In the months leading up to the 2011 municipal elections, the Flathead Beacon received multiple letters to the editor advocating repeal of the 2010 interlocal agreement dealing with the so-called planning doughnut.
In several of those, the authors urged voters to support repeal and give the city control of planning decisions in the two-mile ring outside city limits by comparing Whitefish’s planning with that of areas in the county.
John Phelps, a former Whitefish city attorney, authored a letter in support of repeal in the Beacon’s Oct. 12 edition, writing in part, “Take a look around the county and decide who you want in charge of development of the approaches to your city. How have the commissioners done in Evergreen, Columbia Heights, and the Highway 93 strip south of Kalispell? Drive Highway 2 from the Blue Moon to Snappy’s. Do you like what you see? Compare that to the job the City of Whitefish has done while creating one of the most attractive communities in Montana.”
A letter from Whitefish resident Susan Ruffatto in the Nov. 2 edition had a similar message.
“Take a drive south on Highway 2, through LaSalle and into Evergreen. Good folks live there, but they’ve chosen to develop in a haphazard way,” Ruffatto wrote. “You’ll see wall-to-wall businesses (many vacant), with no lawn or landscaping, over-power signage, no design standards, and resulting low property values.”
The Flathead County commissioners, however, do not think the planning comparisons are valid. Each community determines how it would like to look, Commissioner Pam Holmquist said.
“Everybody has to go through the same hoops,” she said. “People move there because they like how Lakeside, Bigfork or Hungry Horse looks. That’s where you choose to live.”
Commissioner Jim Dupont said the county addresses each planning issue the same way, which includes public input. Communities have different planning goals, he said.
“Each neighborhood and area of Flathead County is unique and that’s why you go through that whole (process),” Dupont said.
The same procedures would apply to Whitefish, he said. If the county ends up with control over doughnut planning and someone wanted a zoning change to build big box stores, there would be public hearings, Dupont said. If the response was overwhelmingly against it, the project would likely fail, he added.
However, in an interview, Phelps said he believes the county would side with large commercial businesses despite public opposition because it would mean more development.
Phelps said the county and Whitefish have different approaches planning; Whitefish uses it to enhance the community in the long-term, whereas the county avoids overall zoning and planning. For example, Whitefish has design standards and tries to direct commercial growth inside the city to prevent sprawl, Phelps said.
As for the comparisons to Evergreen and other parts of the county, Phelps said those communities should be able to look the way they wish, but Whitefish has its own ideas for the future.
Holmquist said the commission’s job is to do what’s best for the county, and public input is an important part of achieving that goal.
“Each community decides to grow how it wants to grow,” she said.