City Council - Regular Meeting

April 6th of 2026 to order this evening. Um the mayor is not feeling well this evening and so I'll be handling his duties this evening. Um with that I'd like to um first order of business is the pledge of allegiance. And with that, Daniel, would you lead us

to the flag of the United States of America to the stands nationy and justice for all. Our first item of our agenda this evening is a presentation is the annual review and consideration of approval of the Whitefish Convention and Visitors Bureau marketing plan and budget for fiscal year 27. Zack. Hello. Welcome.

Zack Anderson, Whitefish Convention and Visitors Bureau Deputy Mayor Council. Um, I realize you have a very big agenda this evening. I've been asked to keep my presentation and comments brief and I will do my best. Point of order. Uh, deputy mayor. Yes. Uh, your title, please. Full title. Full title. Executive director of the Whitefish Convention and Visitors Bureau. How about prime something? Oh, prime minister and I live at 122 Dakota Avenue.

Thank you. So, I am here this evening to ask for approval of our FY27 public budget and provide a brief overview of our work and impact as it relates to said budget. Um, I know that you have the full uh that you have a full agenda and since the marketing plan and budget and an executive summary of the information have been provided to you in your packet, as I mentioned, I will keep it brief. The CVB was established in 2006 as Whitefish Whitefish's destination management organization. Our role is to manage tourism in a way that supports the community. For the past 20 years, the focus of the visitors bureau has been on promoting the shoulder seasons to create a more balanced year-round economy. We are a small team of four staff governed by a nine-member board appointed by city council ensuring alignment with community priorities. Thank you to board members attending this evening. Tourism is funded through a state lodging or bed tax in Montana. A portion is allocated to the visitors bureau according to the department of commerce rules. In order to fully qualify for those dollars, we apply annually to the tourism advisory council. The governor appointed tourism advisory council oversees the distribution of the lodging facility use tax aka the bed tax to Montana's tourism regions and convention and visitors bureaus and advises the Montana department of commerce relative to tourism promotion. There is a long list of rules and regulations for the use of bet tax dollars and there is a year-end audit by an independent firm contracted by the department of commerce. The process starts in the spring. Here we are. When council approves our plan locally before it goes to the state, the next step will be to submit the marketing plan to the tourism advisory council for review and preliminary approval. Then I will travel to Helena for an in-person presentation and request final approval.

The public budget is leveraged by private funding stream locally from businesses known as the community support fund. So those funds, which are private, help us to expand the marketing impact of the public budget, fund a lot of research, and support community initiatives, including more than $420,000 that we have allocated towards workforce housing in the past two years. Our strategy focuses on attracting high value, low impact visitors. That means people who respect the community, recreate responsibly, contribute positively. We use research data and targeted campaigns to drive visitation in the shoulder seasons, manage peak season pressure, and our campaigns focus on key flight markets and regional drive markets, and we adjust on changing conditions as necessary. FY27 budget request. We are requesting approval of a $300,000 public budget. That allocation is included in the packet. All spending complies with said state regulations, which is the rules and regulations set forth by TAC via the Department of Commerce. So, in closing, I respectfully request your approval of the FY27 budget. Say thank you, and I will open it up to any questions, starting with Councelor Norton, who asked me in advance some questions about some Canadian visitation and flight markets. Is that correct?

Yes. Yes, but you did send me your market analysis for March, too. So, I appreciate you following up with that. You're welcome. Um, not since not everyone got a copy, I brought you a little you can review sometime after your very busy meeting this evening. We don't need to get into too many details regarding uh councelor Norton's questions, but in short had a little bit to do with Canadian visitation. It is still down. In summary, domestic travel has more than made up for that in the last year. Um those numbers are all included in there.

Any other questions for Zach this evening? Please, Zach. First of all, may I say a comment? You can.

Uh, first of all, thank you for explaining briefly and clearly the two parts of the budget. I appreciate it and good job so far. I have a question, not as a person, but representing the uh pedestrian bicycle path uh advisory committee. This morning we met and uh we were looking at Google Maps. In Google Maps you can turn on a layer that says bicycle paths. And uh I did this for Jackson Wyoming and for Whitefish Montana. When I turn it on for Jackson, Wyoming, there is a spiderweb of green paths lit up. When I do for whitefish, there are three little segments and I know that neither represent reality. So I raised it to the board to the committee and even um uh Kevin from GIS didn't have an answer and I know it's about crowd pressure and crowdsourcing. So with the your private Instagram page with the thousands of followers that you have would you consider in some of your future discussions with your team evaluating with if for very little additional cost maybe it's a number of posts uh we could increase awareness so that uh Google maps starts lighting up this bicycle paths on their system please.

Yeah. Um, that's a great point and I guess the short answer is yes. Um, I met with the I went attended a bike ped committee meeting I believe last fall. Time flies. Um, and we offered our support when it comes to the new maps that are going to be distributed throughout the area. And I think um, we're a little bit overdue on some updates and as people tend to move digitally and away from tangible maps, I think that's kind of the future. Thank you. Any other questions for Zach on his report?

Mr. Deputy Mayor, I move to approve the p the public part of the budget uh as presented of the White Fish Convention Visitor Bureau as presented. Thank you. Motion's been made, seconded by Rebecca Norton. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Those opposed like sign. Manner passes unanimously. Thanks. Thank you.

All right. Um, next up is our uh communications from the public. This is uh communications from the public on any matter that is not otherwise published as a public hearing this evening. Um, if you have anything to talk to us about other than those that are on our public hearing this evening, please step forward. Leo Keen, 514 Pine Place in Whitefish. Um, real brief comment. Um, I I don't get to come to too many council meetings because there's always something else to do, of course, but when I do come, it's it's always a little bit frustrating because it's hard to hear your your conversations out in the uh audience and and I'd say I at least miss quite a bit. I think Rebecca is the only one that habitually pulls her microphone toward her so that we can hear. Otherwise, I think a lot of it goes goes right by us by me. Um, it sounds like you're talking to yourself or thinking to yourself up there or something, but I don't know if anybody else has ever said anything about that. It's just something I've noticed and and I find it frustrating and especially important topic like we're having tonight. It would be good to hear the the uh discussion. If you could pull your microphones toward you. Um the other comment I wanted to make is my comments last meeting about um I brought up the the uh tree ordinance and I think that maybe what I said was a little bit cynical. I think the the uh city itself is doing a really good job of providing trees in particular uh on on the new roadways that I've noticed. Edgewood um

state park roads beautiful the other side of the vioaduct great it really has come together and it was really necessary and and good and I just want you to know that that's appreciated despite what I may have said last week. What I am concerned about is not the city so much as the developers such as the uh development that's going in on um on Highway 40. Lots of trees were removed. I know we're supposed to have a in the ordinance we're supposed to have uh a count more or less of trees that are removed and to have them replaced in the development if possible. And I wonder if that's going to be done on Highway 40. And I and I hope it would not be a half a dozen Colorado blue spruce po pro po pro po pro po pro po pro po pro po pro po pro po pro po pro po propped here and there but something really seriously done for good landscaping uh and that would really enhance uh our city and the uh the effect of the tree ordinance. So that's something I I promoting. Other than that I'm here to listen. Thank you. Good evening, Mary Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead, 137 South Main in Callispel. Um, last week I brought you some information about the county's decision to roll back the uh requirements for septic regulations throughout the county. And um septic is an issue for the city with development happening around White Fish Lake. And I think uh as having a representative on the uh city county health board and paying funds to support that board that it's really important that the council

look at um providing some comments and uh just reminding you that April 16th at 1:00 is the next health board meeting and I hope that uh you will consider Um commenting on the most recent decision, we are advocating that the uh council move that option of a gravity-fed septic system into what is called a deviation process. That's going to relieve a lot of staff work um in terms of you have to bring in an application like that done by an engineer um certifying that the area where it's being proposed to be built that it's uh from a water quality perspective it is a uh justified deviation. Um, so I'm glad to answer any questions, but I think that's a really important uh way to kind of make something a little bit better out of a really bad situation because uh making this a new option after having since 2004 no gravity-fed septic systems allowed within the county. This is a major change that we don't want to see um implemented with replacement of failing systems and uh the need to have the best system possible put in place. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. Daniel,

deputy mayor, council members. Daniel Sitter with Housing Whitefish. Um, I just wanted to uh say thank you to Explore Whitefish and extend our support for their budget. Explore Whitefish has been really instrumental in supporting Housing Whitefish. Uh, I think we're nearing close to $500,000 at the community support fund, which is that voluntary 1% fee. Housing Whitefish gets half of that. Um, so their support has helped us to serve close to 120 households here in Whitefish. Um, and plan for different projects and programs to serve even more. Um, so just want to say thank you to the our partners at the CVB. We really couldn't be here today without them. Um, and their funds are helping to match some of the city's funds as well to help us to to get there. So, um, thank you.

Thanks, Daniel. Anybody else this evening?

Hello. For the record, Z418 East 2nd Street. Happy Passover to all of the chosen people. Deputy mayor and council. In the theme of looking to the future, I have a suggestion for a charter amendment. dispense with the pretense of nonpartisan representation. Gman, congratulations. You Facebook officially announced your candidacy for the Flathead County Republican Central Committee precinct 5 seat. How liberating it must feel to remove your hood and show your face to the world. Your authentic self was evident when you voted in opposition to the resolution condemning the DOS decision. Your authentic self was evident when you opposed the resolution condemning ICE for the killings of Renee Good and Alex Prey. Your authentic self was evident when you were a guest on Aryan Flint's radio talk show in February and stated, and I quote, "No border enforcement, no border. No border, no country. No country, no constitution." End quote. In true cult fashion, your respect for the Constitution and the protections it affords, even those with whom you disagree, is tenuous.

I expect you will continue to proclaim that your political beliefs play no role in your nonpartisan duties as a Whitefish city counselor. Don't tell Christy Gnome, but that dog won't hunt. We see you once again proudly standing on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of humanity. Council, I hope you will consider my suggestion. Remove that pretense of nonpartisan designation. Thank you. Thank you, Z. Uh,

Marty Brandt. I'm at 75 Flower Lane now. They renamed my street. I didn't move. Don't worry. It's kind of a long story. But anyway, um, totally different thing here. But it is the spring. It is the time of summer camp signups. Um, and being as I'm here anyway, I just wanted to take a moment to thank the city for having such a great summer camp option. It is the most flexible, the most comprehensive option of all the various things around town. Uh, so thanks to the city, thanks to Maria, thanks also to Liz who is I believe who's the program coordinator. She has always done a really good job of being in tune with my oldest son who's a little bit shy and like making sure that he's kind of feeling connected and having a fun time and that is a quality you can't really teach in someone. So anyway, just a thank you.

Thanks Marty. Anyone else this evening? Anyone else? Anybody online? Michelle, any anybody online who would like to provide communications from the public? Um, please raise your hand.

I think we're good. Great. Thank you. With that, I will close uh communications with the public. Are there any communications from any volunteer boards in the audience? I guess that's a no. Um any volunteer board reports from the council? Not not seeing any. We'll move on to our communications or our consent agenda. And with that, I would be happy to entertain a motion. Mr. Deputy Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda. Second. moved and seconded. Um, any further discussion?

Yes, I'd like to congratulate our wifeish police department and uh the newly confirmed officer Marco Magana after one year probation. So, welcome on board. Pass my congratulations please. All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Matter passes unanimously. Thank you. Now on to our um communications from our public works director. Consideration to award a construction contract for Armory Road Reconstruction. Craig.

