City Council - Regular Meeting

I want to talk to you. Testing one, two.

We're just waiting on the video to come live. I'm going to go ahead and call this Monday, March 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Whitefish City Council to order. Thanks everyone for attending in person. We also have folks joining us remotely um via hybrid on Zoom. And I will for the record indicate that councelor Cornell is excused for this evening. Um I will move to our pledge of allegiance. And I'd like to ask our friend Walter who just returned from CH Caribou's Hely skiing with Andy Fury and Frank Sweeney to please lead us to the stands nationy. and justice for all.

Thanks, Walter. As I said it uh prior to the meeting, I will be joining you next year to get Andy's million-dollar coat. So, look forward to it. Um, one comment uh regarding our public hearing this evening. There was some misinformation in case those of you are here regarding this mis misinformation that triplexes forplexes were to be added to the heritage urban designation or place type on Summers Columbia Avenue and Park Avenue. That is not the case. That was misinformation. Those uses are not designated or recommended in our updated growth policy for consideration by the council this evening. So, if you are here to speak to that item, I just wanted to clarify that that information was not correct nor accurate and we will not be considering those additions to our land use um policy uh this evening. Uh with that said, I will move on to communications from the public. We have one advertised public hearing which again is our 2045 vision Whitefish community plan. If you have anything to bring to the attention of the council unrelated to the public hearing, now would be your opportunity. And just please approach the podium and name and address for the record, please. Is that bigger than it used to be? It seems like it's sticking out. Um Mary Flowers, Citizens for Better Flathead, 137 South Maine. I have two um items I wanted to update you on. Uh, one is that um on March 5th and it was only served today I believe we have filed a suit against Flatty County to address the uh violations of the Lakeshore Protection Act on the property kind of known as the blast site on White Fish Lake. Um

we are concerned that the county is continually um in that case approving after the fact permits that are not uh allowed under the uh lake and lakes shore protection act. But um I did want you to know that we are going to be following that and uh I am submitting for your record tonight the press release that we just did on that. On the second item, um, and you have probably seen this in the media and I've been bringing it to your attention, is the county health boards, uh, and now the county commissioners approval of a roll back on the required septic systems in Flatt County. As you may remember, since 2004, uh, we have had a superior system required of all septic tanks to use a pressure dosed drain field system. That is now been remains one option, but now you also have the option of just applying to have a gravity-fed drain field. That is a real step back in our county. And I am going to submit for your record the findings that we did that argued that uh the commissioners did uh issue their own findings. Um but I believe this is an issue that still needs your attention. um in particular uh what they did not do and the commissioners said they couldn't do because they could only vote yes or no on what the uh health board sent them which I I'm not sure that's the legal case but that's what they argued. So this was not made what was called a deviation requirement. A deviation would

make it much more uh it would require a professional engineer to uh present information on a gravity-fed system and justify why it was uh could still be equivalent to uh protecting our water quality. So on April 16th, um I've asked that the health board put this back on their agenda to look at it becoming a deviation. That gives you as a council time to um look at this a little bit more closely. talked to your representative on the health board who has voted for this change um and doesn't see uh doesn't appear to have the concerns that I think you should have on this significant water quality issue. So without giving you a whole lot of each of you a whole lot of papers, it will be in the record and I would ask that Michelle email it to each of you. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Mary. additional public comment this evening. I did have one agenda uh change and that would be to move um or to include or add um item number six which will be mayor and city council comments which will then bump our adjournment to item number seven just for the record. Additional public comment this evening. Michelle, anyone online? Okay, I'll go ahead and close communications from the public and move to the consent agenda. You do have the March 16, 2026 regular meeting minutes enclosed in the packet. Unless there's any changes or additions, I would entertain a motion. Ben,

I would move to approve the consent agenda as presented. I'll second. Seconded by councelor Fury. Further discussion. Shortest meeting ever. I took my my comment. I wanted to say he established a record. yet. Should we change seats?

All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like sign on. And that motion does carry unanimously. Which does bring us on to item number five of our agenda, which is our one public hearing of the evening, which will be resolution 26-5, a resolution to adopt the 2045 vision Whitefish Community Plan. This begins on page 57 of your packet. and we will be taking uh public comment. Just for the record, all of the public comments that were issued at the community de development board meeting as well as online via email to our city clerk are part of the public record and the council has reviewed those public comments. Uh we also provided two work sessions to the council where no direction was provided. It was purely informative for the council. I expect we will be providing guidance this evening on amendments to the policy and providing some direction to the staff on proposed or desired changes and those changes if I'm not mistaken Dana will come back to us at the April 6th meeting which will be our first meeting in April. So you'll have another opportunity to comment on those changes and I imagine the public hearing will remain open so the public has adequate input into what those changes encompass. With that said, I'll turn it over to our planning director or Allan, our long range planner. Your choice, staff report. Yeah. Uh, mayor, we have presented our staff report at the last meeting. I don't know um we have any updates for this meeting. Um, Alec can kind of give another overview of what you talked about earlier with regard to um just some clarification on um the Heritage Urban Neighborhood, but

that would be great. Thank you.

Yeah. Um, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, Alan Tbach, land use plan or long range planner, uh, project manager, vision wage 2045. Yeah, I did not prepare a presentation for tonight because you had just, uh, I believe continued the public comment. I just wanted to mention what you had, what you had already talked about. Um, we have a place types map and the, uh, land use element talks about what types of densities, what types of housing, what types of uses are allowed in this place type map. Um there was some confusion arising from a flyer that was distributed about a neighborhood uh which is often called the avenues. Um that would be east of Spokane basically west of park south of railway railway. Um there was some misunderstanding that the planning commission or staff or someone had added the allowance for triplexes, quads andor town houses into that place type which is called the heritage urban place type. That did not happen. Um there was also just a comment earlier about that being a similar place type on the other side of Spokane. And I I might want to let CZB talk a little bit about that, but there was also no intention of adding duplex or triplexes or quads on that side either. The place type just recognizes that there is some existing development there that's a little different than on the east side, but there isn't the allowance. And if you look in the allowed uses there, um, triplexes, quads, something like that is not also allowed on that area as well. So again, we don't know how that happened, but we got a fury of emails about it today. Okay. So, we wanted to make very clear that that is not the case.

Thank you, Alan. Certainly. Thanks, Rebecca. Um Dave, could you just clarify to the public what we talked about where you were saying why you put him in that compact suburban area and how it would impact the community just so people understand what the rationale is from a planning perspective?

What can you repeat that please? Okay. So, what I think you told me earlier today was that um Sorry, I'm going crazy on my screen. Um was that the reason why you put the triplexes into the suburban compact suburban was because they were at the edges of our community and wouldn't be impacting other um people very much. So while the compact suburban place type is currently areas that a lot of those areas currently are were developed with a planning development and they're attached housing. Um thinking of like Monta um some areas like the Alta Views all those are areas that are currently compact suburban and so you know we have a place types map it's not specific to you know zoning types but in general that's the type of form that we see in those areas. Um and so throughout this whole process, we've looked at um multif family as appropriate use in those compact suburban areas.

