Whitefish City Council Approves New Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
The council added language in the zoning regulations to delay a state-mandated requirement that allows for 60-foot buildings downtown in hopes of finding an alternative by the time the law takes effect Oct. 1
By Lauren Frick
Whitefish city councilors late Monday night approved updates to the city’s zoning and subdivision regulations to align and keep pace with state requirements, while a major revision of the code is expected to come by the end of the year.
This first round of updates to the regulations solely aims at bringing the city into compliance with requirements outlined in the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA) before the city reports back to the state on its progress with MLUPA at the end of the month.
Later this summer, the city will start to take a second, more thorough look at its zoning and subdivision regulations to ensure the regulations align with the land use map and growth policy, also referred to as Vision Whitefish 2045, approved on April 20 following a three-year public participation process.
Similar to when the planning commission discussed the first round of edits to the regulations earlier this month, state-mandated 60-foot building height requirements again rose to the forefront of council conversation following the matter coming under scrutiny at previous meetings about the growth policy.
A March 27 letter from Sen. Ellie Boldman, D-Missoula, asserted the city’s growth policy draft circumvented state guidelines restricting exclusionary zoning practices and inserted conditions that make it more difficult for developers to build 60-foot buildings “by right” in certain zones of the city. Boldman stated she would testify against the city should it be sued over the matter.
The council reluctantly removed the language in question pertaining to the 60-foot building requirements before adding it back to the document ahead of its final approval. Some councilors expressed that protecting the downtown from the height requirement may be “a hill to die on” for the city.
That sentiment remained strong at Monday night’s meeting, with Councilor Steve Qunell saying the city needs to be careful not to “shoot [itself] in the foot economically” by “destroying” its unique downtown with 60-foot buildings.
“It’s infuriating sitting here trying to figure out how do we protect the economic engine that fuels everything in this town, which is our downtown,” Qunell said. “There’s absolutely no reason to have 60-foot buildings there for any purpose.”
“There is something specifically different about Whitefish, and it is our downtown,” he added. “So whatever we have to do, I want to challenge staff to figure it out. I don’t know that we can craft any solutions up here tonight that are going to make it stick, but we have to figure that out.”
In the zoning regulations recommended by the planning commission on May 5, language pertaining to the 60-foot height requirement was included in the maximum height allowed for development in the secondary business district (WB-2), general business district (WB-3) and general resort business (WRB-2): “35 feet, or 60 feet for entirely multi-family residential buildings used for residential purposes as well as for mixed-use buildings when all floors above the ground floor are used entirely for multi-family residential … purposes.”
Mayor John Muhlfeld expressed concern to city staff about potential development that could be approved downtown if the city waits to address the 60-foot building height requirement until later this fall.
“I understand it’s a low probability that would come forward, but it’s not a risk I’m really willing to take personally, and I’d like to see some language on how we can reduce that probability,” Muhlfeld said.
Ultimately, the council added language to the regulations that stops the 60-foot building requirement in all respective zones from taking effect until Oct. 1 — the state’s deadline for the requirement — in hopes of finding an alternative solution by then.
Planning Director Dave Taylor, however, warned that might be a tough ask for the city staff, noting staff would have about two weeks to pull together a solution before they would need to start the necessary public notice and planning commission processes to meet the Oct. 1 deadline.
“I don’t know if we’re gonna have a long-term fix before that,” Taylor said. “When we do our update, we’re gonna have an opportunity to really look at the different districts. There’s a whole bunch of stuff in the growth policy that we just adopted that’s going to give us some tools to figure out how to do that, but there’s no easy fix.”
Despite the time crunch, several councilors still expressed wanting to take a shot at finding a solution before the deadline.
“I think that this particular issue is of such importance to our town and its economic viability, its character, and everything that I just think we gotta look at,” Councilor Frank Sweeney said. “And if it takes 45 minutes next meeting, and it takes us a couple extra minutes or add 30 minutes to whatever meeting, I personally am way okay with that. This is that important of an issue. I just don’t think we can say, ‘Oh, we’ll get to that later.’”