Yes. Good evening, Deputy Mayor and Council. Um I'm not used to being at this point in the agenda. Normally I'm at the end. So um

intentionally make my staff report very brief. um knowing that we have lots of other things to talk about tonight. Um so if there are questions, please let me know. Um but I think as everybody knows, Armory Road is the next project on the resort tax priority list. Uh the road has surface concerns. It lacks bicycle and pedestrian amenities um and has significant influences from school traffic. uh council directed staff to proceed with consultant selection back in April of 2024 and we awarded the engineering contract uh to Morrison Merrily in August of 2024. Uh public outreach began shortly thereafter um and we've had four public meetings and numerous conversations with um with residents individually. Uh we approved or council approved the final design um for bidding back in February and we've advertised the project three times since then on March 1st, 8th and 15th. Uh we did open bids on March 25th. We only received one bid uh which was from Knife River uh for $6,873,376. Um luckily although there was only one bid, it was about two and a half% uh below our estimate. So um that bid does include two additive alternates. One of which uh was for about $65,000 to um include the repaving of Paragrin Lane, uh which is a public street directly adjacent to um Armory Road. and the other was for $257,000 um which includes the removal of the um the bridge crossing Cow Creek and expanding the sidewalk um and putting in a little kind of pocket park. I can

maybe let Maria elaborate on that. Um but uh it that that portion of the project will be split between resort tax and impact fees. So, um it is staff's recommendation that we do award the project um with both additive alternates to Knife River for 6,873,376.

Thank you, Craig. Any questions for Craig? Uh Rebecca? Um would Maria please elaborate on the pocket park?

Sorry, I set you up for that. No, I thought I thought Rebecca might ask about that. Um uh yeah, we would like to um put in a a pocket park where the path would have um connected to the bridge um because it's still a nice area next to the creek. Um and so we're um going to replace the asphalt with concrete um put the railing around um around the area to keep people from going into the creek area. Um and then have just a bench and a garbage can and then possibly um a wind phone which is uh a place where people can sit and um speak to um people that they have lost. Um, and so just a nice quiet space for people to reflect and um, stay connected to nature and um, individuals that they want to still be able to speak with but can't.

Thank you for including all that. Any other questions for Craig on his report? Rebecca, um I asked Craig if because we're going to be looking at a 20% overcharge if we should include that. But do you want to just explain why we're only doing the bid, Craig?

Yeah, we we we award the bid for the actual um bid amount. Um staff does have the authority throughout the project to issue change orders. Um, and so even though the the engineer thought that there may be um some potential overrun, um, we still award the bid for the amount that the low bid was for. Any other questions for Craig? Not seeing any. I would certainly entertain a motion. Steve.

Uh, I move to approve the bid from Knife River for 6,873,376 to reconstruct Armory Road. That's it.

Seconded by Rebecca. Okay. Uh, she was first. Um, any further discussion? All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. And that matter passes unanimously. Thanks, Craig. I just turned it off to turn it on again. Um, next is our public hearings. Um, it's a resolution to adopt our 2020 uh 2045 vision Whitefish Community Plan. Um, we've got community maps and we're going to take public comment this evening for one more time. This is going to be the last night that we're going to take public comment on the community plan. Um, after this, we'll close it and just be in deliberations after this. So, anybody have anything to say to us this evening?

I'm not aware that we've got a presentation plan. Um I I have a brief update but not a presentation. Well, why don't you give us that just to prime prime everybody's interest. There you go.

Deputy mayor, members of the council, Alan Tifbach, long range plan of the city of Whitefish. So, real quickly, the the versions of the vision Whitefish 25 2045 that you have seen that had been posted, those originally had a a separate draft land use element. That's just because due to the amount of work and the time um we didn't have time then to have implemented it into the entire plan. Since that time we've done it. We've worked with the with the uh consultant and it has since been integrated into the plan. Um it's it's just important to note that although the page numbers have changed, right, the plan has gotten longer. Um there really hasn't been any change at all to the text. And there's just a couple of exceptions I want to point out to you as you go through your red mark because you did get a packet and that packet has kind of the final version of the plan minus all the graphics and all the polishing. Basically, that's what the plan's going to look like minus some sections yet. Um the first thing is that there has been duplicative text added in some places because as you know there's a front half and there's a back half, right? There's part two, part one and part two. In order for those to work, there has been to had be a little bit of duplication in the land use element to talk about that. Um, you'll see there's some red text that was included in that draft. That red text that's not the the planning commission has made many different revisions to the growth policy over the last two years to the committee plan over the last two years. Most of them were just incorporated into the draft. What's remaining are any text that staff thinks has been controversial, whether it's been a huge discussion item or a policy issue. So that's what you see in the red. The red text that you see highlighted in highlighted in yellow, those were revisions that you made at

the last meeting. So if you scroll through, you can see what you changed. What's in blue? There has been some additional comments, some additional language that was added uh by the staff and the consultant. Most of it, virtually all of it, but most of it um were a response to one of the council person's um comments they had about annexation and annexation procedure. So, the the uh consultants worked with staff to work on some additional language. That's what you see highlighted in blue. Um, there's been a slight tweak to the place types map uh up on Big Mountain, basically uh north of Tarmaggan. That's because originally uh it was shown to be uh resort residential, but as we looked at it, we realized that those pieces of property were presently um agg uh rural and were recommended for rural. So, we stayed with the exact same thing. So it was like four five parcels that that basically were changed. That's what that was. Um the other thing I want to mention is that there's been some misunderstanding um that we've seen and I've received numerous letters about about the idea of we're trying to put commercial into residential neighborhoods. It's never been something we've proposed. It's not been proposed since the beginning. We're not proposing it now. So there has been a lot of discussion about mixed use, but we have never suggested putting resident or putting commercial into existing established residential neighborhoods. Uh with that, that's all of my clarifications.

Thanks. Any questions for Allen on any of his report? Rebecca, is this the time to talk about the letter we received um from Ellie? I I would like the input of this. Sure. And we have had a we have had a meeting. So I think we're I think we're prepared to talk about it if that's what you want to do. And maybe Angie can even direct more how much we want to go down that. I think we should talk about it after public comment, please.

Great. Thanks. Um any other questions for Allan at this juncture? Not seeing any open up the public hearing. Um, anybody that wishes to speak with us on this matter, please step forward.

It will be a surprise if it's the It'll be a first.

Good evening, Deputy Mayor, counselors. Richard Hilder, 104th Street. Um, I'll be very, very brief. Uh, I just want to comment on those maps. Um, and if you have those in front of you, I will reference by page number and beginning with 436. And I think that there may be some confusion with the description of the WOOI. Uh, the state and federal lands appear in a different color, but both should be included in the overall um description of the WOOI. um a person who was not would not be familiar with it would say, "Wait a minute, why are these lands separate from the WOOI?" And I think so, uh on page 436, that could use some clarification. On page uh map page 437, the map leaves the impression that there is low wildfire risk in Whitefish. And nothing could be further from the truth. As you know, Whitefish is one of the eight highest wildfire risk cities in Montana. When fire comes, it will most likely be in the form of an ember storm from the west. And when it enters the city, it will become an urban wildfire as we all saw with the Palisades and Eaton fires just 18 or um a year ago in December or January, excuse me, of 25. Uh map 438. The evacuation route map is lacking any information as to capacity. Highway 93, Wisconsin, and Big Mountain are all identified as statemaintained highways, but their capacities are certainly not the same. It is notable that there are no evacuation routes identified from Tarmagan Village, Reservoir Road, Iron Horse, Lion

Mountain, and Grouse Mountain. In addition, evacuation routes from possible toxic spills in the railard must also be identified. All three of our public schools are within one half mile of the rail line. And the map on page 441, the slope map, this is where I get nerdy, but the the slope map should be reason for caution from a fire behavior perspective. As fire moves from flat ground to a 30% slope, the rate of spread will more than double as a result of slope alone without considering all the other fire behavior elements. Thanks, Thank you, Richard.

Thanks, M. again, Mary Flowers, Citizens for Better Flathead. And I did email you these comments earlier, but I wasn't sure if you got them because it was late when I sent them. Um, so we have three topics that we think you need to still consider. Um and I want to walk through those really quickly with you. Um number one is to consider provisions to develop policies and procedures to facilitate public participation. You were required when you began this process under IM Lupa to develop a public participation plan which you did and you adopted but now we're moving forward and this plan itself needs to provide direction to the public as to how they will be able to participate under this very different process and you have an obligation under general state law which I cite here at the end. um to facilitate public participation. So what I am do what I've done and what most of this comment is is just a page from your existing plan. So if you look at page 117 um which is the section of your plan that currently starts state requirements for public participation in public process. I am suggesting in red changes that you make to that. Um so starting with um at the bottom of that page site specific

developments are to be reviewed administratively at the state at the city staff level against the adopted land use plan and regulations with the decision rendered by the planning administrator or designe without public hearings. And I'm suggesting that you say unless significant public interests demonstrates that a hearing is needed to in keeping with the protections offered under the Montana Constitution, specifically section A right for participation and section 9 right to know. The rate to know is particularly important because if you aren't if you don't have a process and a procedure to post applications as they come in, the public's never going to know what is going on and what decisions are being made administratively. A large portion of those are not going to be of concern to the public, but there are those projects that are. And whether it's a water quality issue or a um transportation issue, the public needs to know that those applications are being considered. So, you need a procedure to post those on your um website and to have uh us to be able to sign up for notices um like we currently do for when you have a meeting or when the planning board meets, etc. Um so then uh the other uh comments here in red are similar. Um you definitely acknowledge the need for uh community outreach and the importance of public comment in here, but I've suggested language to strengthen that.

And I would note that the um the lawsuit that uh made versus the state of Montana where the Montana Supreme Court emphasized that while the Montana land use planning act survived a facial challenge, the ruling explic explicitly preserves an as applied challenge. The decision clarified that if the gap if these gaps in the law lead to inadequate notice and uninformed participation in a specific local process, that particular application of the law could still be ruled unconstitutional. Additionally, MCA2-3-103 compels you to establish policies uh encouraging public participation. So what we are encouraging is that you protect the public and protect yourselves by saying that there are situations that are of significant interest to the public that under our constitutional rights um should be protected to have some way to both know and participate in those decisions. Um, number two in my comments is uh still, and I made these in our last comments, but I didn't see that it had been changed. Uh this time on page 152 of your packet um it calls for and allows for any housing type imply implying and including high-rise apartments anywhere in the city regardless of the existing neighborhood character. High-rise apartments and multif family housing should not be allowed by right anywhere in Whitefish. That's not planning. what is aband that is abandoning zoning and the character of

neighborhoods that residents have invested in for decades. So we simply and I've provided again just below the actual text encourage that you delete that one sentence which says we encourage a diversity of housing types integrated throughout all areas of the city. That's a very broad general uh statement that I don't reflect I think is in conflict with other statements that you've made within your housing policy. So I would suggest that that be removed. My third point is the adoption of an implementation plan. The Montana Lions Planning Act does not explicitly use the term imple impleation plan as a uh single required document for public comment. Instead, it mandates that specific regulatory and strategic components which collectively function as an implementation framework must be provided for public review and comment. While including an adopted capital improvement plan is listed as a best practice for integration, inlup does not require communities um in Lupa does require communities to identify necessary capital and service improvements uh like fire and law enforcement to accommodate growth. For example, in the comments that we just heard from Richard, we need to know how that's going to be implemented and paid for uh under this plan if we don't have protections in place to limit growth in those areas. Um it is our con conclusion um that the

proposed plan for before you tonight does not include and does not meet the standard and the fact that uh the standards for addressing implementation plan. Um the fact that the draft before you tonight has a blank page for implementation. um just reinforces that this is a massive task that the Montana legislature did not provide you adequate time or technical support to easily complete this element of the plan. But without public comment going forward, it's essential that this be provided for public comment now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. any additional public comment this evening.