Thank you. Further questions for Allan or Dave before we go to public comment? I'll entertain public comment now on the 2045 Vision Whitefish Community Plan. And just for the record, your name and address, please, when you approach the podium. Any public comment? Richard, you're first.

You got a new microphone. That's awesome. Um, Richard Hilder, 104 Fifth Street, Whitefish, Montana. Um I would like to share with you um a petition uh that we circulated around the neighborhood which is also the avenues that I mentioned at the work session. Just speak into that

speak into the microphone he said. Is that better? Um and um it th this petition represents um 41 respondents um and 46 homes and four ADUs. That's the that's what's in that neighborhood currently. So bear with me for just a moment. We the undersigned residents and homeowners located in the blocks of O'Brien Avenue from Third Street to Whitefish River, Lur Avenue from Third Street to Riverside Park, and Central Avenue from 4th Street to 6th Street request that you retain the heritage urban neighborhood place type designation for our neighborhood. We ask that our neighborhood have the same land use type and characteristics as the avenues uh from the alley between Spokane Avenue and Callispel Avenue East, including Park Avenue. We further request that you retain the heritage neighborhood place type for Spokane Avenue from Fourth Street to 6th Street with a carveout to recognize that this area consists of historic residential district of single family homes plus professional offices and personal service uses with one forplex of commercial on the ground floor and residential on the second floor. Finally, we request that you recognize that Baker Avenue from 4th Street to Whitefish River is a different sort of a place type um consisting of a post office and office building, a church, and Baker and Riverside parks with no residential uses. The reason we felt it was important to emphasize this is because at one point with very short notice we were notified or the plans the PL use changed to a neighbor a heritage downtown which was antithetical to what

is there now. And so it was switched back to um heritage urban and we encourage and implore you to keep that neighborhood designation now including the fact that uh as you pointed out Mr. Mayor just and Allan pointed out uh excuse me that um triplexes and quadriplexes on the other avenues would also include the neighborhood of which I speak. So I would like to uh present you with um these petitions. Some were signed electronically along with notes and various things. I think it's important to have this in the record because this is uh clearly uh something that's impactful to the neighborhood. Thank you, deputy. Further public comment this evening on this item. John

John Heberling 42 Crane Marshway Whitefish board member of Citizens for a Better Flathead. I'd like to talk about two issues. One is uh commercial everywhere and excess commercial and the other one is u the forplexes and six plexes everywhere. But I will cut that one short. Although it can't ever be dead because a a council person could make a motion to go back to that, but hopefully that won't happen. So, regarding commercial everywhere, uh the staff had proposed mixeduse commercial in residential areas and uh pretty much across the city. It was unlimited. And at the December 3rd uh planning commission meeting, we removed a lot of references to mixed use from that was the transportation chapter where these appeared. So we removed mixed use. We removed encouraging the integration of residential and commercial uses. Uh we removed prioritize mixeduse land use patterns. So, those have been removed, but there is always the possibility they could come back through a council person's motion. Uh, CZB eliminated residential uh commercial uses from residential areas uh in their place maps. And uh so, as it stands, it seems like we're not getting a proposal for commercial and residential areas. I could be wrong on that. Uh for the uh historic areas and other residential areas, we have the legislative impose imposition of duplexes anywhere a single family house can be plus the alternative

dwelling units. So that's a lot of expansion and activity already for the residential areas. Uh if there were commercial mixed in with the residential areas in the avenues, Lurer and West and even along East Lakes Shore, uh there'd be even more parking problems, more traffic congestion as people go across the city to maybe to an insurance agency which is over by the high school or a bakery that's over by the high school. And then there's the problem of the disruption from the noise and additional activity. Even if it's just an insurance agency, that's a lot more activity in and out than a single family uh dwelling would provide. And if you're next to a bakery, well, that might be nice in some ways, but they start at 5:00 a.m. Employees showing up noise and uh people will not want to be next to that. Uh if they are placed in the residential areas, we'll have a house on each side disrupted. And uh even worse if it's a lawnmower repair place or a chainsaw repair shop, that would be a lot of noise. And for people living next to a bakery, say that's a decrease in property values. Their house wouldn't compete compete on the market with another one in a residential area with uh without that problem. We saw the kind of uprising at least at the planning commission meeting in February. There was an uprising from the Lur people. Over 20 people spoke and they talked about that was also a proposal for commercial in the form of general services, whatever that could mean uh plus the forplexes and uh in a neighborhood that is a lot

of dead-end streets already has parking problems. Um and people were quite eloquent in their defense of their neighborhood. So uh another thing about commercial is that there's no demonstrated need for more commercial for housing. We had the housing needs assessment uh 50ome pages of uh statistics and it's really quite well put together demonstrating a need for about 2,000 housing units by for 2045. There is no such uh h uh commercial needs assessment. No one did anything like that and that's a big hole in the uh land use plan. So u it hasn't been demonstrated that we need more. We have 89,000 square feet of empty space downtown and we have the long commercial strip which provides lots of commercial already. And then CCB added these three neighborhood centers with mixeduse commercial around them on another 110 acres of commercial. That's uh that to my to my view is uh overkill and there are proposals from uh heart of whitefish to uh cut this back a bit. Um then uh CZB so we could keep what CZB has done. Uh I'm saying we certainly shouldn't expand it with even more commercial than they proposed. They kind of split the the uh baby into old areas where no new commercial would be allowed and new areas which would be allowing commercial on the first floor and then apartments above that two, three or four floors.

um sort of like Portland or Seattle is. Then on on density at the uh January 726 meeting of the planning commission uh there was a discussion of diversity in uh housing types and uh Dave suggested that we add throughout the city to that sentence. So and the planning commission voted for it. So we still have that. It appears that the current version of the growth policy to page 154. So if indeed we're not going to have uh forplexes everywhere, then we should eliminate the throughout the city language at page 154. I think I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Leo,

replacement. I'm also a horrible public speaker, so I decide to write down what I wanted to say because usually I forget most of what I wanted to say. So, if you don't mind me reading it, it might be about five minutes. Okay, hold your hand up if you want me to stop. I I can give the copy. Try to keep it to three if you don't mind. Please try to keep it a three. Yes, please.

