No headline

The potential for development of 70 acres of property fronting Highway 93 in south Whitefish has a number of folks up in arms.

Neighbors claim the potential development that could come as the result of a proposed neighborhood plan could have grave impacts to a wetland on the tract of land, be an end of the wildlife corridor and detrimental to the folks who live in the neighborhoods surrounding the area. The plan looks to change the land use designations for an area bordered to the east by Highway 93 South, to the north by Park Knoll Lane and to the south by JP Road.

Whitefish 57 LLC, Eagle Enterprises and Marie Hedman have submitted a request to the city for a neighborhood plan for the properties. The neighborhood plan looks to change the existing suburban and rural growth policy designations to urban and multi-family designations, along with about 25 acres of the plan area being designated for open space. If approved the plan would become an amendment to the city’s growth policy.

City Senior Planner Wendy Compton-Ring described a neighborhood plan as a “30,000-foot” view for the area.

“We are starting this at a broad, high arching view,” she said. “A neighborhood plan is a further refinement of the goals and policies of the growth policy.”

Compton-Ring noted that before the property could be developed it would still have to return for a zone change and then go through the subdivision or planned unit development overlay process.

Citing a need for more time to discuss the matter, the Planning Board Thursday voted to continue the item until its March 15 meeting.

The proposed neighborhood plan looks to break the property into seven different sections with commercial and residential designations including single-family and multi-family residences. As part of the plan, the applicants note that they are committing to 10 percent of the project becoming affordable housing.

Eric Mulcahy, with Sands Surveying, spoke representing the applicants for the neighborhood plan. He said the project consists of 22 percent multi-family housing, 25 percent single-family housing, 18 percent commercial and 35 percent in open space. He said the plan would essentially mimic the area that is across the Highway to the east.

“The landowner and applicants are proposing this to bring an urban-scale development to the city,” he said. “The applicant wants to bring more multi-family residential dwellings to the city to provide housing stock for the average Whitefish worker and partner with one of the housing agencies to provide 10 percent affordable housing.”

Prior to hearing public comment, several Planning Board members raised concerns over the neighborhood plan.

Board chair Steve Qunell said he has reservations about the 25 acres suggested as for open space.

“My concern is that they are taking areas they can’t build on anyway and making that open space,” he said. “They say that’s part of the community benefit that they’re giving us.”

Board member Rebecca Norton too expressed concerns about the wetlands in the open space section being ruined from development.

“If we fail to protect them what can we do,” she said. “There needs to be a buffer.”

Planning staff pointed out that while the boundaries haven’t been set yet, the plan does call for creating a 125 foot buffer around the wetlands, which is the largest the city can require under its regulations.

Board member Richard Hildner, who is also a City Councilor, said maintaining a broader view becomes a struggle when the applicant submitted detailed plans for the property. He too voiced concerns about the wetlands, and also concerns about the specifics of the affordable housing.

“The wetlands are not just isolated to one area,” he said. “It goes all the way to Riverside Park. They want to build roads across it, and take sewer and water across it, and that’s a concern.”

Mulcahy addressed some concerns pertaining to the neighborhood plan. He noted that the final boundary around the wetland hasn’t been set and pointed out that the applicant feels providing access to the area is a public benefit because it’s currently private property. He also noted that when the land is developed plans would be finalized and permits secured for how to get a road across any wetland area.

“We’re trying to provide the best detail we can with a fuzzy picture on what this might develop as in the next five to 10 years,” he said.

During public comment, attorney Michelle Tafoya, who represents a group of neighbors who have organized under the South Whitefish Neighborhood Association, raised a number of objections to the plan primarily that it hadn’t met requirements to meet “a strict community benefit test.”

She said the plan fails to show that it furthers the goals of the growth policy, provides substantial community benefit such as affordable housing or open space or other benefits, provides for all on and off-site improvements such as streets, mitigates environmental constraints and avoids adverse impacts upon existing neighborhoods.

Cheryl Watkins, who owns property to the south of the proposed neighborhood plan area, said the city’s growth policy is supposed to protect Whitefish and the plan does not adhere to those standards. She pointed out that her property, in 60 acres of conservation easement, is covered in water most of the year and said the property in the proposed plan is also, making it unsuitable for development.

“For there to be 300 to 350 houses crammed into 70 acres is not in keeping with the zoning,” she said. “I have year round water on my property. Where will that water go if this is developed. My wetlands would not survive this development. This development threatens to destroy a significant habitat.”

Both Park Knoll Estates and Great Northern Heights are adjacent to the proposed neighborhood plan. Homeowners associations representing both neighborhoods raised objects to the plan.

Charlie Duffy, representing the Park Knoll HOA, said homeowners are concerned about the impacts this would have on traffic through their neighborhood and the potential for decreasing home values.

“This level of development is no where near what we would expect for development for this property,” he said.

The neighborhood plan is calling for breaking the 70 acres of property into seven different areas. Densities for the properties could be in the range of 300 to 350 residential units with commercial designations along the highway frontage, according to the applicant. A plan map as part of the neighborhood plan, shows a potential for an extension of Baker Avenue through the property that would connect Park Knoll Lane and JP Road.

Areas 1 and 2, which front Highway 93 surrounding the First Baptist Church, would be designated as general commercial with zoning proposed to be secondary business district. Area 1 is 6.6 acres and is located at the northeast corner of the plan and undeveloped. Area 2 is about six acres and is in the southeast corner of the plan and currently includes Austin Funeral Home.

Areas 3A and 3B are designated to be for urban. Area 3A is located to the north of Great Northern Heights and is 4.6 acres proposed to be zoned as one-family residential district. Area 3B is located to the south of the Park Knoll neighborhood at 4.4 acres and is proposed to be zoned one-family residential.

Area 4 is located at the center portion of the plan, sandwiched between 3A and 3B. It is about 16.8 acres and designated for high density proposed to be zoned as high density multi-family residential district.

Area 5, farther to the west which includes the wetland area, is identified as open space at 25 acres. The proposed zoning would be agricultural.

Area six, which is located on the western boundary of the plan area is proposed as urban with a proposed zoning of one-family limited residential district.

A traffic study notes that full build-out of the project would produce up to 4,300 new daily vehicle trips and could prompt the need for a new traffic single at Highway 93.

Just as the public comment period of the hearing was beginning Thursday, the meeting grew heated when Board Chairman Steve Qunell said comments on the proposal by the public would be limited in time to 3 minutes. Several members of the audience spoke up claiming the restriction to be unfair.

Attorney Michelle Tafoya continued to talk past the three minute limit after Qunell requested she stop.

“The attempt by this board to limit public comment is unlawful,” she said.

Qunell then called a brief recess to confer with city staff, and when the board was seated again he said that he would not limit public comment except to ask speakers to keep their remarks as close to the 3-minute mark as possible, and that the board would decide after about 55 minutes total of comment if the matter needed to be continued to the next meeting.

“You have the right to reasonable comment, but please do try to make your points quickly as we have other items on our agenda,” he said.

At the 55-minute mark, a handful of folks remained who wished to speak. The board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to its March 15 meeting.