Daniel, Deputy Mayor Council, Daniel with Housing Whitefish here. Um, first I just want to applaud the city. I think throughout this text there's a a focus on workforce housing, attainable housing, needed housing, um, whatever we're calling it. I'm I'm really glad to hear that there's consistent themes of housing throughout. Um I think in times I wish there was a little baby more ambitious in spelling out the challenges that we are facing as a city. Um just a reminder, White Fish is the most expensive city in the fastest growing county in the least affordable state in the country. Um we do call out that there is a crisis in the housing chapter and it kind of overviews that. Um, I don't necessarily know if I read the read the housing chapter and it doesn't scream crisis response to me. Uh, so I think if we're going to be using that language in terms of crisis, there needs to be that um, you know, there needs to be that also response of how are we actually dealing with this and are we actually treating this like a crisis? Otherwise, maybe switching up the language on how we're talking about um, the word crisis there. Um, I I do appreciate the encouraging diversity of housing in all areas of the city. Um I do think by not including that it tends to focus growth in just certain areas. Um already when you look at the land use chapter uh there's a more narrow idea of where that housing can be. Um specifically calling out vacant parcels, surface lots, underutilized commercial areas, walkable areas. Um so I think just as you know reading the plan there are some things as Mary pointed out that don't necessarily match up in terms of the goals in the housing and maybe what we're talking about the land use. Um, I know a lot of that is going to come down to the uh zoning implementation and the regulatory. Um, so I know housing whitefish will be excited to participate in that next round uh to really get the implementation going. Um, so yeah, thank you for all the hard work, all the

comments. Uh, it's a lot of work. Uh, and yeah, we're we'll be here to help with the next steps and implement and um, help the specifically really around the housing chapter help make some progress there. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel.

Hello, Keegan Steven 306 Leftur Avenue speaking tonight as the executive director of Shelter WF. Um, I think if you read the growth policy as a whole, it is very least a coherent document. I think on some level it attempts to balance the need for housing growth and some of the challenges that are associated with it. Um, but when the draft land use plan came out in January, I was pretty disappointed. When you look at how it's currently constructed, I just don't think it tries to address those tough questions that the rest of the document tries to wrestle with. And I think it misleads us about whether we're actually planning for growth. So, I think that's the at the last step. Um, it kind of falls down. So for the last few months, there's been pretty consistent feedback that the three zones that the land use plan wants the majority of growth to be in are more of a mirage than something that will actually take place to accommodate the majority of that growth. Um so zone A is already a permitted development. Zone B is on the edge of town. There's a wetland. It's not um even changing to much higher density. And zone C is actually being downzone from what is currently allowed on a commercial zone. Um, so I don't mean to belabor that point, but I just I really haven't heard anyone address it or respond to it in a way where they say, "No, actually these three zones will um serve, you know, the projected amount, the majority of the housing in the city like the land use plan wants." And I think the reason why this is kind of core importance is that if those three lots aren't able to supply that housing growth, then this growth policy is a sprawl plan. And if city council is okay with that and they think well annexation is kind of a reasonable solution for the city moving forward then you know that's fine and uh that's your decision. The consistent feedback from city council from everybody in the community from people on planning commission whatever is that we don't want sprawl. And so if that's the case then something has to give there. And um either tonight that

means council needs to look at whether those zones actually can accommodate that growth, whether they want sprawl to be something that happens. Um picking a few lots I don't think can ever really change that outcome. Um if we can't solve that tonight, then we need to go into the zoning process with a red pen ready for this document and ready to create a growth policy that encourages affordable home ownership and rental properties within existing city limits. Thank you. Thanks, Keegan. Next candidate. Not seeing any here in the hall. Michelle, anybody online? For those attending online, if you'd like to provide public comment, please raise your hand and I will call on you and state your name and address for the record. I think we're good.

Okay, I'm going to offer this one more time. We are going to be closing the public hearing on the growth policy this evening. If anybody has anything further they want to tell us, please step forward. I know I've already spoken. I just want to request that because something was raised that Angie wants to talk about later after it's closed. I think that's it needs to be something that the public can comment on if it's regarding the growth policy. That's fine. Thank you, Mary. Yes, sir. Name and address for the record.

Yeah. My name is Dan Thompson, 22 Snowshoe Flats, um which is uh two miles out east Edgewood um on in Haskell Bas. I I moved here in 1987 and uh when I moved here this town was so small there might have been 3500 people living in a town at the time and uh the growth that we have seen and the uh the amount of people that have been pressing into this into this uh city and into this county since then has just been astronomically amazing to me. Um, I'm probably saying stuff that you already know and you've already heard, but but I figured I'm here and and I might as well throw my two cents in. So, uh, um, the the the talk of of fire problem and and an escape of getting out of here, having Wisconsin and the, uh, vioaduct being basically the only way out of this town with the population that we've put up there on the, uh, on the north side of town is mind-boggling to me. Um, Second Street, it will be blocked by the railroad. I've seen it blocked for an hour, hour and a half. Uh, so that is you can't really count on that for an escape out of here. I'm sure that if there was the situation was that dire that the railroad would be out of the way, but but it's just one of those things. Um, having Wisconsin I if if we people had to get out up there, I don't think it would be possible with the way with the way the city's built right now. Um, and I just would uh what I I'm I'm glad that we have that you're talking about limiting possibly what what uh is going

to be allowed in the city and I I'm I support that immensely. Um and uh with that, I'll just uh say thank you very much.

Thank you, Dan. Okay, I'm really may at this time with that. The hearing public hearing on the uh growth policy is now closed and I'm going to turn it back to council for further discussion and uh any amendments that we want to move forward. Dana, do you have something for me? I think we can just review the other public comment that we received um that um will be appended to the packet, the letter from Senator Baldman. Okay.

Um so just for the public's awareness, um Angie and I did receive a letter that will be uh submitted as public comments from Senator Ellie Baldman. She was the primary sponsor of Senate Bill 243 related to the 60-foot buildings um in com he heavy commercial industrial zones and downtown commercial. Her concerns are that she raised um significant concerns with how the growth policy is currently drafted um and that we are subject to this bill as a city with a population exceeding 5,000. Her concerns um include conditioning the use um and massing requirements uh for a 60- foot height restriction. Um so while allowing it by right, we also would be imposing um additional conditions such as setback requirements, maximum floor plate size per story, incentives for sloped roofs or ar articulated masking requirements, reduce lot coverage, um and then for vacant lots only. And so these are ideas within the growth policy of how to address this. She believes those do not um allow 60-foot buildings by right as required by the law. Um, also, uh, her concerns were that, um, we are recommending limiting the types of uses permitted above 45 ft or three stories, specifically by restricting commercial uses, including short-term rentals, to 45 ft or three stories, while allowing multif family and mixeduse development up to 60 feet. While that is her interpretation, I'll tell you that is my not my interpretation of the law. Um, and the one area that I would disagree with her comments. Um and Angie will let her give her true legal opinion here moment. Um also the rebranding of commercial zones to avoid statutory coverage. So when

we're looking at um areas that are in our WPB2 zone um that's um looking at reclassifying them to a large lot suburban light commercial designation. she felt that we were trying to avoid the state law. Um, and also subdistricting fragmentations of downtown um as an evasion evasion uh mechanism to not comply with Senate Bill 243. Um there is there is and and this would be what we've heard from the league is legislative intent and sponsor intent is highly regarded when it comes to the court systems. Um she has said she's willing to testify on what that intent was originally since she she was the primary sponsor. Um and she provided uh requested actions by the city council to withdraw the proposed massing and form based conditions on 60 foot height entitlements in uh eliminate the proposed use restrictions that limit commercial uses above 45 feet or three stories. abandon any proposed reclassification of WB2, WB3, or WB4 commercial zones to light commercial and review and revise the proposed downtown subdistricting scheme to ensure that all parcels currently within a qualifying downtown commercial, heavy commercial or industrial zone receive the full benefit of the 60oot height entitlement mandated by state law. She does state that Senate Bill 243 does not prohibit design standards, community character objectives, or thoughtful planning. Um, but it does pro prohibit um municipalities from using those tools to effectively deny the housing production that the legislature determined is in the statewide uh interests. So, with that, um, you have her letter that was provided to city council um to

take into consideration as public comment for this evening. If you have any legal questions or other information, I'm gonna turn it over to Alan first and then Angie. You want to speak on it? Oh, no. Go ahead. Sure. Um, she said there was the one area of disagreement. There was actually a second area of disagreement. Yeah. Um, that was mine.

There's So, there's she actually made two arguments. Oh, sorry. She So, she had four suggestions. Can you go down to the bottom? Um, and And I'm walking into your turf, Angie. Um, but as far as the withdrawal of the proposed massing and foreignbased conditions, I think um we were less objectionable to that. I think we can see the argument with that. The second one about the eliminated proposed use restrictions, that was one we object to because actually if you look at how we define mixed use, it says it is a residential and a commercial component. And um short-term rentals are not considered a residential component. Um also it would it talks about how um the intent of this legislation is to encourage housing. Um so it would be to encourage housing would be full-time housing above that 45 ft. So we do not agree that that would apply to commercial and short-term rental. The other one the one that that Dana missed just because I think she found out about this about 10 minutes ago. Um there's some argument about whether we can reclassify the the W2W3. If you read M Lupa, it talks about a land use map and it talks about the the land use map is to designated the prefer I'm paraphrasing, I'm sorry, is to designate the preferred uses and densities of land. So different zoning types to allow different types of building height, building scale is very appropriate. We don't even have a heavy commercial area right now. So the idea that we're trying to zone away heavy commercial to get around this. We are looking at the areas where heavy commercial are existing and are most appropriate and the most appropriate places for 60 foot high buildings. But that does not necessarily mean from 40 all the way to

six all the way down WB2. I don't know if if Angie wants to comment anymore. That's what zoning does. It says these uses are appropriate. these uses and heights aren't.

I just want to quickly add that, you know, our highway 93 quarter plan, which we adopted in 2018, you know, calls for reclassifying portions of the WB2 that don't have those higher uses, specifically on the north side of the Whitefish River. Um, also our downtown master plan has some different classifications of things in the downtown. So, it's stuff that we've been contemplating a long time. It's not something that we would do directly in response to Senate Bill 243. The great part about having competent um people that work with you is I don't have to talk as much as I would have to talk. I think that they answered um most of the the issues that were raised in this letter. And I I think what we have to keep in mind is that as a growth policy, this is really it's not a regulatory document. Um, I tend to agree that we shouldn't be talking about, um, you know, uh, massing requirements. That can be part of zoning. I think that's maybe diving a little too deep in the weeds for me. Um, I agree with Dana's interpretation and Allen's interpretation of limitation of uses, and Allan did a lovely job of explaining it to me today, so I understood it. So, thank you, Alan. Um, you know, and I think we have to look as far as rebranding zoning districts. M LUPA requires is requiring us to go back through our zoning, right? It's we have to pass zoning that's in compliance with our land use plan. So, if we're rebranding zones, I don't think it's rebranding zones. I think it's taking a look at what you individuals come up with as a land use plan and making sure that our zoning is fit in with that. As far as the WB2, this is way before my time, but I think you guys, a lot of you will recall that that zoning, I know Andy will, was done by committee, I believe. And what was

kind of done is they looked at the uses that were there and said, "Okay, you know, it's a use, it's a conditional use." So, I mean, and like Dave said, I think we've always kind of looked at going back through that. Um, and I think it's appropriate that we do because I know when I read that Z when I read the WBT WB2 zoning district, I'm like, "This absolutely makes no sense." And somebody actually had to explain to me, you know, because they kind of looked at what was there and they're like, "Okay, well, that's what's there. That's what we have." Um, I actually completely agree with her that subd district fragmentation of the downtown is inappropriate. We've always referred to it as a downtown. We have a downtown master plan. Um, and although I don't know we're trying to evade the requirements, I do not think that at this point um we need to start referring to it as something other than the downtown. So, with that, happy to answer any questions you folks might have.