I'll shoot for that. Okay, I'll read fast. I have so many thoughts on this topic, it's hard to know where to start, but these are my key thoughts. Apparently, the regressive politics of our federal government and the Republican party in particular have filtered down to our our state politics. for there is a mandate from Montana's Republican controlled governance with collaboration from a few Democrats for a quick fix to our state's housing issues. It's easy to they have said we have to build more houses as a home builder myself retired. This is tempting. It sounds like good money and certainly jobs down the road. Cut the regulations first and then cut the repercussions by limiting public discussion. The houses will go up and presumably for a little less cost, but regulations and public discourse are a small portion of the problem. Materials and land costs are always in flux and rising. Trades are expensive. Space is a premium, especially here in western Montana in this valley. Quality of life should have a towhold in the economic picture as well. More on that later. What are we trying to create with this with vision 2045? Considering the speed and direction Callispel is moving, we could be just that soon enough. Callispel North and we already cutting off our nose despite our face if you ask me. The drive into Whitefish on 93 South is not anything that recalls a nice tourist destination. It's become a brely lit hodge podge of storage units and storage yards. Then, and contrary to what the sign says, it's not two miles to Whitefish when you get to the corner of Highway 4093, you're already in town. Both visually, of course, and actually per the most recent zoning. Visually, you know, because that's what it looks like. Like Callisbel, acres of new cars, white and

shining on the former outskirts of town. I have to wonder, where are all these cars going to go? Plus all the ones in Callispel already. And what about our dark skies ordinance and potential? Has that been back burned in this commercial onslaught onslaught or our status as an Arbor Day foundation tree city use USA which has certainly been enabled by our tree protective ordinance. Is that collecting dust in a box somewhere in city hall? We should open it more often. My point is we cannot build ourselves out of the problem not without destroying our most valuable asset quality of life. First of all, let's not forget we live in a narrow valley. The space we have ultimately dictates how much growth can be accommodated. It is the most basic concept of wildlife management both but is equally true for the human environment, the carrying capacity of the land. How much of the human presence in the in the on the valley can the valley accommodate and in particular without destroying much of what we love and appreciate? More practically, can we afford the infrastructure, the road building and maintenance, sewage control, water protection, water wells, communication and power transmission lines. It costs a lot of money to accommodate growth. And all of that must be on the ledger and built before growth can occur, not afterwards, which leads to a poorly planned catching up work. This is not smart yet more the norm it seems these days in our valley. Simply put, creating sprawl is the antithesis of quality, of beauty, of what it is that makes white fish special, a special place to live or to visit. And my definition of sprawl is whatever covers up the land around us. Housing developments, commercial entities, shopping centers where there once were forest, farms, grasslands, and wetlands.

unobstructed views to the Swan Mountains and our most famous Big Mountain and covering the places for wildlife and migratory birds. Their habitat should be with within our consideration, too. Our best American cities have become overrun with sprawl, and it's a great national loss. I'd like to be exceptional by preserving what we have rather than accommodating something else because that's what we are doing. I think by promoting vision 25, we're going for the quick fix, the easy thing to do. Our consultants have told us, well, you have told us you need thousands of new homes by such and such a date because many people are coming, so you better get on it. Well, if that's true, we should be aware of why many people are coming to live in Whitefish because it's a nice place to live. And fortunately, it still is. There wasn't as it was 43 years ago when I barged into town and managed to scrape by with what I could with what could be found. There wasn't a welcome mat set out. That's for sure. But that's what we will produce with this new vision. A welcome mat and shoot ourselves in the foot in the process. For if you build it, they will come. Conversely, if you don't build it, maybe we can save off the flood. Maybe people will take this opportunity to stay in their current homes and transform their communities into places more like Whitefish. We could be an example of doing something different and better as opposed to a victim of circumstance. That is exactly what this front-loaded vision 25 2045 creates by the new Montana Land Use Planning Act. A concept for expedited approvals of subdivisions and land regulations. less quality, more volume, build fast and soon. Or as Governor Janna Forte likes to tail,

speaking of Montana in particular, bringing the American dream. Uh, I would assume that's to anyone who would prefer to live here rather than there. Apparently, that implies that our cities have become the American nightmare. If that's the case, sprawl is not the answer because that's what that's what you see everywhere else. One more minute quickly. Understandably, my thoughts may sound counterintuitive for for wealth people like me who moved here 43 years ago for a better life and a realistic place to make a living. Workers in the trade workers, the trades, the teachers, the affordable people, the affordable sort of people like I was, like so many of us were. Are we being exclusionary, closing the door behind us? I don't want to think that way or be that way. But we can keep our eyes wide open. I have noticed and you may have too that the building building is going up underway. Um that will be relieving some of the housing pressure. I'm speaking of the new Baker Avenue apartments on Commerce and Baker Avenue. Mark Ruiz. Um beautiful. They're filling in logically uh infill on and effectively used property should be soon. Should be a boon to affordable housing. Also, Highway 40 and Highway 40, the new development. There's going to be hundreds of apartments there apparently. I hope we're not overbuilding and and that seems to be a trend often in these situations. But we should not lose sight of our specialness in the process, killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Clearly, we have an opportunity here to make Whitefish a model of thoughtful growth. It would be painful to look back and have to admit it was my generation that ruined this place. And it's not just Whitefish, but it's the whole entire valley that needs our responsibility and attention to build better, slower for

the long vision. Can we live up to our state's de facto motto and actually be Montana, the last best place? It's a great slogan. Let's keep it. I'd like Whitefish to be the very best of the last best place. Thank you. Thank you, Leo. You're welcome. Can I give this over to Michelle? Yes, please. Hand it to Michelle, please.

Who's next? Anukica Egan, 7:15 Cottonwood Court. Um, I just wanted to take a minute and thank you all council members for going through this process and to really thank city staff as well for spending the time on this. I know it's a really time inensive process that takes months um CCB and planning commission as well, but also to all the community members that showed up diligently to every meeting to those who maybe showed up once to our high schoolers that showed up and gave their perspectives um in a process that can be really really difficult. It sometimes feels like you're taking one step forward and four steps back. But a really good mentor of mine once said, "I'd rather have a handful of perspectives than a room full of people with the same opinion." And I felt like at times we really got to see that with this process. I have my fellow service member me service industry members who came and spoke um who who wrote letters for the first time and that brought um I think some light into my eyes for someone who's been doing comprehensive planning for a while. So thank you all who showed up and thank you to those who were open to sharing perspectives even if it was in a room that was different from um what yours was. So thank you. Thanks, Arnica. Appreciate it. Who's next?

Uh, Pat Laterell on Lepre Avenue. And basically backing what Richard has said, um, at the last meeting of the planning board, they had recommended the designation of the heritage urban after listening to the neighborhood comments. However, I understand now that possibly the planning department may think of different in our area as far as that designation. So, I just want to confer that I'm hoping that the council will listen to the planning board designation instead instead of maybe refiguring it. Um I I wonder if the planning board is really seeing about the big picture that this whole area is about. Riverside Park is used all year long. It should not be surrounded by two to threetory buildings that are commercial on the bottom and rentals above. How many more art galleries, real estate offices, dispensaries, and t-shirt shops do we need in Whitefish? Living on the Calac end of Leur, I see many tourists enjoying the walk down to the park, through the neighborhoods, seeing the various homes and gardens. They would not have this site if that designation has changed. They would be walking through a commercial area with no one home in the condos. So, I'm asking the council to please listen to the people and keep the designation of historic urban and after seeing some of the more buildings down in downtown area, I'd be really concerned about that now that the liquor store is not any longer there at Flathead. Travel is moving. You have the large building on Third and Central that has been sitting there empty for quite a while. Um, that's the biggest concern to me that the downtown is losing its people, businesses. Thanks, Pat. Who's next?

