that will likely shape the future development of one of the remaining larger open swaths of property in the city.

Council on Aug. 6 began deliberation at 11 p.m. after hearing more than an hour of public comment on the request for a subarea plan along U.S. Highway 93 South during the second public hearing before Council on the issue, but voted to delay a decision until Aug. 20.

Whitefish 57 LLC and Eagle Enterprises are requesting a subarea plan that includes 70 acres fronting Highway 93 South between JP Road and Park Knoll Lane. The developer is requesting both commercial and residential future development be allowed on the property.

Councilor Andy Feury said it would be best for Council to take the time to digest all the information presented, thus motioning to delay a final vote.

“I fear we’re not able to give this the kind of discussion it deserves [tonight],” he said.

The developers recently revised the subarea plan to eliminate a multi-family residential designation on the west side of the proposed Baker Avenue extension. They are now asking to designate the area as urban, with a possible one- or two-family residential zoning district.

The location of the previously proposed urban area farthest to the west is unchanged, and the proposed commercial areas remain along the highway.

The developer also agreed to limit the number of residential units to a maximum of 250 total.

Jeff Swenson, one of the partners involved in the project, said while conversations with neighbors of the subarea plan didn’t end with both parties agreeing it did factor into late changes made to the plan.

“We want the community to grow in a sustainable way,” he said. “We wanted to address concerns that there could be 700 units there. It was never our intention to do that. We decided to add that we would not go higher than 250 units.”

The developers have said the intention for the project is to provide affordable housing. The latest changes to their plans include language that says that they will provide 10 percent of the housing units as affordable in addition to whatever the city requires at the time of the application. For example, the city currently requires a 20 percent affordable housing requirement for planned unit developments when using a density bonus, thus under that, the developer would provide up to 30 percent of the units as affordable.

The plan also says that the developer will provide a buffer between housing on the site and the Great Northern and Park Knoll subdivisions.

During public comment, Roger Sherman said he remains concerned with how development could impact the wetlands to the west. He said the wetlands are important for cleaning water and to the wildlife in the area.

“I want an ironclad commitment that the wetlands will not be touched,” he said.

The subarea plan document says that the western 35 acres are to be left in existing land use designations of suburban and rural.

Other neighbors of the project continued to raise concerns about the impact the development would have on their properties including loss of property values and the impact of increased traffic through their neighborhoods. Several asked that the subarea plan be put on hold until the city can complete its Highway 93 South corridor plan that is in the beginning stages of being developed.

Still some commended the plan for providing necessary housing.

Addie Brown-Testa said the developers agreement to provide affordable housing on the site is important.

“We need to maintain our community and this project does that,” she said.

However, Mayre Flowers, with CommUnity Consulting representing the South Whitefish Neighborhood Association, said the developers’ plan to create affordable housing doesn’t go far enough to set clear goals for providing such housing.

“What they fail to point out is that under the zoning they have requested they can use a PUD to achieve their desired 12 plus units per acre without having to use the PUD section that would require 20 percent affordable housing thus making the 10 percent additional affordable housing over what is required an offer of no value and will not secure the delivery of affordable units.”

Flowers also said that while the plan calls for commercial zoning that has not been demonstrated as meeting a need or goal of the city.

During public comment, Charlie Duffy said neighbors of the project would be more comfortable with single-family housing on the property.

“We don’t want rental units,” he said. “Those are transient residents.”

Councilor Ryan Hennan addressed the comment saying that those who rent should not be labeled as “transients” seemingly suggesting they are not worthy of living in Whitefish.

“I’m a resident of Whitefish who rents,” he said. “My siblings rent, my parents once rented, I have friends who rent.

Councilor Katie Williams later in the meeting also pointed out that she rents her home.

“You are talking to two people who rent and who are up here dedicating their time to the betterment of this community,” she said.

The subarea plan is seeking for a total of 12.6 acres along the highway be designated as commercial with WB-2 zoning, the center 10.6 acres along the proposed Baker Avenue extension to be urban with a WR-1 and WR-2 zoning, and for the 10.9 acres to the west to be urban with WR-1 zoning.

City Council meets Monday, Aug. 20 at City Hall at 7:10 p.m.