Rebecca, um, do you think there's anything urgent tonight that we not that we need to do about this? I don't know that there's anything urgent. I think you should consider what you know I I think you should consider her comments as public comments and if you are inclined to to make some changes to land use then do it. I I mean

um this could be a moment for Thomas I we we sort of got we've just got this letter today. Um I think we got in front of this and had had a discussion about there's four different recommendations there. Two of them we agree with, two of them we disagree with. This is in regard really to the 60 foot high buildings. That's what this is about. Um I think Thomas has crafted some language um for the parts that that could be changed. Again, we're only half in agreement with the letter. Thomas, I don't know if there's anything or if you want to ask him to to respond to that.

Thanks, Alan. No, I think that you I think that you all covered it. I think that pursuant to the conversations today, I think that there may be a um uh a recommendation to um eliminate the language with regard to form for the buildings in the downtown and then the subdistricting of the downtown. So I think I would recommend uh based on the discussions today eliminating that. But as Alan and Dana Angie noted, I think that the other uh language is in line with M Lupa. The intent is to be in line with M Lupa. The intent is to um reexamine the zoning boundaries to look at the WB2 in particular. It is a very very large district to actually look at it in detail and determine what is light commercial, what is mid-commercial, what is heavy commercial so that we can actually meet the intent of MLA. So yeah, I think that you guys have covered it

Steve just so I can be clear about what's happening here and this because this is it's a little confusing and a lot frustrating for me. We have a representative from Missoula, which is the third or fourth largest town in Montana that has several buildings above 60 feet already, telling us that we need to back off of what the people of our town have been telling us for years and years about what we want to do with our downtown so that we can create 60-foot buildings in our downtown, that we have to create 60-foot buildings in our downtown. if I read her letter correctly. Um, with no requirement for affordability, uh, knowing that in our downtown corridor, um, uh, short-term rentals are an approved use in in our downtown corridor. And and this is coming from the state legislature apparently while we from a bill that she sponsored while we're in the middle of trying to put together a plan that we're also required to do. Is that I mean is that is that what's happening essentially?

Yes. Okay. I I'm just trying to figure this out. I mean and I I I guess I caution you. I don't think this is coming from the state legislature. It's like when you individuals act, you know, as a group, you act as a group, right? This is coming from one person. Okay. So, this is one this is one person's interpretation of the law that she sponsored. That sponsored it, correct? Can I try to make this not horri horrifyingly painful and slow though with this? Absolutely.

I'm I'm And I'm doing this on the fly. Um, I think, and Thomas, I need you to back me up because you're sitting there probably not doing this in real time like I am, but there's two sections in here. I think Thomas pointed to that we could strike that would fix this. And and the first one, if we want to go there, would be on plan. Thomas, help me here. Plan page. So, the the plan page top leftand corner 196. Update the zoning map to place types. And they've got Oh, sorry. protect the scale and character of downtown number five. So, I'm sorry. That would be page Yeah. 196 and that's um the packet or the

Look on the top the page numbers on the top. I think it's the planage pages because it's hard for me to see the packet. Page 303. If I'm wrong, Thomas, stop me, okay? Because I'm trying to do this on the fly. Um, no, you're correct so far. Protect the scale and character of downtown. And it's talking about allowing a maximum 60 foot by right with use forum standards build two step backs and allow for 60 but ensure the character of downtown by these things upper story setbacks maximum floor plate that goes away. Are you correct Thomas? That is correct. That is correct.

So that whole section number five yeah five would go away again. Well, it's not all of Just to be clear, Alan, it's not all of number five. It's five section subsection number one would go away. Subsection would stay. And then subsection three designating and or redefining the downtown into sub areas. That would go away. Number two would stay. And then all of number you're in my packet it's page 304 and it reads protect the character and scale of downtown. Is that where you're at?

Yeah, we're in the same thing. I'm talking about plan number because I'm looking directly at the plan, not the packet. But I think you're in the right spot counselor. You are. It's number five. Protect the scale and character of downtown. It would be number one and number three. Those two would be stricken but number two would stay. That's correct. I think that's the only place isn't it Thomas? That is correct. That is right.

So 5.1 and 5.3 would go away. 5.2 two would remain and then all of number six with regard to re-examining the WB2 and zoning pursuant to MUPA to understand what should be um low um intensity commercial, medium intensity commercial and high or higher in heavy intensity commercial. It it is hard to hear him. Um Thomas, could Thomas repeat what he said because it's really difficult to hear what he said. If you could speak into your mic, please. I couldn't understand what you said. Here, I'm going to AirPods. Give me one second. Alan, can you hear me now?

I can hear you. I'm going to try sharing my screen, too, so we can be looking at same thing. You guys are hard to hear actually. Okay. What what I said is that the recommendation would be that section 5.1 would be stricken which discusses the issue of um form-based standards etc relative to the 60oot height 5.2 two would remain in in effect if you go down just a little bit Allan and then 5.3 redistricting the downtown into sub areas would also be stricken

question sure that's what we're doing but that would eliminate a historic core descriptor that is correct is Is there any other place that we have that defined? I don't think that there is within the land use element. Alan, help me out. Is there any other location within the community plan?

We don't break the downtown into three areas anywhere else in the plan. It's just called the historic downtown. This is the only place that breaks it into three sections. That was done when we were trying to look at the 60- foot height regulation and what would be appropriate. The legislator who sent the letter is saying that's not appropriate. I believe staff is saying we agree that we can't do that.

Well, is if it's historic downtown, then it's not a heavy commercial use. Correct. But it also says downtown or 60 foot buildings shall be allowed in heavy commercial downtown and industrial but not historic downtown. I believe it says when it's a nationally designated historic district, but maybe Angie can correct me. How long does it take to get a national historic designation? that language was that it had to be prior to the bill.

Do that and and we have no recourse. I mean, this is the kind of stuff that just infuriates all of us, infuriates people in the city, is that, you know, we're sitting here talking about trying to save our downtown as an economic engine. And basically, this bill just allows it to go to the highest bidder to build as much as they want and put as and put whatever in there they want. and and she's reiterating that in her letter is the way I'm reading that.

Yeah. So, this would allow mixeduse development where commercial has to be 50% less less than 50% of the development or multif family essentially. Um, this is your typical preeemption by the state of Montana and it's something you're going to continue to see and that is why it's critical that our community members, not just the city, lobby our legislators and not just our local legislators. We've really got to stand up at the state level. And come January, if people are not happy with these bills that are requiring us to make these changes, they need to take the time to show up and speak. They listen to members of the public a lot more than they do municipalities. Kelly Lynch, who was the who was she's leaving the attorney for the Montana League of Cities, suggested that cities put together a press kit. So when these buildings get built, we hand out we have a press kit available that says, "Here's the people to call and complain to."

Well, I I don't I don't think we have the opportunity in this town to wait until these things are built to put out a press kit. I mean, I would much rather we take a stand. This is just me personally. It seems like there's we're going to have to die on some hill somewhere. And it seems like our historic downtown that is featured in every single postcard of Whitefish, it's the picture everybody tries to get in the summer and the wintertime. If we change that viewscape, that that changes everything. And you know, at some point we're going to have to decide what hill are we going to die on. And I I'm willing to die on this hill and get sued by the state over this if we if we decide that we're going to not allow this to go on in our historic downtown. But that's just me. That's I'm just and I'll stop talking.

I think we share your concerns. I think we share your concerns. It's the will of the council which direction we want to go. And then I'll turn it over to Angie and let her go.

Yeah. No, I agree. If you guys want to die on the hill, die on the hill. But realize you guys may or may not have insurance coverage when you die on that hill and those going to be taxpayer dollars. Our job is just to give you our concerns. It's not to make the decisions. But we would be remiss if we didn't tell you that we do have concerns and that we are terrified. I am terrified of what the next legislative session is going to look like. Not only from a planning standpoint, from every standpoint. Ben,

I agree with you, Steve. I mean, you've heard me rave up here many times about planning coming out of our state legislature

and how often it is poorly implemented and generally does not take into account the broader context of the town, the needs of the community, and other factors. So, I'm going to say that again. Um, I I just I share your frustration. I I think that um I really do not understand why a state legislature out of um Missoula would be writing us long legal letters threatening us to sue us. But in any event, um I was going to maybe just propose a way to resolve this and move on. If you would like, I could make a motion to do so. Um, I'd be happy to I think the council would be happy to entertain.

Uh, I was going to move to strike um follow Allen's recommendation essentially which was Thomas' which was to strike section five uh number one and number three. And um I say that I mean we you know number one in particular contains a variety of zoning ideas that we haven't really discussed frankly. um I'm not even sure if they make sense. Um and so I think that some of that detail is really best left for the zoning implementation. Um it's way too nuanced to try to debate it here in my opinion. So I say we just remove those two sections. Um

Could I just interrupt you? Could you could you separate those two things, one and three, as separate motions? Would you be willing to do that? I'm fine. Okay. Um, so then I will amend that to just be section one. Um, with the because I do not believe we can address that in any robust way tonight and it's really too nuanced for the growth plan anyway. I'll second.

Motion made and seconded. Uh, further discussion from council. Yeah. The problem I'm having is I really like one because it kind of defines um how to keep the charm of downtown. Upper story setback requirements. We've been doing that for a long time just so the the massing and the scale doesn't look so unhistoric, I guess. Um, don't we always have a limitation on the floors sizing because of what can be built there? And then sloped roof and articulated massing requirements. I don't know. But it just seems like if we get start getting rid of a lot of these ways that we're trying to integrate the new with our historic downtown, we actually are going to end up not looking historic at all. And so, but I so I don't know if I really want to get rid of number one, but that's just my thought. Andy.

Um, I kind of agree with Steve on on many levels, but I think we all know that there's some wellunded groups in this community that would probably take us to court right away. And I think that that's the same group that contacted Senator Oldman and that's why we got this letter because I really doubt she was sitting down there in Missoula concerned with what we were doing here in Whitefish with our growth policy update. So, somebody contacted her graciously. Thank you for that. Um, but again, it's just we end up in the case where we've got people making the rules that don't play the game. And unfortunately, they stack those rules against us all the time. And so, I'm going to have to support Ben's motion. But I think that we do that in the interim just to make sure that we can keep our noses clean as long as we can and we figure out a way to work around it. And I think we need to do that. And maybe that's our own personal core challenge from the city. I don't know how that works, but quite frankly, I'm getting sick of it. I mean, if you look at um Senator Oldman's letter, I mean, she basically wants to take away our ability to do our own zoning, too. I mean, and that's where we're coming to. It's the state is going to pretty much take away all of our ability to design and have our community be what it has been, what we want it to be. And quite frankly, that's sad. It's very, very sad. And that's where I really agree with Steve is at some point we've got to find a hill to stand on and we've got to fight till we can't fight any longer. But I think for now I think Ben's got a good suggestion and I'm willing to willing to support the motion.

Well, I think we're just addressing the first number one now which I think makes more sense. The massing and scaling seems like something that's more addressed in in zoning anyway. Um and I think we can when we when we get to that bridge we can cross it. Um, but I do think that if there are people in this community that think we need 60 foot buildings downtown as apartment buildings, I don't think you understand what this town is all about. And that's why I'm still withholding my judgment on number three. But yes, I'm in support of removing number one for sure.

And I too will support uh Ben's motion. Um, and I I think that it probably is. I think we can better take care of this problem in the zoning and put it in our notes that this is what we're going to address when we get there. Um, and I think we can fix this little problem then. Um, and I think that the idea that we're going to keep two in any case, which simply says we're going to limit use to 45 ft or three stories unless it's multif family mixed use and that where we're required to allow it. But it's going to be multif family mixed use um and only under those conditions which is what is required. Yes, Alan if I may sir to clarify what you just said.