Hi, thanks for your time. My name is Rick Rristman and my wife Dean and I, we live at 441 Callispel Avenue. We also own a long-term rental at 14 Dakota. And I guess I'm not really sure where with all of what's transpired with planning and all that how this relates to exactly our locations, but we kind of went through this just a few years ago on Callispel Avenue where there was an inconsistency with the zoning. The east side of the street was residential. The the the west side was open to multi-family dwellings. We came to you guys with petitions and you addressed that inconsistency, but I see this as kind of the same thing again. you know whether this is here uh by our Dakota Avenue place um the given the rate of development I don't think that the plan for these triplexes and quads are the uh are the solution the real treasure of our town is these neighborhoods that are unique and that why Most of us have bought houses here 20, 30, however long ago to see this proposed as a change to make to resolve our housing need. These these down heritage neighborhoods or whatever are not the areas we should be sacrificing is is our opinion. Thanks again for your time.

Thanks, Rick. Good evening everyone. Thank you very much for your time tonight and um for all the work that it's taken of surely to get to this point and it's still not perfect. Um I love this town. I lived elsewhere and moved here so I really feel the contrast. Um, it's quiet and it's wonderful in the down season because of its people. And when it bustles, it pops off because of its people. And, uh, this place is known worldwide. We're in the New York Times regularly now, in case you guys haven't noticed. Um, people are moving here no matter what. We don't want these things, but we have to think about the alternative reality. It's not even an alternative. The reality is that people will move here and they will always have more money and can out compete and outbid our locals for land and for housing, for services, and all kinds of things. And that's fine. I just wanted to remind you that there are ways to land bank, work with local nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity to solve some of the problems for housing as it relates to nurses, first responders, hospitality workers, teachers, the likes of all of us in this room. Really, if we wanted to live downtown, we should be able to live downtown. that density within the downtown corridor. Those forplexes, it's fourplexes on a single lot and it really doesn't seem like it's that much. I understand that parking is an issue, but guys, uh it is an issue everywhere.

What's new? Uh let's focus on housing people so that they can live close to work and so that they can take care of the next generation and the generation beneath them. that we can live intergenerationally. It's a really great idea to think that way and to center people, specifically those who live and work here. I just wanted to end with this is a hard thing to do, but there are right things to do. And when you think about your neighbors and how people are getting evicted, we have amazing neighbors that help each other find houses before they end up on the market in the first place so that an outofstator can come in and take it. We have amazing people that help each other out. But those resources are going to come to an end soon and they're going to need housing. How are we going to house ourselves, you guys? How are we going to house our kids? How are we going to house our workforce? like those guys. Thank you.

Jamie Goen, 117 Washington. Thanks, Jamie. Further public comment this evening.

Sir, hello. My name is Sean Houston and I live at 15 Summers Avenue. Um, I've recently moved back there. Um, and I've been living there for a year now and I used to live there about 25 years ago. It was the first house I bought when I moved here. And I've been watching the traffic and um in particular when the school starts at the end of school because the uh buses go through there and the parents dropping off their kids and then high school students must drop off their younger brothers and sisters and then they zip through the neighborhood. Um, and I've just started I kind of wonder what the new development on the snow lot, what that's going to bring um to the traffic. So, I just wanted to I'm I'm concerned that there's going to be a lot of on street parking um that there won't be enough parking lots in the development. Um, and I was thinking about it last night. A lot of people that move here um they're kind of fun and adventurous and they come with usually or often with a trailer with snowmobiles on it or a little camper or a boat and um you know a lot of my neighbors have that and I think a lot of that parking is going to end up on the street. Um, not to mention people just tend to have more than one car. Um, so I'm just

hoping that there's a realistic consideration for what the actual parking needed and the impact that that's going to have on that school traffic. If you ever get the opportunity to come down and just hang out down there when that's occurring, it might be kind of fun to watch. It's pretty impressive really. But um yeah, that's it. Thanks. Thanks, Sean.

Further public comment, Mary. Chris Cloud, 440 Colorado Avenue. I think everyone's staying sustainability. Please protect our family neighborhoods. Keep it small. And there's something on my notes about the implementmentation plan that's supposed to be concise and used. Thank you.

Thanks, Miss Club. Mary, I try moving this thing back a little bit. Um, so, um, I do have some written comments that I'll, uh, maybe I should hand it out. Thanks, Mary.

Thanks, Mary. I'll give it to Michelle. Y um two quick points that aren't in my written notes. Um I just want to really uh appreciate Leo Keane's comments. I think they reflect a large sentiment of our community. Um, and I hope that they are a context with which you consider the materials before you. Um, secondly, I was imagining the resolution and the wherees that will be put there. And I'm thinking maybe you should include a whereas that says this plan was enforced on our community and the framework and the boundaries that limit the about our capability to have tools to create affordable housing is not acceptable. But it is legally what has been imposed on us. Somehow some objection to in Lupa because it's not something that I think this community at large supports um the limited regs that that this regulation places on how we grow as a unique part of Montana. Um, so returning to my comments, uh, again, I think reflecting on what, uh, the cartoon that's been in the White Fish pilot where it's really asking how much is enough. I think that's one of the parameters you really have to look at. Are we really bound to

create enough space for everyone who wants to move to this beautiful place? Um, I ask that you look at conservative growth targets um and to look at where you can reduce the requirements. You can always come back later if you feel like we need more uh population density based on uh growth targets. But I think we should start off with a very conservative number. I think you need to look at and prioritize ownership over highdensity rentals. We want a community of people who live here and invest in the community. Rentals are important, but I think this plan overemphasizes uh highdensity rentals. Protect neighborhood character and quality. And John spoke to this a minute ago, but on page 154 of your packet is a single sentence that I think undermines the whole growth policy by saying, "We encourage the diversity of housing types integrated throughout all the areas of the city." that one policy can be used against all of the careful thought you've given just tonight to neighborhoods to say we're not putting uh multiplex in your neighborhoods. That one sentence needs to go and that's on the in your packet number, not necessarily the page number of the growth policy itself. Um you need to do more to protect our downtown core. um reject policies that expand retail into residential neighborhoods. And I'll just second what John already said on that. But more specifically, you need to add more policies and goals to keep the downtown core healthy. You have a very good letter from Cran Ramula in your uh

packet that outlines, you know, implementation of the downtown plan. It's very uh it was missed. Uh a lot of those important policies are not included currently in the growth policy. Um important to us at Citizens for Better Flatted is requiring that growth pays its way. Um, you need to make sure that the wording for concurrency is really strong throughout this document. And it needs to recognize that there are physical and environmental limits to how much transportation and infrastructure growth um, Whitefish can support. Prioritize active transportation. And again, that's implementing some of the downtown plan recommendations so that everybody has a walkable access to downtown. Do not move forward until a required implementation plan is in place. And I would refer you back to the comments that you heard from Kate McMahon at your last uh hearing and also in therandela letter. Um, and we would also point out that legally you are required to have an implementation plan that's very detailed that the public gets to look at and comment on before final adoption. And we think that's really important. Um, I appreciate and respect the very major task you have before you and thank you for all the hard work and attention you are giving this. Thank you. Thank you, Mary.

I'm also going to turn in a hard copy of the letter that I mentioned John had turned in earlier so that that's part of the record. Thanks, Mary. Yep. Who's next? Additional comments? Michelle, anyone online? Oh. Uh, Andrew, if you would like to unmute your mic and state your name and address, please.

