Whitefish implements update to development tool

Following two years of study and discussion, City Council last week finally adopted an overhaul of the city’s planned unit development regulations.

PUD regulations allow a developer of a property to alter certain standards in exchange for providing community benefits.

After hearing complaints that the original PUD regulations unfairly favored developers, Council in 2016 called for a review of the regulations by city staff and a citizen’s committee. The resulting work came forward to Council last fall, but after hearing from the public that the update wasn’t complete, Council created a working group to finalize details of the changes before returning to Council.

Major changes approved as part of the updated regulations include adding a list of approval criteria that must be met by the developer of a PUD, adding additional options for a total of four PUD types, addressing the blending of densities between zones, and changing the density bonus from 10 percent to a 20 percent minimum for those providing affordable housing.

City Councilor Andy Feury said the update to the regulations provide predictability in development while also flexibility for creative design.

“The developers can make a better product and neighbors get a better project,” he said. “This provides the opportunity for everybody to have a nice backyard.”

Feury noted that new regulations provide approval criteria that gives Council the flexibility to turn down a project that doesn’t work.

“We’re going to have the ability to say no, which I don’t think we had the ability to do before,” he said.

Planning Director Dave Taylor pointed out that the new regulations now require developers to show how the PUD meets 11 approval criteria before adoption. He said having the approval criteria will help the PUD code remain “outcome based.”

“So that a project is reviewed and approved based on how it addresses all the goals most important to the city, such as protecting existing adjacent neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas,” he said.

The list of approval criteria includes things like: the development should protect environmentally sensitive areas while being respectful of wildlife, it should preserve the character of the neighborhood, include streetscapes, provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities, must have varied architecture, adverse impacts must be mitigated and it must be in compliance with the growth policy.

A main focus of the rewrite has remained dealing with how the blending of densities between commercial and low density residential zones could be better addressed. The committee wanted the ability to blend zoning to be removed from the PUD regulations, however, the working group decided to retain the option to blend zoning between commercial and residential properties, but to better control the final outcome it added the approval criteria, Taylor noted.

Taylor said blending of densities were a common practice under previously approved PUDs.

“Concerns were raised over density blending because it wasn’t specifically called out in the code,” he said of what kickstarted the rewrite.

Blending of densities between commercial and residential areas, he noted, will better deal with situations like on Highway 93 South where commercial directly abuts low density residential. The blending will make sure that density is blended appropriately and development adjacent to low density residential areas is effectively transitioned to, and in addition while it will allow density to be moved around within a development it can effectively be integrated with and buffered from any surrounding lower-density development.

The approval criteria, he said, will require the developer to show how the PUD does or doesn’t meet the list prior to approval so as to “provide better protections to existing neighborhoods.”

An amendment to the code clarifies how maximum average density is determined with blending density by creating a formula where the maximum number of allowed units per acre is based on averages of the acreage and the maximum density allowed in the underlying zone. For example, if there is a proposed 2-acre residential PUD comprised of 1 acre with zoning of four dwellings per acre maximum and 1 acre zoned for 12 dwelling units per acre, the maximum average density allowed across the whole PUD would be eight dwelling units per acre.

Four new PUD types are part of the regulations — residential, mixed use, commercial and industrial.

The committee had originally recommended that the 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. The work group, however, chose to designate the PUD type based on the eventual outcome of the project rather than the underlying zone, but did keep language that identified which zones are appropriate for various PUD types.

In the final change, the residential PUDs can be applied for in residential zones as well as commercial zones without a commercial component because it removes any allowance for an commercial component. It is allowed in all zones except the business park, industrial and industrial transitional.

Taylor said allowing residential PUDs in nearly all zones is critical for future projects, especially in the secondary business zone corridor where there is the greatest of available developable land for affordable housing. It would eliminate the need for a developer to first have to apply for a growth policy amendment and a rezone so all the lots have the same zoning, which is a huge impediment to development, he noted.

A mixed use PUD is intended to allow flexibility in creating mixed commercial and residential use environments, primarily in commercial zoning districts. It, however, requires that the land dedicated to any non-residential component shall be generally consistent with and give consideration of the location and extent of the non-residential zoning.

A commercial PUD is generally intended for commercial retail or office type uses in commercial zones, but not include any residential component.

The industrial PUD is intended for light industrial or industrial zoning and uses, although on-site workforce housing could be included.

Other changes include modifications to the open space requirements, listing potential community benefit items that could justify deviations/variances from standard regulations, and creating an application procedure for PUDs.

Several citizens remained critical of the updates with a few asking Council to follow the original recommendations by the PUD committee.

Bruce Boody said he favored the changes with the exception being the increase in the affordable housing requirement.

“I’m concerned about the increase in affordable housing,” he said. “I’d like to see it stay at 10 percent until the workforce housing task force has had a chance to review it. Now it’s a stretch on some projects to get 10 percent affordable housing.”

The Whitefish Strategic Housing Plan Steering Committee is working on a number of issues related to affordable workforce housing including looking at the city’s Strategic Housing Plan recommendation of making inclusionary zoning mandatory with a minimum of 20 to 25 percent of homes in new subdivisions as deed restricted for long-term affordability.

David Hunt said there remains a lot of issues with allowing PUDs to blend zoning in commercial and residential zones. Blending of commercial and residential zones remains a concern particularly along Highway 93, he noted.

“Few residents understand the PUD and its ability to essentially rezone those parcels adjacent to their neighborhood in way that are unpredictable,” he said. “Developers have only presented more reasonable projects after an attorney representing neighbors became involved.”

Don Spivey said the latest changes moved away from the committee’s original intent of making the underlying zoning an important part of the PUD.

“We did that because it was the only way to find predictable and protection for the homeowners,” he said. “That was the trigger for this whole thing in the beginning.”

Mayre Flowers urged Council to remove the piece of the PUD regulations that allows for a density bonus for providing affordable housing and make affordable housing a requirement of a development rather than being considered as a community benefit.

“I ask that you strip that out of this,” she said. “At some point you have to start making those tough decisions. The PUD statute is an important tool for the city because developers can use it for variances from the zoning that allow them to be more creative.”