Okay. The the multif family it would have to be full-time residential above 45 ft. Yes. And that's

that's the important distinction, right? Because we don't want to have other types of uses. Well, our opinion short-term rentals or commercial. This is purely to go with the what is said to be the intent of M loopa which is to allow housing. This would be that you can do full-time housing above 45 ft in these three areas. Um the reason why three didn't work one number one didn't work for us is because we agree with her requirement that it says you have to do it in the downtown. So we we can't say well you get to do it if you do step backs if you do this. You have to be able to do it if it's full-time residential. So, that's the distinction. I I hear you. I just

want to make sure people know it. It's 45 feet unless it's fulltime residential. Great. Thank you. And I I would I like that emphasis. So, thanks. And we also share your concerns. It's a very tough position for us to be in here too.

So, um any further discussion on the motion on the table? All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Rebecca votes in opposition. Um, do you have another motion you'd like to make, Ben? With great regret, I'll also move to remove 5.3, which was the second part of my initial motion. If there's a second, I'll talk to it. I'll second.

Um, this is a complicated topic. I mean I I once again I completely agree with you Steve. Um but we also have for example a downtown master plan which is a whole another document that describes the complexities of how we master plan downtown and it does not break it out this way. Um I think that this is something we should consider um as a future um change in our downtown planning. Um, same as before. I don't know how to do that tonight. I think that our city attorney has made clear that there are um, notable legal risks with this particular language. Um, again, I like the concept. I do not like the folks out of Helena telling us what our downtown has to look like. Um, but I think in this instance, we strike this and I think we revisit these concepts um, as we continue our downtown uh, planning over time. Sure.

It's already seconded.

Just what really bothers me is we have an extremely successful town based on the preservation of what we have preserved as our history and the beauty that we live within. And so I find it really weird that we have to change it according to some idea that we're going to create affordable housing or workforce housing when we're actually creating the exact opposite, which is very high-end housing in our downtown area. So we're actually making it much worse to live here by doing this. And so I think sometimes people have these ideas that are actually really wrong that because they're making us force us to do things that we know are not going to work to the intended unintended consequence. So I'm sorry it's really upsetting because I love our downtown. I love how it um people are charmed by it and I hope this does not ruin it. But thanks Could I offer a friendly amendment? And I'll see if I get a second.

Sure. Instead of strike all of number three, just strike the last two bullet points and leave the historic core, which does not mention downtown. That mentions historic core.

Second.

Rebecca seconded, so I'll just speak to it. I'm just trying to find a way around throwing everything out right now because if we don't I mean we have we have several buildings downtown that are for sale. A couple that have just sold. I mean developers are licking their chops to put up something big and and whatever they want in our downtown because it's White Fish Montana because we are a brand now. And if we don't protect the core central and the railway district, Central is more important. I think we really start to lose what it is what it is actually what it means to actually live here. The other the other zones the other two things called out here are a little bit different. Um but I'll just leave it at that.

Okay. We have a friendly amendment on the table um to discuss before we get to the primary motion. Um the friendly amendment would ask that we say that again. Steve, you want to strike the bullet points, the second and third bullet points? The second and third bullet points. Trans downtown transition zone and downtown edge gateway areas. Is that Yeah. Yes. Go ahead.

Just a clarifying question, Steve. So, I I assume you wouldn't really find downtown into sub areas because at this point um that header heading was because there were three areas So are you saying that it's important to uh mention that there is one downtown district with historic core core and how would this drive our zoning decisions one way or another because I think point two and three are the strong ones once we delete point two and three the first one is is just warts doesn't have uh land use or zoning I and two three stories prevailing height. So unless historic core means that once we go down to title 11 we say that historic core which is central avenue and rail district the growth policy says cannot have more than three stories. You see what I mean? I mean

yes. Yes. Now you're getting into Ben's argument for we can't really do this up here. It's really hard to do it up here. So, we'd have to change the way that whole section reads. So, um I don't want to withdraw it because I think it's important that we don't that we don't leave this that we don't just pull it all out and approve this whole thing tonight and then, you know, next week we end up with somebody putting in a a building permit for a 60-oot building downtown where the Northern is or where the Remington is or wherever those buildings are that are that are currently for sale or just sold. So I don't know I don't know how to make it read right but yes

I just want to clarify that these will not by adopting this plan these will not be by right yet. You have to go through the zoning. So until you adopt zoning what this says is not in effect. So if you do delete that section you still have the zoning part that you're going to go through. Yes, this drives the zoning, but just know like if it's adopted tonight, tomorrow, they can't do that. You've still got to go through the zoning public process. Okay. I'll just call the question on my on my my friendly amendment. I have a I have a comment and then I have a question and then I'll call your question. Is that fair? Yes.

Um Dana, you were headed in a direction I thought I would try to at least talk through. So, we don't have any zoning to implement this one way or the other. Are you saying that as with section one, we may be able to deal with this problem through our zoning as opposed to in this position in this place. Is that a yes? I'm having a nod. Okay.

So, so yes, the zoning can still address some of these items even if it's not within the growth policy in my opinion because you're going to start looking at the 60 stories. you can look at setbacks and all of that at that time.

Um with the um redistricting of downtown um that would have to go through as a zoning amendment to actually be regulatory. So again, this is the resource section of the document. Um, by removing this, it doesn't eliminate work toward a different solution, but it does address within the growth policy that we aren't explicitly saying we're trying to get around Senate Bill 243 by doing these things because that's how it reads.

Yeah, I think that is one of the primary problems is that is kind of how this reads. And again, exactly like Dana just cautioned you, this is really not a regulatory document. You that that's going to be zoning. So, I think we can take a look at some ways and some creative ways to address this, but I really don't think it belongs in a land use plan. Great. Thank you. Um, any further comment? Um, I'll call Steve's question on the friendly amendment. All those in favor? All those opposed? Now, we we go back to the original motion. We love you. Um the um

yeah uh we're back to the original question. Any further discussion on the original motion? Not seeing any. All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Matter is uh approved by all except uh councelor Cornell. And now we're on to our have we have we addressed the letter issues that we need to address at this point? Unless you have further questions. I believe so. Can I make one more comment on it? Sure. Yeah, go ahead.

So that was section five. Section six starts talking about the B2 and I think staff briefly mentioned B2. And I want to be clear, at least in my perspective, because you know there are references, I'm not saying we changed this, but there are references to building height and us planning the zoning around building height. And I I think that it's a lot more to it than that. When we look at B2 for example, we talked about light commercial versus heavy commercial. And in my perspective, I it's it's about the use. We're talking about the use of the zoning district and how intense the use is. And so, um, I don't know why it's if it to the extent it's written talking about building height, in my opinion, I don't think that's the main issue here. it's more about the intensity of the use and we're losing our conditional use permitting process which means we have less control over B2 um going forward. And so um I think it makes a lot of sense to consider differentiating some of the uses down in the B2 district. And so in any event, I I just wanted to say that I know it might be written slightly differently in in number six, but I'm happy with number six being there. And so, um, we should should leave it.

Thank you, Ben. Any f, uh, Rebecca? I just wondered if I could add some clarify clarifying language, but I'm not not sure if it's accurate. So, I'm going to ask Alan. Um, it would be under two limit uses above 45 feet or three stories. And then the first bullet point would read multifamily and mixeduse development allowed up to 60 feet or four stories if exclusively used for long-term residential. Is that accurate?

That is accurate. I'm just trying to figure out where that where we're saying I think I'm on the wrong section. So I'm on in my packet. It's page 305. I mean, sure. If you're saying a clarification, um, yeah, okay, I understand what you're saying. You're saying adding a third bullet point saying allowing um, higher than 45 or allowing up to 60 feet if any uses above 45 ft are Dave looks like he's going to do a better job.

I'll re let me reread it. So, it would be adding language to that sentence. So it would read multifamily and mixeduse development allowed up to 60 ft or four stories if used exclusively for long-term residential.

Yeah. I mean I don't I don't I mean you could add that if you want to. I mean in our zoning code we define residential use as 30 days or more. So any within our code and also within state law the Montana landlord and tenant act residential use is 30 days or more. So anything short of that would be considered a commercial use. So I mean I think it's redundant to add that to make any change there. It already says multif family and mixed use development and under multif family is a residential use and mixed use is defined as a residential use with commercial.

Right. But I'm just thinking it might be good to clarify it more. But um how about commercial inclusion inclusive of short-term rentals shall be limited to 45 feet or three stories and no higher. Is that true? That that's correct. But that's what it says. Oh yeah, but no higher. Okay. So, I'm overthinking this is what you guys are saying. Okay. I think it captures it, counselor. What What do you mean like keep it or not? Poor intent. I think this captures your intent.

Well, I just think it might be nice to have it really strongly written in here, but maybe it's too much for a growth policy. I don't know. I think shall be limited to 45 feet or three stories is pretty clear. Steve,

before we move on from this, and I'd hate to beat a dead horse, but so I'm looking at the what's that? I'm looking at the Whitefish place types, and we don't distinguish anything outside of the down the downtown city center. when we and I just want to be clear for myself and for the people in the audience as we move forward with the zoning of this, we can break out certain parts of this of this Whitefish place type called downtown city center and zone it differently than other parts of that pl of that place type. Correct. Correct. Are you referring to the text or the map? The map itself.

Yes. Um, I guess the question to Angie would be, um, is there an issue with taking something that's downtown that allows 60 foot and reducing it? Well, we can we can have all those conversations when we get to the zoning part. I just wanted to be rest assured that we can Yes. pull out certain sections of one place type and zone it differently than other places. Thank you. That's all that was my question. Thanks. Any further questions or discussion on the letter? We'll call it. Is staff comfortable now? Sorry.

We think it's a good solution. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. All right. Um, now on to uh counselor directed comments uh on it. I think we had gone through most of the areas. Um, Ben, do you I know that you've got a list and you were very functional with it last time. Um, why don't we start with what's the top of your list in the section and then if anybody else in whatever section we're in has a change or something else they want to deal with, let's deal with it as we go through those sections. Does that seem right to you guys? Okay, let's go.

Do you want to stick to land use or do you want to go up to What's that? We we we're going to have to get through this one way or the other. Okay. One way. So, start at the top. Let's start with wherever the the first comment or first section that you want to do. The next note that I had. So, just to pick it up from where we left off at the last meeting, shifting gears to environment, natural resources, and hazards. That's the one we didn't get to last meeting. Yeah.

Um so, on this would be on page 182, which is plan page 75. Okay. Um, objective 2.m this is the one that talks about fireworks. And, uh, I know there are people in this room who know more about this than I do, but just what this says is it says, "Continue to explore and implement more environmentally friendly Oh, it's up there. You can read it." Well, it will be. There it is. Um, the last sentence says by after July 4th of this year, uh, no fireworks with perlorates may be used in White Fish Lake. Um, I do not pretend to be an expert on this topic, but I do know I really want clean water and I also really like fireworks on July 4th. What can we do to have them both?

I don't know. Um, I I totally understand. I think the problem that we're facing is when we when we created our fireworks ordinance, we had a kind of a schedule to reduce the amount and the problem that we're looking at is they're just not available. Disney buys them all apparently. So, I mean, and I don't know what kind of toxicology report. I think this came out of the planning commission. I again, not an expert at all. Yeah. Um, not an expert. don't know what kind of toxicology report we would have or how you know I mean ultimately yeah you're probably not gonna have a fireworks show. So that's I guess my short answer.

I guess I would ask Craig who operates our water treatment facility from at least the municipal water supply. Are there effects on our drinking water as a result of Fourth of July fireworks?

What's the question? I mean, PCE is obviously not something we want in our water system. Um, the the reality is that our Whitefish Lake intake is pretty far from where the fireworks actually um are launched and about 60 feet below water. I know that PCE is a it's a sinker, you know, so it it will go down, but I think it dissipates pretty well. I I think we could probably work on doing some additional sampling um you know for the week after the fireworks but um yeah I I guess I don't understand the exact question. I mean I think you answered my question which is

because that sentence was added by the planning commission that we would need a toxicology report after the fireworks show to show that there's no significant effect on drinking water quality but the fact is municipal water we are not sending dirty water out to or contaminated water out to customers is where I was getting to. We are treating that. No, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. The the water that we take in from Whitefish Lake, regardless of whether there's a fireworks show or not, is treated um through a filtration plant and chlorinated and um proven to be safe. So,

swimming at the city beach after the fireworks show would maybe be a different question. So, maybe less about the city's drinking water, but more the effects of water quality in general for public use. Yeah. I mean, if I said I mean, I I understand the concern, um, but it seemed to me like something that could potentially be studied a little better before we commit to turning it off.