Hi. Good evening. Uh, my name is Andrew Strong. I'm the owner of 435 Central Avenue and I want to just talk about for my for a moment the Let me see. I'm seeing myself on the screen. Sorry. Uh, just talk for a moment about two properties on Central Avenue. And earlier today, uh, I on behalf of eight of my property owners on Central Avenue submitted a comment letter to you. So hopefully you have that and have an opportunity to look at it. But first of all, let me just thank uh, city council, uh, the planning commission that has spent, you know, countless hours as well as the planning department, uh, Dave and his team. This is a very difficult process and I I think someone has said it before at a prior meeting where you know it really is a team effort and it's certainly a a a blessing to see a lot of people working together positively for the good of our city. Um and nothing is perfect and we can't expect that to be the case here. But what we want to do is do our best and do it in a way that has integrity. just uh point out on Central Avenue are polar opposites. One of them is which is the old Baker house. If you remember at the corner of I think it's Fifth Street and Central, that property is now a vacant property. There's no house on there. In 2022, a California developer wanted to develop that property as a quad. Okay. Um we along that air along uh central avenue had the opportunity to go to the planning commission and the architectural review committee and and and say that we don't like the way it's going to look and you know they ultimately got the cup to build that

quad but the economics turned and and since that building went down in late 2022 it's been a vacant lot and nothing has been developed there. Um, the building that was going to go up there was going to be two large units in the front and two in the back and it was going to be three stories high with a deck on top. Um, those units were probably going to sell for2 to $2.5 million a piece. The the other property that I want to point out is 405 Central and the man who spoke to you earlier today, Mr. Leo Keane is an amazing builder. In fact, he and his team did the entire renovation of that property. And that property was the property first owned by Dr. Houston, the first town doctor who served the White Fish Hospital behind in the current bank parking lot. That property is now a shining example of what can be done with some of these older historic homes that have fallen into some level of disrepair. It's also an example of why we need to protect white fish, why we need to protect these homes because the breaks that we had to slow down the process for the Baker house, which ultimately didn't prevail, um are going to be gone as a result of this process. And we need to have uh breaks in place through the place type designations and then shortly right behind that the zoning ordinances to make sure that Whitefish retains its charm and its appeal. The same charm and appeal that brought us to Whitefish, my wife and I and our family in 2013. And we love Whitefish. We think that it's going to be great going forward uh regardless of how we end up on this

process so long as we are all in agreement which hopefully we will be. But I just want to emphasize that if you don't protect these neighborhoods that really have true intrinsic value from development, we're going to get more properties like the one on the corner of Fifth and and Central that's fronting Baker Park. I'm hopeful that the new owner of that property will build either a uh single family home or a duplex. I pray that we don't see a series of quads along Central Avenue because it's one of the most beautiful streets that we have in the town. And again, I thank the city council mayor uh and I appreciate your time allowing me to speak to this evening.

Thank you, Andrew. Uh, anybody else who is online, if you would like to please raise your hand and we'll call upon you to um address the council.

I think we're good. Thanks, Michelle. Again, as I mentioned earlier, I'm going to go ahead and temporarily close the public hearing for this evening, but we will keep the Excuse me. Oh, Rhonda, sorry.

Yes, please. Rhonda Fitzgerald, Lur Avenue. Um, I just wanted to comment that there's been a bit of confusion about the last minute insertion of triplexes into one of the place types at the planning commission and it was actually the suburban neighborhood which is quite a large area in Whitefish. It's the light yellow one on the place type map and at the last minute the suggestion was made to put uh triplexes into that basically single family neighborhood which is a lot of acreage in Wayfish. And I just wanted to clarify that that's where that came up and that's where it's been inserted and it's in your document now. I just checked. Thank you.

Thanks, Rhonda. As I mentioned, we'll just close the public hearing for this evening, but again, we'll keep the public hearing open for the April 6th meeting when any recommended revisions from the city council tonight after our deliberations are brought forward for public comment on April 6th. With that said, we will begin with public or excuse me, city council comments on vision 2045. Who would like to begin?

You can. First off, I was wondering um if the planning department would like to put up a map to show where the triplexes are going to be since it's a still a concern. Allan was said that he might be able to share that earlier during our work session.

Yeah, I was having a problems with connectivity. I'm logging back in. Okay. Thank you though. I have some specific um language I'd like to add in if you guys are in agreement, but Ben seems to have more of a general um do you want to go first?

Here's how I'd like to proceed just in in the spirit of efficiency. If we could individually comment on the growth policy specifically rather than take motions on suggested changes, we'll do a simple, if it's okay, Dana and Angie, just a simple showing of hands if we have the majority of the council agreeing to a suggested change that could then be brought back for the April 6th meeting. That would be my preference. I don't care who begins. Rebecca, you had the microphone. By all means, it's all yours. Okay. Yes, sir. Would it make sense to work down the document to start from the top and work our way down or just to jump all over the

If folks are organized in that fashion? Certainly, we could start at the top and just keep it. You're not. Ben, you are not. But okay, I am. Why don't we start with Ben then since he is organized top to bottom and not that you're not organized, Rebecca. I didn't mean that in that manner. So, we'll we'll begin with uh Ben, please.

All right. I'm gonna apologize in advance if I've got a list here, but hopefully it'll be quick. Um, so it seems to make sense to me to work work our way down the document. Um, now, uh, I wrote down page numbers in the packet. So, if you want to call those out when we go, we can look at it. Uh, my first would be in the vision statement at the top. That's page 397 in the packet. Um, are we intending to pull that up as we go?

All right, hold on. I I'm trying the wrong. Yeah. 39 396 and 397. Yep. I'm gonna move as quick as I can here in real now. I am referencing the packet page number. Y I I'm not going to be able to do it on the packet. Okay. I know I've I I know your comments, so I I know where they're at. All right. Um but I can't type on the packet. I have to type from the word document.

Okay. because I used the staff redline version as my But you did give me the page number so it it gets me to the 22. It gets me close. Yeah. All right. So, this would be the last part of the vision statement. It's 396 and 397 in the packet. Yeah, it's right here. Got it. Could I also maybe suggest the packet number and then the growth policy page number that's at the top? Do you see where that is? Sure. It's page 22. Okay, that might be helpful for you.

It's 21 for me, but I got it. Okay. Yeah, the red line version is probably slightly

Okay. Um, this sentence stuck out to me in part because of the last part that says um, through policy supporting moderate economic growth. And I just would observe that I don't think econom moderating economic growth is necessarily our goal. And I think that the folks who suggested this were probably suggesting it in line with the concept of keeping the quality of life for the residents of our town. which is sometimes a similar but sometimes different goal. So I was going to make a suggestion that we would rephrase this particular paragraph as um we support local business retention and expansion encouraging a diverse yearround economic base and growing the local economy while protecting the quality of life for the residents who sustain it. We don't need to we don't need a motion. I'll just call for a showing of hands if you agree with the recommended change. Showing of hands in favor and that's unanimous. Michelle, please.

Ben, um I'm done. That's all I have in the vision statement. Do you want to move to housing or does anybody just bounce right down your list?

