Board splits on proposal to change land use

A stalemate forced the Whitefish Planning Board Thursday to pass along a neighborhood-type plan for 35 acres along Highway 93 South without making a recommendation.

Whitefish 57 LLC and Eagle Enterprises are requesting a sub area plan for 35 acres fronting the highway between JP Road and Park Knoll Lane. A sub area plan, similar to a neighborhood plan except applied to vacant land, would be an amendment to the city’s growth policy, if approved.

The planning board, after two tie votes on the matter, will forward the plan to City Council without a recommendation. Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the matter on July 2.

Board member John Middleton commended developers for offering to provide affordable housing as part of the project, but said the plan doesn’t do enough to protect the neighbors.

“It has to avoid or mitigate the impacts to the neighbors and it seems the intent is to cram units into an area that would be a radical departure from the area around it,” he said.

Board member Judy Hessellund disagreed saying the property is right for affordable housing.

“I think it’s a benefit to Whitefish,” she said. “This is affordable housing that is in walking distance of the hospital, walking distance of the grocery stores and businesses.”

While board member Rebecca Norton said she has concerns that the sub area plan, though designed to be that way through planning regulations, is too broad and would prefer to see more detailed plans for the project.

“I am more comfortable when there is more predictability,” she said. “There are very few citizens who are in favor of it — this is not the right time.”

Boardchair Steve Qunell acknowledged that changes in the community can be hard, but the sub area plan should be approved to provide housing needed in Whitefish.

“We want affordable housing and we continually deny developments that have affordable housing built in,” he said.

The sub area plan calls for four sections of both commercial and residential development.

Most of the public comments during the planning board meeting focused on the potential for residential development. Several folks said they don’t like the idea of multi-family housing development on the property, while others said the sub area plan is what Whitefish needs to create affordable workforce housing.

The sub area plan includes plans for commercial areas to front the highway on about 12 acres with the First Baptist Church sandwiched between the two commercial districts.

A proposed future extension of Baker Avenue would run from the north edge of the plan boundary to the south edge. In that 9.5-acre section in the center of the plan is proposed to be zoned as high density multi-family residential.

The fourth area, the midsection of the property between Park Knoll and Great Northern Heights neighborhoods, is proposed to be zoned one-family residential for about 11.9 acres.

As a community benefit, the developers have said they would provide 10 percent of the housing as affordable.

Don Kaltschmidt, who is one of the partners on the project, said he understands concerns about the property changing, but asked the Planning Board to think about Whitefish.

“You represent the community as a whole,” he said. “This is what’s best for the community. This project is forward-thinking.”

Kaltschmidt noted that at his car dealership about only 30 percent of the employees live in Whitefish, and the owners of the site have agreed to provide affordable housing in future development of the property.

“I do think this is good for the community,” he said.

This is the second time the sub area plan by the developers has come before the Planning Board. An original plan for the properties included 70 acres, but 25 acres of wetland that had been proposed to become public open space in the western half of the original plan has been removed thus reducing the plan to 35 acres.

The first iteration of the plan was recommended for denial by the Planning Board this spring after several neighbors of the project raised objections over potential impacts to wetlands and adjacent neighborhoods.

Eric Mulcahy, with Sands Surveying representing the applicants, said comments from the last meeting were factored into the redesign of the sub area plan. He said confusion over plans for the western half of the property to be created as open space led to the decision to remove that from the plan.

“We heard that the multi-family housing was too far to the west and encroaching on neighborhoods,” he said. “We looked at Park Knoll and Great Northern Heights and proposed those areas next to them as urban residential matching the density lot for lot. We put the density down along the Baker [extension] to create a buffer for some of that.”

Mulcahy noted that the project still has several steps to pass through before being developed, but he would estimate that after subtracting land for roads, parking, and parkland, that the property would allow for the development of up to 100 multi-family units and less than 30 single-family homes.

Still many of those neighbors again returned last week to ask the Planning Board to reject the proposal. Concerns were raised about negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods including increased traffic on roads around the proposed project.

Kody Hughes said while creating affordable housing seems like a good idea, it’s really not. He said he chose to live in Whitefish for a reason over Kalispell based upon issues with traffic, crime rates and area median income.

“I would not like Whitefish to become Kalispell,” he said. “I would like to see that there is some kind of buffer in area median income between Whitefish and Kalispell.”

Karen Giesy said the property isn’t the correct location for high-density housing because of the topography of the site.

“If you want high density use the [former] Depratu site or the old hospital site,” she said, noting the two properties also along Highway 93 South that are currently sitting unused.

Cheryl Watkins maintained that the property should remain undeveloped until the city can create a corridor plan for Highway 93, but said single-family homes could be a compromise for the site through she noted that any development could impact the wetlands to the west.

“We would accept single-family housing here,” she said. “It would fit the neighborhood and there would be less traffic.”

Still other Whitefish residents said the project would eventually create necessary affordable workforce housing.

Bruce Holler said he has seen Whitefish change since he was young and the city has grown. He said his daughter would like to live here, but can’t afford to.

“There is a housing issue here,” he said. “Anywhere that we are putting affordable housing is a good thing.”

Tim Neff, who noted he is a member with First Baptist Church, said his church would be as affected as any property by the development. From the church he says one can already see commercial and multi-family residential development, so the proposal is not a departure from the existing uses in the area.

“As much as we hate to see change that area is no longer an agricultural area,” he said. “It is an urban area — there is housing, hotel, commercial property, multifamily housing all within site. It seems to me the developers have created the same density where it touches [the neighbors.]”

The developers have said they plan to work with the Whitefish Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity to create some multi-family and single-family affordable housing.

As was the same as the original application, Area 1 and Area 2 in the update plan are designated as general commercial with zoning proposed to be secondary business district. Area 1, located in the northeast corner of the plan on Highway 93 at the Park Knoll Lane intersection, is 6.6 acres in size and currently undeveloped. Area 2 is about 6 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the plan currently developed with the former Austen’s funeral home building.

In the revised plan, Area 3 is designated as high density. The area parallels the future Baker Avenue extension called for the in the plan from the north edge of the plan boundary to the south edge of the plan. The section is 9.5 acres in size and is proposed to be zoned as high density multi-family residential. The previous plan had called for 15.5 acres of high density zoning.

Area 4, through the midsection of the property, is proposed to be zoned one-family residential. The section would be designated as urban and is about 11.9 acres. Previously the urban designation totaled 17.7 acres in the plan and was divided into three different locations.

Community benefits of the neighborhood plan are listed as 10 percent permanently affordable housing, the implementation of the city’s transportation plan for the area and avoiding environmentally sensitive areas.

The details of the affordable housing are still being worked out, but could include single-family residences, apartments and/or townhouses, according to the planning staff report.

If the sub area plan is approved by City Council it would be an amendment to the growth policy and could allow the applicant to then apply for zone changes followed by development applications for the property.

At that time, the developer would be obligated to meet all city development standards — zoning, subdivision, engineering standards and building code. None of those applications have been submitted to the city at this time.

Planning staff is recommending approval of the sub area neighborhood plan.