And I will say again, and I'm just going to keep saying this all night, I think the growth policy is, you know, it's a bird's eye view. Um, I think staff was not necessarily super supportive of this when the planning commission added it. um it doesn't seem like it belongs in a growth policy. It seems like something that again if we want to revisit our fireworks ordinance and um we could perhaps do that, but I really don't see that it belongs in a growth policy.

I realize um the original version you had this was redmarked. I think when I put this together I must have accidentally unreadmarked it but this was redm marked as as something that was controversial that we were pretty much on the same plate as you commission council president. All right. Is this is this not a regulatory statement? I mean I was just told that this is not a regulatory document but this seems like a regulation. That's why we did there was quite a few regulatory statements that were added outside of our recommendations. Just asking. Uh, can I make a motion? Can I make a motion? I'd like to strike it as Ben is suggesting. So, so is that a motion?

Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. I would, just to be clear, I would like to strike, if you're okay with it then, the second part of it, not the first part. What what's in red right now? Yes, I think we should strike. I'll second that. Okay,

Rebecca. So Mike Copel has been talking about this for years now about how these create neurotoxins that stay in the water for up to two weeks at our city beach after our fireworks displays. So I do think we need to keep it as a goal, but I agree that if we just eliminate the whole second sentence, um that would be most appropriate because we are not going to get this done by July. So

I think we can I think that particular portion can be dealt with in separate uh discussions on regulations as we move forward over the next several years. Um but anyway uh any further comment on just a quick one? Sure.

And this is just an example of what I call getting into the weeds in a document that should be a 35,000 ft document. The reason we do not like that sentence might be for different reasons, but we all are agreeing that it's regulatory in a document that is a visioning guideline. And there are many of these uh paragraphs that we will find as we go through the document. Many of them are read and I I just keep alerting you to keep attention on those kinds of paragraphs. Thank you, Jeppe. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor? All those opposed? Matter passes unanimously. You're good with that, Alan? Got it.

Okay. All right.

All right. Next thing I had on my list was um it's actually an objective that is not in here. So, I don't have it would be around page 191, which would be um should have something to do with wildfire. Let's see. Yeah, that's the wildfire section. So, just to pose a question to staff, one one thing that I did not really see discussed in here was the fact that we have had, I believe now twice, um, ancillary fire service areas around the city come to us asking for uh, assistance in creating a fire station essentially outside of city limits. Um, and I know that's a very complicated talk topic, especially as it relates to costs, but um, I do think that for future councils as a forward planning document, it is very important that we are supporting our neighbors in uh, their efforts to fight fight wildfires around us because those come into town once they start burning. And so I was going to add an objective saying something to that effect. And I've got some language, but before I put all that out there, what do you what do you think?

We are currently or have attempted to work with community neighborhoods within the fire service area. So, I think as long as you're specific to areas that make um operational and logistic sense, logistical sense for us to continue working with them. Um we are still working with the the only we currently have in place is with the North White Fish Lake Community Fire Association who is wanting to become a district. I know that there is an area out by Twin Bridges who has contacted the DNRC for property looking at their own fire district and Star Meadows did create their own um district uh for that area. So, these are all areas within the White Fish Fire Service Area, which is a very large area, but I think it needs to make it depends on how you have it drafted. But I think as long as there's a a cost to the city taxpayers is accounted for in those agreements, then it's okay.

Sure. Well, I'll make a motion and I'll put my language out there and you guys can agree or disagree, but I was going to suggest adding an objective under the wildfire section that says um to support the creation and expansion of satellite fire stations and other efforts of surrounding jurisdictions such as the Whitefish Fire Service area to expand wildfire protection and I'd like to discuss with you Go ahead. Go ahead.

It's not a discussion. I want to make sure that if we add this is it's not inconsistent or redundant with any other part of the document because at this point I'm not sure that we have already or we will be talking. I want to make sure it's consistent. I have no problem with your input. Uh it's a good input. Uh if we missed it in the whole document, I'm I'm good to add it.

I don't believe that this would be duplicative of any objectives that we have within the plan. Now, now the lawyer comes in. Emmy, what do you mean by support? I don't know yet until the proposals come forward. Yeah. Any further thoughts or discussions on the motion? Rebecca, I like it.

Good. Any further discussion? All those in favor? All those opposed, like sign. We have a new goal. Okay, good. Our objective. Want to keep going? Yeah.

Number three and my last one in this section is on page 192 page 85 and this has to do with the big mountain egress. So, um, secondary egress, this, so these, this is secondary egress from Big Mountain in event of a wildfire. Um, obviously I share the same concerns that the one that's there is insufficient. Um, but I worry that this is too specific and it it is unclear as to who's paying for what and who's doing what. Um, I had initially considered if we should strike it. Um, I have some alternative language I could suggest instead. Um, but I guess I'm a little concerned with what's here right now.

Yeah. Talking about both of them. Both of them because I also have a suggestion to kind of combine them. That's what I Okay, I'll let you continue then. Well, I'll put my suggestion and we can I'll do anything that's not exactly that. um is to say encourage county efforts to establish and improve a secondary means of egress from Big Mountain. Further analyze egress safety as a component of any possible future annexation of Big Mountain. Are those two separate? No, that's one thing replacement of A and B. Okay. And I'll just move to that effect. So striking A and B.

Striking A and B and at replacing it with what's there in highlighted should my only question would be well I I'll second so that we can discuss this yeah go ahead would is it just the county or would would we want all stakeholders to be involved in exploring this idea or encouraging improving a secondary means not just the county I think that's good so encourage all stakeholders that's good efforts to establish and improve secondary means Yeah, I mean at some point the state should be involved. The forest service potentially.

Are we just are we just replacing county with encourage all stakeholder efforts? Think so. Sure. Yeah.

Sure. Rebecca, go. I think it's impossible to do more to be honest. So I don't think that would have ever worked legally, right? An I agree with you. We strongly recommended against that.

Okay. Any for Andy?

Um I'm going to oppose it and I only thing I would support here and it's in my notes is that we would eliminate A and B both. Um I think we need to particularly A. It's like why we would develop a feasibility study at great cost to us in the city to build a road to the largest culde-sac in the state that generates a whole bunch of revenue and why that would be our responsibility I have absolutely zero idea. Um I think we also know that the feasibility of actually building a road out of Haskell Basin and quite frankly that's the only option that's seven miles down the Haskell highway. Stoultz is probably never going to let that happen. And I think the sidebar to that were we to let that happen, anything that doesn't currently fall into the uh easement that we have there, the conservation easement would probably be then subject to development, which would create even more fire risk out there. So I think that's ridiculous. And then if I look at B, I think one of the ways if we are going to have some impact on the fire safety up on the mountain, it will be through annexation and our zoning and putting in decent fire restrictions on building as it happens. And anything that we throw up as an impediment to those negotiations for annexation is going to make that all that much more difficult. And it's going to make it that much more difficult to zone if we actually get it done. And that's exactly what B does. If we go into the table with that saying, it's like, oh, you can't do anything because you're not going to get a secondary access road, which is probably going to be $50 million, Craig, minimum, maybe $75 million. That ain't happening. So why we would call that out in here, jeopardize our ability at the table to negotiate annexation is just absolutely ludicrous to me.

Just to make sure you're clear, I my motion is to strike A and B and I don't care for the uh I don't care for the my you listen to what I said. I said I would I would not support the motion and I would only strike A and B. That's the only thing I'll support. Rebecca

Andy, we know you're right, but I still think we should try. There's no point in trying things that have absolutely zero chance. And what we need to do with this document is we need to be realistic. This is not a wish list for everything on the planet. And I think we've gone too far that direction with it overall. That's my personal opinion. We've made a lot of things in here that we probably don't need to have in here and I'm comfortable with those. But things that are just absolutely non-starters make no sense to me and particularly when they can potentially jeopardize anything that we want to do in the future with them. So I just I I can't support it.

So So you're just to clarify, Andy, you're saying that just strike A and B and leave it as is without any without any mention of a secondary egress from Big Mountain. Okay. I mean, we all know it's a problem. They know it's a problem. It's not like we need to call it out. I mean, the sun comes up in the morning and we don't all go, "Hey, look, the sun comes up in the morning. I think we should put that in our growth policy." It's like, no, that's not what we're doing here, you know? Yeah. I mean, so I just I can't support it. What What if it's something as simple as going down Iron Horse Road or something simple like that that we could use?

That's even more prescriptive. And that's not what this document is entitled to do. Not only that doesn't solve the problem of Wisconsin. I mean, that's still the problem. Um, my my two cents is I I concur with Andy 100% on this. I could live with Ben's motion, but I will not support it in light of the fact that I what I really want is those two things gone. And I just don't think there should be another mention of it in in the in the growth policy. I just don't think that's where we do it. So that's my feeling. All right, there's a motion on the table. Um Allan, yes. What was the motion?

I think it's striking A and B and adding the third

and that was motion made by you, seconded by Steve. seconded. So motion's on the table. Call on the question. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion fails. Uh can I have an additional uh a different motion? I would I would move that we strike A and B um as objectives. Second.

Further discussion. All those in favor? All those opposed? Ma matter passes unanimously. We good. Anybody have anything else in hazards?

Um I have one actually. Um page 183 in the packet. Um item D under objectives there. I think that's just simply a restatement of what we have to do when we build a trail along the river. So, I don't really know why we put that in there because any trail we build along the river, we have to have it reviewed by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and the Flated Conservation District. That's that's standard operating procedure. So, why we have that as an objective, I'm not really quite sure. Makes no sense. Is this just saying that we're going to have trail design standards?

Yeah, develop trail design standards for public. Each trail is going to always be different. Each trail is going to have to be submitted to the Flathead Conservation District and FWP to see if it can be approved. So, and we pretty much know how to design a trail and what why that's an objective. I what we already do. Is there anything standardized that would be like a boilerplate to start with or standardized like in front of the riverbend condos? I'm just ask I'm just asking to try to figure out why it's there. But

I think that objective was more So, Fish, Wildlife, and Parks has always kind of requested that we have a complete trail design from, you know, City Beach to Smith fields. And I think that objective, correct me if I'm wrong, Alan, was really more or less intended to have something, not necessarily a trail design standard, but a trail um concept that showed everything that we want to do in the future because as we do trails piece by piece, um you know, it's one 124 permit or one um 312 permit through the conservation district. So um I don't I don't know that Maybe it's just not worded correctly. I can't remember exactly where that one came from, but um

we did not. Okay, strike that then. Ju just to clarify that everything that not everything that we wrote that we didn't write is red marked in here because there was so much of it that you would have all hated me. We just kept the stuff that we believed was really controversial red marks. So there is some stuff that we may not have added that hasn't been called out because we were like it doesn't it's kind of like get another thing like how big of a deal is it really? And it wasn't. Well, I would move that we strike that. I'll second.