Okay. Um, next would be on packet page 403, plan page 28. This would be the goals and objectives of the housing element. I have a number in here and I apologize but housing is near and dear to me. Um the first would be objective B3. This is it says exploring the reduction of open space requirements as part of the legacy homes program or when proposed housing developments are designed for targeted income levels. Um reducing open space is something that is important to a lot of people. We haven't really talked about reducing open space requirements. Um, I do think that is one uh possible incentive that could be conveyed to a developer in exchange for legacy homes, affordable housing units. However, it is one of many possible incentives. And so, I think that this is a little too narrow. And what I would like it to say um is to support and enhance the legacy homes program as a key driver of deed restricted affordable housing. Period. per periodically re-evaluate incentives offered to achieve the appropriate balance between the benefit to the developer and the community benefits obtained. In other words, we need to consistently look at what the developer incentives are being offered. We should consider a lot of different options and we should make sure that they make sense.

I like that showing of hands in favor and that's unanimous. Michelle, uh Allan, uh Mr. uh Mr. Counselor, do you mind if I put rather than say support and enhance? Are you okay with I say supporting enhancing because all the rest of them read like that? I I think as a general matter to me, I I just if you have better ideas of rewriting this in ways that make sense, I'm fine with it. Okay. I I just wanted them to all read the same. So instead of supporting enhancer, we're supporting and enhancing. We're saying we're doing the following things. We're recommending the following things. Okay. Yeah, just want to make sure.

Okay. Um, next on the same page, uh, B.4, it says says to provide pre-approved building plans, um, for smaller homes that meet the requirements for compatibility in different neighborhoods. Um, I am a home builder. Um, I think this is very difficult to achieve in practice. Every lot is different. The design considerations are different. It is generally not possible to pre-approve all aspects of a building plan. And stock building plans are readily available on the internet. Um, I was simply going to suggest we would strike this one completely. Of course. So, you're saying you So, you're saying you don't want modular homes or or tiny homes in town ever?

No, I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying it it says pre-approved. It's just it's saying that the city would go out and commission building plans to give out to people. And I just think that the buildings are so different in every lot and every situation. So the reason why I think that might need to remain is we have talked about that for ADUs as a way to incentivize people being able to build them without having to pay without having to pay for plans. So we would have like five different plans and they could select. So would that get rid of that opportunity if we got rid of that language?

Maybe. I I would also say my experience with ADUs has actually been that um now that the design is much more flexible. I've seen them more integrated in the actual homes almost like like attached or you know it used to be that all ADUs were 24 by 24 600 feet with a garage and an apartment and now they're coming in all sorts of shapes and configurations that fit on lots differently.

And I think that's a good thing. But could we keep it in there in case we do move could we keep that in there in case we do move to having um plans so that we can incentize um that for ADUs because I personally would like it if we went back to having workforce housing as an incentive for ADU development. Um and we would need to make it more affordable to be able to do that and that would help with that. Is is there any reason why you any reason why you need to get rid of it? I think my comments still stand. Okay,

we'll take a vote on that. Um showing of hands in favor of striking that. Rebecca against against 4 to one. Rebecca voting in opposition. Michelle, that does pass. Ben,

um same plan. We have page 403, uh objective C.2, two, it says, "Exploring a limit on the total numbers of permitted short-term rentals." This is a tricky one. I I I feel that we already have a limit in short-term rentals. Um, now that limit is the limited land area where they're allowed to be built, and I think that we are very fortunate that that was put in place. Um, I think it's very important that we emphasize that we do not wish for additional growth of short-term rentals. And so I was going to suggest that we change that to bolster our existing limit which says do not expand land area where short-term rentals are permitted. Period. As a replacement of that concept of the actual number. Did I ask Angie a question about that?

Yes.

An are we able to do that legally? Um I mean is there some way that we could get sued over limiting use of property? Well, I mean again we can get sued for anything. Um you know I think it was several maybe five or six years ago we kind of talked um with council about setting a maximum number of short-term rentals. cities do cap um the maximum number of short-term rentals. I think council's preference at that point was to continue with the place like this situation that's been going on since the early 80s where Ben is exactly right. You're limited by the amount of land in districts that you do allow short-term rentals. So I I mean I'm I'm comfortable with that. I Ben's suggestion makes good sense to me. I mean, if it's something we wanted to do down the road, this would not preclude that either, just because again, it's just a growth policy or not just, but it's it's not legislative. U with that said, everyone in favor, showing of hands.

Okay, Michelle, that does pass. Ben,

um I'm sorry. I've got so many, but I'll keep them. Uh, page 404, plan page 29, that will be the next page. Um, objective 2.C. It says, "Encourage developers to address and account for the needs of the displaced residents whenever new projects are developed in place of existing housing." Um, I don't like things being redeveloped and eliminating housing in the process. I think this needs to be anything that says encourage developers to do anything probably doesn't mean much. Um I think it should say something more clear and to me that means consider the adoption of a no net loss housing policy to avoid losing housing units to re redevelopment. Um and for those unfamiliar a no net loss housing policy is a housing policy that says when you redevelop a property you cannot eliminate housing units in the process. That's already and just for the record, that is already in our housing strategic plan.

Showing of hands. And that's unanimous, Michelle. Thanks, Ben.

Um, page 405, that would be plan page 30. Um, objectives C, D, and E, um, have to do with, um, functions that I do believe are important, but, I don't necessarily believe they're city functions. So, this would be creating a technical assistance program to help homeowners navigate repair and accessibility projects, um, providing education and resources for grants or lowinterest loans, uh, etc., etc., and then providing um preserving existing affordable rental housing by providing resources for owners to refinance, maintain units, and offer long-term affordability. Um to say nothing of those being bad, I just don't think those are city functions. And I was going to suggest that we strike those three bullets. These are essential to what I think we need to do next, which is to keep existing home to keep existing homeowners in their homes. And so um these programs would go along with the community land trust and um helping people stay here versus losing their homes. So I'm not in favor of this at all, eliminating it.

Other comments? Frank. So Ben, so I'm just so I'm understanding I think these are um in terms of objectives or things we might do. Your suggestion is not that they're a bad idea that you just don't think it's governments. I I think it would be better suited to be in the growth policy or plan for something like the housing authority or another nonprofit entity that actually does this stuff. Um I think that the other the housing nonprofits are the ones who do this,

not the city. Agreed. Yes.

So Dana, don't we already have a program that does this? Um, we did have a um I think it's through the home loan the rehab program. Um, but it was managed by the housing authority. We haven't had that grant in many years. Um, not a lot of federal funding coming for that kind of thing. But if you were to want to keep it, I agree that those aren't really city functions. But maybe you would say like encourage our housing partners to dot dot dot if you don't want to remove it. That's what she said is exactly what I was thinking, Ben, as I'm thinking through this is we already have an objective here. Encourage ongoing property maintenance. Yap yappy. There's no reason we couldn't because these were good things. It's just like we should be doing. And I think maybe the idea is encourage our housing affordable housing partners to create this provide, you know, and encourage them to provide this and that would be

that I think works for all of us. Yeah. in terms of zone. Sure, we can modify it that way. Yeah. Okay. Does that make sense, Alan? Just kind of aggregating those and referencing them back to housing white fish and the white fish housing authority. Andy.

Um, I had a number of notes on this page too and I I find a problematic also. I mean, I think we've seen enough difficulty in years past with trying to enforce decay ordinances and even though we have one and essentially that's what you're saying in in a

so again while the thought is right the actual ability of us to get that done I think is pretty much zero. And I mean I can look at a particular property might be owned by one uh congressman that represents our western district on west second and I can tell you that it doesn't really work. So I just I mean I would strike that one also. I think we can aggregate that into somewhere else that we do encourage or provide direction as to how people can do that but I don't think that it's something that we're very good at. That's just historically been my perspective.

Um, isn't that a fire risk not to develop a decay and um, uh, like I thought that was one of our council goals was to look at how we were going to deal with like six houses that are so decayed that they're a fire risk and now we're taking this out of the growth policy. Am I wrong? I thought that was a goal that we talked about. You guys, sorry staff. Do you know if it was a goal that we were working on because I thought that was an issue around town that we wanted to find a solution for and that's why we're working on the Ocean fire um situation as well because it is a hazard and all of those. There was a bear in the one by the city beach and do we want to abandon finding solutions for that?

So, we currently do not have a decay ordinance. I don't know that if that's what we're going to talk about goes under support existing property owners and maintaining and preserving housing stock, which is the the goal. um because this is more of a it's more of a punitive um kind of ordinance that we'd put into place where we're requiring them to demolish a building. Um so yes, I we don't have it as a specific council goal, but it has been discussed at length, but um from a fire perspective, there are steps that our fire marshall can proceed with for fire hazards. That is under state law, but it's not a specific city ordinance. So that's already available from a um fire risk management perspective

and oh sorry whether Oh sorry Edie go ahead. Oh, I was just going to say I whether that's a goal or not, I think the question is is it something that belongs in our growth policy and as Ben is arguing for the other three that it's something that yeah, we should encourage and something that we need to do, but this is not the place for it. And I think that's the same for me for that first one. Y it's like I don't see that as something that needs to be in our growth policy. Yeah. But do we want to encourage that? Yeah, you bet. But I agree, Frank.

Just just a thought, Andy onis. I mean, okay, we agree we've created not so much objectives, but we've with the three at the end here, we've managed around those. It seems to me and I think your uh your point is is this that we we are kind of toothless to actually do this at this point. do and I think maybe um it could be rewarded in terms of adjust investigate how best to encourage um and and so that includes additional uh regulations, additional legislation, something that would investigate how we could actually have some teeth behind this so it would become an effective uh tool for us. Um, I I don't want to walk away from even the thought that we don't want to do this because I don't want us to get in a position where we forget that we have these problems in this city. We don't like them and we think they ought to be fixed. Our problem is we've got no we've got no vehicle to do that under current legislation. And so I my preference would be to leave this with the idea that we investigate how to best you know encourage and require um and that would be my thought on the matter. I just I don't want to let go of this idea that we still um we have as you know several properties around here that we are toothless u to do anything about. And I think the proper thing is an objective ought to be how do we get how do we how do we get some teeth back.

Andy, I guess I would argue again that I don't disagree with this is something that we need to do, but I would argue this is not the place to do it. And I don't see that this furthers the goal of making that happen by having it appear in our growth policy. So you're advocating to strike A. I would strike A. Okay. So, we're going to be striking A, retaining B, and then consolidating C, D, and E. I think Allan, you have direction on council's desire there with CDE. We haven't taken any. We have not. We are about to though. Is everyone

No, we're we are eliminating A, retaining B, and consolidating C, D, and E into one statement. And you'll see this at the April 6th meeting. All those in favor, showing of hands. favor. Okay. Four to one. And that passes, Michelle Ben. All right. Onward. Ho. Did that I'm sorry. Did that pass? Yes. Okay. Four to one. Rebecca in opposition.

All right. Um, page 406, plan 31, 4. C.1, it says re, it says, periodically evaluate resort tax allocation. Oh, excuse me. That's my re Let me go back. 4C1 is um it says it's talking about reallocation of resort tax revenue such as reducing or eliminating reimbursement of resort tax for housing used for second homes or short-term rentals to increase city funding. Um, I think when it comes to the city's funding for affordable housing, there's two parts. There's the resort tax and there's the mill levies. Right now, we have both. And I was going to propose that we rewrite this in a little bit of a more bigger picture way, which would be to say that we would periodically re-evaluate resort tax allocation and mill levies to match housing funds produced to housing funds needed. And and part of what I'm going at here is, you know, we have a certain amount of funding that we're dedicating towards housing that uh the amount of funding we need may change over time. And so I think we should continually re-evaluate the amount of funding that we are dedicating and how. And so that was what my suggestion was.

Thanks, Ben. Comments? You want to ponder that for a second? I agree with the logic, Ben. I do not know that that's that kind of definitive balance needs. It's it's in the right place in the growth policy

because that's that's almost like a mathematical formula that we're putting there and here for our future posterity. So, I I don't feel comfortable uh voting that way. I I agree though that maybe uh we're getting maybe eliminating the bracket. Um and I yeah, I disagree in putting that definitive formula. It's a formula in the end that you're putting in here and uh I don't feel comfortable putting in there,

Frank. Um I I agree with Jeppe on this one. The my do we put ourselves effectively saying we need so much amount of money. I mean clearly no matter I don't know that we'll get a formula at any point that we can fulfill um in terms of the housing needs we're trying if that's what we're trying to do is meet that housing need. um we effectively bind ourselves to reallocation of the resort tax to fulfill whatever needs been determined which could be way more than we can afford

or that we want to spend on that particular need from the city's perspective. I mean what this currently says is explored alternative ways to increase city revenues allocated to community housing. One would be the possibility of reallocating resort tax revenues. That's just simply identifying areas that we should continue to investigate at all times. I'm I'm I understand what you're saying that we okay at some point we would want to reduce the amount hopefully that we would need to allocate to that. I don't think that's going to come. Um certainly under any re allocation we've got right now. I think the idea that we would continue to look at it as a possibility to reallocate it to fulfill some amount of of the h need housing needs support that might be needed there. That's what this says and that's kind of what I'm comfortable with. But I I see where you're going. Yeah, I I think I um maybe maybe this is actually really a whole another bullet really. Not rather than replacing the existing one. I'm happy to let this one go if it doesn't feel like there's support for it.

What What about just simplifying it to resort tax revenue allocation?

Not even just resort tax allocation. Resort tax revenue allocation but not or both. Yeah, these are objectives. Actionable. I I think what's important to me for for future city councils is,

you know, right, we've had gone through a period of panic where everybody we've got this huge housing problem and in a couple years it may not be that way. It's going to be a more hoham issue for a lot of people and I think it's very important that over time the future councils are considering how much funding needs to go towards housing and that that does not get lost in the fact that people care about it less if the market goes down or something like that. And so I think that's where I was going with it. I I I understand that. Yeah,

Ben, when I say goal, the goal stands though, number four goal is pursue, you can read it all, sustainable financing mechanism.