Further discussion. No further discussion heard. All those in favor? All those opposed like sign strike it. We're done. I have something else in hazards but it's not until page 198. If anything anybody has anything before then go for it. So on page 198 let me get there again. It's 198 of the packet. Uh the plan page is n uh I'm not there yet. 91

uh 90. Yeah. 91. uh H letter H at the bottom. Objective H. Um consider preparing a report on the quantity of water pumped annual from White Fish Lake. Discuss the drop in lake levels and effects of the same. Address whether it is advisable to continue pumping from White Fish Lake if financially feasible. Again, this seems like one of those prescriptive regulatory sort of things. Even though it says consider, I don't I mean, we could sit here and consider it all day long. Um, but if we're not going to do anything with it, I'm not sure why it appears here. So, uh, my initial vote would be to strike it completely. Um, and if not, I have an option to change the language,

but I think I don't think it belongs. So, my first motion will be to Okay, move to strike it. I'll second. Could we hear from public works about their opinion before we go further? Yes. As further as discussion, you can ask for that. Okay. I am asking public works to comment on this, please. Yeah, it's it's red line because we recommended striking it. I mean, whether it's feasible or not, if we want water in the summer, we're going to pump from Whitefish Lake. So, that's what it boils down to. So, that means you're okay with us getting rid of it, right? Yes, please. Okay.

I had that on my list as well. and and and no and partly because Whitefish Lake Institute already studies the water for us. So any further discussion? Not seeing any. All those in favor of the motion. All those opposed like sign. Matter passes unanimously. It's gone. Anything else in hazards? That's not Oh, public. Okay, we're storm. Okay, never mind. Anything else? Yes,

I think I can introduce my concern any point because it's all over the place. I have a question about this character that is called M dash. We have the dash that is like the minus and the M dash is a longer minus sign that is a give that away of AI or documents written using AI. In this document and there are 50 plus pages mostly it starts around higher at the hazard and down and then it gets higher and higher and higher in frequency. Uh where sometimes a human would put a comma to put an incidental sentence. There is a Z dash which is a long dash sign and then the sentence and then another M dash. It's many times in the red areas but sometimes is in the black areas so I cannot tell. H I'm sure you Allan do not have an M dash on your keyboard because M dash are generated by using AI. So my question is

you dash twice in some programs. Yeah but it it doesn't do that. So my question is uh do we want to keep for posterity a document with a clear giveaway? It's not a big deal, but I'm just putting it out there that there has been a heavy use of AI at least in in in certain areas. Or should we discuss it?

I I scanned it with my computer and uh um I don't I don't know. I mean with Frick of saying you have to believe me I can assure you I wrote this. Did you did you do any copy and paste of anything into anything? Yeah. into this. Um sure. Okay. Sure. I mean, I sure I mean, I went to zoning regulations and and stuff from all over the country and I would paste it and rewrite it and work on it and massage it, but nothing just came straight out of AI on this document that I wrote. This was all written and massaged

and not taken from any public comment and inserted into this document. Um, I mean, I I guess I didn't understand the question. I mean what the process of putting this together for every one of these plan elements was months. Um there was places where I copied and pasted and reworked. There's places where I did research and took it out of documents. Nothing was holistically written by AI. This was written by me or other authors.

And I respect that. Once we get to where it's very very dense, I I'll show you what I'm talking about. Again, it's not a big deal for me. It bothers me because it's often a clear giveaway that heavy use of AI has been done.

Just a second. Um for purposes of discuss uh Mr. Hner that is called Mand. Thank you, professor. And I mean that in all sincerity. Thank you. Um, anything else on this matter right now? Okay, next up. Who's got something else? 206 is my next page. Great. Thank you. If anybody has uh

it's page 99 in the document, it's uh objective E. Continue to prepare an analysis of how much city taxes have risen over the last year in a budget memo. Isn't this We already do this every single year, don't we?

So, the the concern I have about this one is yes, in um the budget document, I do prepare that in my budget memo. Um our charter provides the direction to the city manager that's their budget to prepare for your consideration. Uh the issue I have with this is the latter part that says which shows what rises are attribut what rises are attributable to including public facilities. I do not go into that specific detail that 0.25 of one mil raised is for X property improvement. So, it just depends on how you read this. Um, I get worried that this means I have to do an analysis dollar for dollar to know where the rises are attributable to. And so, preparing an analysis of how much city taxes have riven risen over the last year in a budget memo, that's going to be pretty standard. That's how I sell you the budget. I have prepared that it's a good budget. Um, specifically, what it is attributed to is the problem. Well, and typically we get that information from you as to oh well this is how much uh health insurance has gone up. So this is how much it costs per in in mills and we get that information. It comes out however however it comes out. So I move to strike this

moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Matter struck. Next up,

I have one on short-term rentals. It's on uh page 288 and in the lefthand corner it is 181 and it at the top it says exhibit A, right? about short-term rentals. Again, page 288 or 181 in the upper leftand corner. I got you. I know. But does Alan have us?

Okay. Okay. Sorry. Well, it says No, it's okay. It's just a little quicker. Well, at least it's getting shorter. So,

so if you could go up one little bit, one more paragraph up. Um, okay. So, I'd like to delete the section that says moving forward, the city should consider establishing a short-term rental overlay zone. Um, I think that adds a lot of burden that we don't need. We already have defined areas of where our short-term rentals can exist. I talked to Dave about this earlier, too, and he um he was I thought he we can ask him, but I thought he was okay with deleting it as just one more layer. Would you like to speak to that, Dave?

I mean, I I agree. I think overlay zones can be problematic. I mean, we already have 9, 10, 11 different areas in town that allow short-term rentals. Um, so there'd be a patchwork of that many overlay zones and we already have the zoning in place that defines that. So, it seems kind of redundant to do that and a lot of extra work. Okay. So, that's my first section. Do you do I make a motion? I think it's that whole paragraph that you would delete. I'm I'll make a motion to delete the whole paragraph. I'll second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussions?

I I'd like to offer a friendly amendment. Um I I I think we should strike this whole section about criteria for considering limited expansion of short-term rentals. I don't think we should be talking about expanding short-term rentals at all in this document.

Great minds think alike. I I think we got to get rid of the whole thing because expanding short-term rentals short-term rentals do nothing for us as a community. It does nothing for our for our housing problem except create more short-term rentals, which doesn't help us as a community. We have plenty. We know where they are. I don't think I think we can just take out this whole entire section and leave the the short-term rental zoning map in there. That's my friendly amendment. I'm not sure what I can do. I I wanted Dave to explain why he thinks it's important to keep it in here because I wanted to eliminate it all too and he thought it was relevant and so I would it be okay. Do we need to have a second for the short-term rental?

I mean that's my Yes, we would need we would need a a second to talk about my my friendly amendment. Okay. Motion made and seconded. And I just want to say one thing before and then I'll shut up about this. We have criteria for considering limited expansion of short-term rental zones. And a lot of that reads there there are a lot of things in there that read like our um like our affordable housing bonuses that people can that developers can get. And I and there is no I don't see any place where we would need to provide any incentive for anybody to create any more short-term rentals. Thank you, Steve. And now, um, Dave, would you like to talk us out of this decision?

I mean, you know, one of the things that we anticipating is annexing, you know, the White Fish Mountain Resort and whatever plans that they have in the future to potentially expand that. I know they're adding additional runs and um and lifts and things in the future. and we wanted to provide and this something I suggested to um CCB who was putting this stuff together that we at some point there may be expansions of that resort and that we don't want to have language in here that would prohibit us to allowing them because that's where if there are going to be short-term rentals that's one place that they're appropriate um that would hamstering us from whatever resort operations and plans that they have with their expansion and so having some at least really specific criteria in there at least and you know and it's pretty robust those eight different points are all things that are are criteria that they would have to meet in order to do that and that's why we added that in there and if you guys want to take that out that's fine but I'm just trying to look to the future over the next 20 years with climate change and all the different things how the resort might change um we don't know you know so just trying to provide some flexibility in there but if you guys want to delete all that I mean it's your prerogative

and could you also speak to the fact that it would go before the planning commission and the city council if we Well, you guys when you annex, obviously you have an opportunity to look at the zoning when the annexation comes in. And then any expansion within the city of short-term rental zones because they are zones would require a zone change which would have to go through the planning commission and the city council and be consistent with the growth policy which would have to, you know, look at and here's the criterion here. Does it meet these things? And is it consistent with our place type maps and our future land use map? I mean, there's a lot of things that go into that and the council would ultimately have that decision on any area that would be expanded into short-term rentals.

I'll just add on the Big Mountain annexation. There is specific requirements for us to annex, including allowing everything that there as a use by rights and doing planning for that area specific um allowing for what is there uh currently. In the future, it allows for you to make zoning changes, but there is some clauses when we do go forward with the Big Mountain annexation to be clear. But there's nothing that prevents us from letting them have that right that's already existing. Right. You have to annex even if we strike this.

Exactly. No. Exactly. That does not impact. There is an standing agreement on the annexation that tells you what you have to do when it comes to zoning already. Um you're going to have to do community planning with them. Um anyways, in that area outside of this process, um it'll probably cause an amendment to this plan, but um there is extra steps you have to do. So, what I'm saying is there's an agreement that already controls how we'll handle the Big Mountain annexation and the uses up there. And let me ask this, anything about that discussion change your motion? This is a friendly amendment.

This was amendment. Yes, this was a friendly amendment to the Rebecca's amendment to strike one paragraph. Right. This strikes the whole section all the way down to impact of covenants, codes, and restrictions on land use. Okay. The um it was seconded by Jeppy. Any further discussion on this friendly amendment which in a lot of ways supersedes your motion?

You okay with this? I I was going to go there next, but I thought it was an important discussion for the community. The reason why I brought it up with Dave ahead of time was because I think the community's been very clear that we don't feel like we need more short-term rentals. And I felt like this was like a loophole for allowing short-term rentals at some point. And um but I wanted him to explain the planning rationale for why they presented this language.

Great. Thank you. All right. With that, I'm going to call for the question on the friendly amendment, uh, which we all agree supersedes essentially if it's passed your motion. You good? Understand? Okay. Well, I just want to make sure you're not it reversed to her. Okay.

All those in favor of the friendly amendment as presented. All those opposed? One opposed. Andy's opposed. Matter passes, we strike it all. All right, moving on with speed and elacrity. Um, anything? I'm like done. You're like done. Anybody else? Uh,

sure. So, the the one thing I'm still stuck on is the hospital site and whether or not that zone the is it the place type should be community corridor, not community neighborhood. What is it called again? neighborhood commute neighborhood center.

Yeah, neighborhood center. Um, and we got information that said that we could have up to 2,000 units on that site. Um, did I read that correctly? Allan's indicating Thomas should join us for this conversation. You available? I am. Hi there. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yeah, as good as we'll be able to. Thank you.

Okay. I apologize. I'm trying to speak loudly. Um, if that area were a neighborhood center place type, it's approximately 17 units per acre. Um and um for those for those three areas that were identified as uh potential um neighborhood centers and or mixed neighborhoods, you could realize approximately 2,000 units of new housing. And so the idea was to create neighborhood centers, walkable centers in those areas. So as you think about that, you could accommodate almost 2,000 units of the 2100 that are anticipated over the next uh 20 years or so for the horizon of 2045. that is not I I do want to clarify one thing that was stated ear earlier and that is that the units that are proposed for those three areas are not the only units that are proposed for this growth plan. This growth plan also takes into account that the city has also already accommodated duplexes in single family zoning as well as potentially triplexes in suburban zoning. And if you look at your existing single family zoning districts, you have approximately 4700 units or 4,700 lots that are zoned single family. If you accommodated duplexes, maybe on 25% of those, you could accommodate 1,200 units. If you accommodate ADUs on say 25% of those,

you could accommodate 1,200 units. Right? there is 2400 units of housing you could accommodate over the next 20 plus years. Right there you exceed the Montana Department of uh Commerce's projections for needed housing which is 2100 units. So this area for neighborhood center would be part of a an additional accommodation of up to 2,000 units. that could be accommodated on those vacant lots. So, it is a recommendation to surgically look at areas that are vacant lots that are capable of redevelopment.

Thank you. Thank you. It just seems unrealistic. Um, we did have one proposal a few years ago and it was only 250, but Dana wants to speak, I guess. Yeah, Rebecca, just to clarify, I think you I think your understanding is that there's 2,000 units just for the old hospital site, and their an their analysis is that it's 2,000 units for um, you know, A, B, and C, all the additional parcels. Alan Price, that's correct. Add to that. Thank you. You guys

also Rebecca on the old hospital site when it was approved that was just the one lot where the hospital was and not the additional property that was acquired there which included the old trailer park as well as a bunch of residential property all the way down the river. So that lot's a lot bigger now than it was. And then Thomas was also indicating that there was the other two lots would be part of that accommodation for the 2000. That's just that side. Thank you Dave. I didn't know it was a lot bigger. Thank you.

If I can kind of add to what Thomas was talking about because I think there's a little confusion there too. If you if you read, we we've got the diagrams in the maps, but if you read the land use plan, it's also prioritizing infill. It's saying that housing should be occurring. And you know, there's been this discussion about this one mile within the downtown. If you look at these areas, if you look at the amount of ADUs that would be allowed, the amount of um duplexes that would be allowed, if you look at the changes that the planning commission is suggesting, like Thomas was talking about adding triplexes, that all accommodates quite a bit of housing. Then it's saying that if that doesn't happen, if that infill housing doesn't happen within the downtown, here's three additional places where basically new developments could occur. So it's not saying put all the housing in these three areas. It's just saying here are some additional areas where some larger developments could occur. I mean, do you agree with that, Thomas?

That's right. This is additive because you have gentle infill with duplexes, triplexes, ADUs, etc. that could accommodate far more than what the Montana Department of Commerce is anticipating over the course of the next 20 years. So, this is additive to that. This is 2,000 units in those three areas that could be accommodated for the uh growth plan. And so, this Go ahead.

No, and I was and those three sites are within a mile of downtown. So we've basically with with the planning commission has recommended and what this land use plan has done, we are looking at allowing more gentle density, different types of housing stock within the one mile of downtown in addition to three opportunity sites if those first ideas don't work.

Thank you. I hate to tell you, but I can't turn my mic off, so I'll just try to be very very quiet. Okay. Um, Andy, uh, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I would make a motion in light of the fact that seems like we've all had our comments in, the public hearing is closed that we move this item to our April 20 meeting for re final review, adop um, discussion and hopefully adoption. Sir, is that a second? A motion made and seconded. I I have a question. for staff. Sure. Does that

What does that do with our timeline of things? Dana,

I'm I'm going to try and Dana will kick me if if I'm wrong. The um the the community plan the the community plan is driving the zoning. As long as we're relatively sure that we're consistent, that what we're doing here is going to be consistent with the zoning, they're somewhat independent processes. So, we don't have to have this done by today in order to have the zoning in place, but we do we have to have a a hard deadline for the zoning because there's a first and a second reading. Did I did I do Well,

we're already not going to be complying with the deadline when it comes to zoning. Um, that is a concern, but you can delay it. You have four public hearings that night already, so be prepared. It will be a long one. Hang on. I also don't know about noticing requirements. I mean, you've said it tonight. We can get one notice in the paper, but the public hearing's closed. Yep. we maybe we don't need to publish it because they're delaying it. But my biggest concern is that the planning commission is starting to work on zoning based on this plan. I'm

they can go side to side, but yeah. Okay, I can answer. Alan, what is mic? Just take your mic. You can have the mic. No, no, no, no. Now I'm embarrassed. I'm I'm comfortable. I I just wanted to mention that that also at the same hearing um the p there was some discussion about a public engagement and about you know we have having to have a public engagement plan for the zoning that's happening at the same meeting. Sorry Dane, I'm seriously sorry. Um the there's a there is an updated public engagement plan that you're also going to be seeing at that coming hearing that's going to be talking about the zoning updates per M loopa which Mary talked about. I don't think she knows that we have an amended one ready to go. here.

What is the What's the I just understand to that. Okay. I'd like to hear

I mean I think that we're all done with all of our comments. We will get a clean copy that will come back to us of the we may have a small amount of discussion. The public hearing has been closed. I mean we're probably pretty comfortable. We could almost adopt tonight, but I'd like to have a clean copy and I think I'd like to have the mayor here because it's been part of this process and I don't think it's going to hold anybody up for anything. And even if we have four public hearings, this won't be a public hearing and I don't think it'll take a lot of discussion or time and I would hope that we would all come with that mindset when we arrived on the 20th. That's adjunct to my motion. I I concur with your motion and your rationale.

Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion? All those opposed like sign. Matter passes unanimously. We're done. Public hearing is closed on this matter. There we go. We're done. No, we're not.

What do we got left? What do we got left? All right, we've got um communication from our city manager. You guys have my report in your packet.

Just what we're working on right now is budget, budget, budget. So, I'm pretty busy in meetings. If you need to get a hold of me, you might just have a delay. I I am in backto-back meetings pretty much for the next two weeks uh with department heads. So, other than that, um I do have a couple meeting slots that I have for if any counselor wants to come meet with me um or other counselors. uh keeping it to one or two or three at most. Well, only two probably um just to give you kind of my thoughts on the budget. Please feel free to come by um at those times that I had provided for you. But we are excited to get that budget done. Um I provided you the annual now new annual report by the Whitefish Fire Department. I hope you take a gander at that. It's very interesting, well done um by the department. So um good way to kind of goes with my manager's report this time. as you saw the training that I was able to attend with the White Fish Fire Department. So with that, that's all I have for this meeting.

Dana, the question I mean, and I really like this um fire department I need to read it, but is this something we should anticipate on an annual basis? Yes. Oh, good. They are planning to do that on an annual basis. Good. Cole can speak to it if he'd like.

Yeah, we're just trying to put together a little bit more data collection. Um, this was just our first go at trying to collaborate everything that we we talk about at our officers meetings quarterly and that we talk about all the time between myself and deputy chief. So, we're just trying to get all this stuff compiled so we can have a more comprehensive document at the end of the year and just a report to our staff. So, we thought we'd, you know, put it together and bind it and share it with city council and with city manager. And, um, it's something we're just going to work on improving over time. So, it's kind of helping to guide some of our data collection over the next year so we can have better data for the next one and just hope to continue to improve it as we go each year. And is this going to be available on the website so people can access it?

Yeah, we're we're going to put a version of it on the website to be viewed. It's a great idea. Did I did forget one thing? Um, one thing that I forgot to mention is the CWPP is moving forward our community wildfire protection plan work. There is a survey that will be posted if it hasn't been posted already. I haven't checked um for the community to participate in uh providing feedback on how they see fire risk in whitefish. We will have a open house in May. Um but this is step one with getting some survey responses. So please when it pops up on our website um or on our Facebook page, take that survey for us. Great.

Any other items between April 1 and April 6th? Dana, I think that was it. Thank you. Great. Um, we now have communications from mayor and city councilors. I'll start with you, Jeppi.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Just two items. One is just a reminder that we're getting closer and closer to July and uh we're part of the community where this airport KGPI would be closed um from Monday till Friday uh Monday 6 pm till Friday 10:00 a.m. the weeks July 10 all the way till July 31st. So just a reminder as we get closer and closer uh to the summer. uh so airlines will be able to land between Friday and Monday. So if you talk to friends, relatives, pair and so on, keep that in mind. And more importantly, today is the second birthday of my fourth granddaughter Sophia Calabiano. So I want to record this say happy birthday and all the best. Thank you.

Thanks for stepping Steve. Uh well, it sure feels good once the sausage is made, doesn't it? Um hopefully uh we can all enjoy some broughtwurst at at our April 20th meeting. Uh and get this thing over the finish line. Um the only other thing I wanted to do is say happy Easter to everybody. Uh it's that time of renewal in the year when um things start to turn green, start thinking about planting our gardens and um and the the hope and the the signs of new life. So um that's even though this may feel like the the growth policy may feel like a zombie that keeps coming back, know that the new life is out there. Ben,

uh, first of all, I just wanted to say congratulations to the University of Michigan. Not to, uh, spoil it, but I did briefly see that they won the NCAA championship game while we were here talking about the growth policy. Um, I I would also just make a brief comment about some public comment that we had earlier today. I I just want you to know, Jeppi, that I am eternally thankful that this is a nonpartisan council with nonpartisan elections and that we do not approach politics here in anywhere resembling the way that partisan politics seem to be happening in this country. So, um I for one see that as a significant strength of of this council and of this community. And regardless of your views on national politics, um I think uh your participation is welcome here. Um and so I just wanted to to say that and uh I definitely do not support changing the charter. So um I would also make a comment um about Wendy Compton Ring's retirement. Um I saw that with with some sadness as I've uh I've worked with her in so many things over the years. I know she's not here, but hopefully she hears um and I'll tell her um how wonderful uh she has been here and I know that's going to be uh she'll be missed um you know with staff and and everybody else and um but I wish her great luck on retirement. I'm jealous. Um almost lastly but not least, uh we do have a baby due in 10 days, so I do not expect to be here for the adoption of the growth policy. um which is somewhat sad but I just wanted to and preemptively put out um the comment that I feel that what we have here is very good and um you know this has been if any I've said this several times but if anybody ever thought adopting a growth policy was going to be easy in this town they're

crazy pe people care so much about this town more than most small towns and I see that as a good thing and that sometimes means means it's hard and it means there's disagreement and everything else, but I think that the policy draft that we have here is very well thought out. We've all put our thoughts and efforts into it. Um, and I just want to make a sincere thanks to staff um, and the planning board and everybody else who has worked on this to getting us this far. It's a big deal. It hasn't been done in 20 years. Um, and uh, and and I think we're finally about there. Um, so just uh thanks thanks for me and uh see you see you soon,

Rebecca.

I'll tell you later. Right back.

Um, yeah, I just wanted to thank all the people that worked on the growth policy, both the planning commission especially, that was really a heavy lift. um lots of work and all the people that are parts of the um lobbying groups in our town that have special interests, they showed up repeatedly and it was really helpful to hear everybody's viewpoints. Um congratulations, Ben, on your baby girl that we'll find out her name pretty soon and I hope John's feeling better. Um yeah, I I I think I I'm always astounded. Well, also, Jeppy, I'm sorry that you had to hear those words because you have every right to be any party that you want to be. I mean, we are nonpartisan up here for a reason, but we also have private lives and private ways of being. And so, I'm sorry that you were attacked about that tonight. Um, I think the best part of living in our town is that people care tremendously about how we actually grow as a community. And I think we'll we've seen that in this process even though it was really really hard on Allan and probably Dave, but we appreciate staff immensely for um shephering the unruly parts of our community through this process, too. So that's all. Thank you and happy spring too.

Andy, I'll save my accolades for all of you for two weeks because then I'll know we're actually done. But uh Ben, I can understand and hopefully everything goes well with Brooks and I trust that it will. And I hope you're not here on the 20th. That would be a good thing. Other than that, I don't have any other comments. Although I will say, Bridger, it is clear sidewalk season out there and I've seen at least four motorized bikes going 20 miles an hour on sidewalks in the last couple of days. They all came out of the storage unit and they're running around town. So, just have officers be aware of that. So, that that's all I have.

Um, and Jeppe, I'm going to add my comments to uh to Ben's in a large measure. I I could not be prouder of the fact that this position is nonpartisan. Under no circumstances do I want that to ever change. Um I will fight anybody that wants to make that change. I think it would be wrong. I also feel very strongly as it relates to our judiciary. I think that's an important thing that we need to keep in mind. And there's also challenges in that area that I hope we will all pay attention to and um and honor that we have a nonpartisan judiciary. Um with that, I again will thank everyone. I think the huge push this evening. I want to thank the planning board again. It was a difficult painful job that got done. Um, and it just it it takes they were the front lines of all the comments and trying to filter everything. Um, we got the easier of the two jobs for sure. But, uh, the planning board did great work. Um, whether we liked it all or not, they did great work. Um, but thank you very much. And with that, I think we're adjourned.

What is her name? Not telling me.