And so nobody is arguing to take the goal away. These are subobjectives to achieve that goal and maybe exploring uh different allocations of resort t or revenue streams that the city has. We could you could be as generic as saying instead of saying uh resort tax versus meal levies versus if we start charging for parking, we take 10% of those parking fees and allocate them to housing. How about we say a reallocation of the different revenue streams as the case must be more more indicated that that for the situation or something like that.

I think John's suggest increase

microphone. Yeah. What you said, is everyone comfortable with that? Okay, Andy. Yeah. Okay. I mean, saying the same thing. I mean, I'm comfortable with the way it is written. I don't think that it's misdirecting in any way, shape, or form. And I think it kind of spells it out a little bit more piece by piece of options for future councils, but I'm fine with the with a change like that. Alan, I don't know if you weren't talking under the mic, but we couldn't hear you. Can you What's the language?

Frank, do you want to repeat that, please? Um what the suggestion that John made is to simply shorten um sub paragraph CI or C1 and just simply say reallocation of resort tax revenues done. Um, I on the other hand also agree with Andy that these identifying possibilities are simply that they're not restriction. They're opportunities and so I'm okay with I on a personal level I'm clearly okay with leaving them. Um, but I can go into it.

Let's just leave it. If we can't make it much better, then why not then why mess with it? I move that we leave it the same. Don't Don't touch it. Don't touch it. Z. Undo. Undo. Ben.

All right. I've got one more on housing. Um, and that would be uh on that same page, objective 4D. It states, "Explore opportunities to allow for expedited zoning andor subdivision variances for developments of 100% deedestricted affordable housing units. Um I've got two issues for this. One is it is in the financing section. It has nothing to do with financing. So I think it should move to goal one which has to do with um uh development processes essentially. And then secondly, um it says we consider that for 100% deed restricted housing and I think that those projects almost don't exist and I was going to change it to state contains deed restricted housing. In other words, allow the possibility for exploration of opportunities to have expedited zoning approvals for data restricted affordable housing projects. That makes sense.

Isn't that our leg legacy homes program already? I mean, basically, no. No. Okay. Can you repeat that, Ben? Yep. stated simply to move this goal keep it move it to section one instead of the financing section which is section four and then change 100% deed restricted to contains deed restricted so move objective D yes to to goal one one does that make sense Alan

I'm trying it's just It's the same. Just putting it in the correct section. It's in the wrong section, but eliminating 100%. Yeah.

Let's give Allen a second here to track changes. It's not always easy to do this in real time. We good?

All set, Alan. I think so. Thank you, Ben. That's all I have for housing. Okay. Any other comments from other counselors on the housing element? Let's go ahead and wrap those up now. Just happy. I'll actually pass on the housing line by line. I'm good with this. Frank, I'm good. All right. Well, we'll just go ahead and stay with you, Ben, if you want to move on to your next chapter.

All right. Next chapter is transportation. All right. So, I don't have I have things with a question mark on them, which means they're questions that I don't have a suggestion written. The first one is, what about the previous growth policy issues about developing the sewer plant area such as including um Park Avenue where it's really tight and it curves around that corner back there and um what page?

It's not on a page. That's why I'm asking about it. Yeah. And then and the last growth policy also talked about a future bridge uh that connects that area and I know that was previously a limiter to growth um in that part of town and um I don't believe I saw it anywhere in the current growth policy. So I was wondering if you could discuss that.

Yeah. So, it's definitely called out in the transportation plan um to have a direct connection from Highway 93 to Monigan or Vorman. Um we did not include anything in the growth policy to carry that forward. The previous growth policy I think in fact precluded additional growth um along Monigan before that connection is made. It's just a it's a really that hairpin turn on on Park Avenue uh at Cow Creek is is not safe. Um and so we very much want to have a bridge and a safer connection across the White Fish River. Uh but we did not carry that forward in this growth policy and that ultimately would be a council decision if if we want to do that. I mean, we have plans, I shouldn't say plans, but we have allocations on the north side of the wastewater treatment plant for a potential um housing development that would likely connect either across at Greenwood or um further south um on on JP Road. But it it's a tricky one. I mean,

yeah, this is not a simple question. Um, I will say that now that we have Monigan Road paved uh between Vorman and by the end of this year to JP Road, it's going to make that connection uh much safer. Uh, but it it still won't create a new crossing um of the Whitefish River to make a direct connection to Highway 93.

So, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but just to make sure I understand. So the, you know, we had an affordable housing project that was planned to build on the city sewer property in that part of town that was stopped because of this issue. Um, we are saying that we are now okay with not having that stop anymore. Just want to

I'm going to interrupt real quick and then go back to Craig. But this this topic was actually furiously discussed um no pun intended at the transportation section. We actually had a bridge shown there with there the the transportation plans initially do show a bridge there. We got a huge turnout of people. Um the the question was if you remember when I did the work sessions kick me if I'm wrong Craig when we when we had the work sessions if you remember we talked about some of the issues we had is when I I made this map and and what I did what I did was I took all the plans and I put what were on those plans on this map so everybody could see what was there and there was people that didn't understand that those transportation improvements had been talked about for x amount of years and there was a huge amount of controversy about it and there was a lot of discussion about that particular bridge. There was subdivision plaster that were given to us and I think

Yeah. So you're you're talking about the bridge at 13th Street by Walgreens where um the 2007 transportation plan showed a bridge crossing the Whitefish River kind of right where 13th turns into Colombia. Um the city owns a park there, but there is a very strict deed restriction that does not allow that bridge to happen. Um in the 2019 transportation plan, we showed a bridge at Greenwood, which was also discussed in the previous transportation plan, but that neighborhood came out um in force, I would say, um at the very end of the uh the approval process. And so what we did was we just called it a corridor preservation plan. Um so we're as we look at projects along Greenwood connecting to the north side of the wastewater treatment plant on uh the east side of the Whitefish River, we will preserve that corridor for a possible um connection. But it it gets very very tricky. Uh so

there's a language we do we do have language in this policy but it was ugly and we took the direct we took off the connection and said we're looking at a connection somewhere here and took off the bridge where it was actually literally showing where it was going to go. I just didn't want you to think it wasn't discussed it was. Yeah. It's it's shown essentially from from 13th Street down to JP. We want to get a connection across the river to Monigan Road is was the most amicable solution that we come up with.

So we basically said somewhere in here we need a crossing and we took off the crossing so that we could get the growth policy done by May. Okay. I I'm okay with that just to be clear. I just want to make sure that was brought up because I understand. Um, my next question was, um, actually if you can flip right back to that map that was just there, I still have it open. Sorry. It's okay if you don't. Um, one of the things that it calls for is a future road extension on Seventh Street through the electrical substation, which sounds like a good idea. Is that at all possible?

Well, the the substation's on seventh on Sixth Street. Um, so there is a uh city wastewater lift station between Spokane Avenue and Callispel um on that Seventh Street right ofway. Uh we we just reconstructed E6 Street and went right by the substation and that so that work is now complete. Um we definitely think that that connection on East 7th Street is possible. It's going to require some grading and some retaining wall, but there's not a a substation to deal with on that particular project.

Great. And then my last question was um I don't think I saw anything about the conflict with the state highway planning on Highway 93 downtown and felt that and I'm just asking the question does there need to be some sort of goal or objective or something that talks about the need to resolve that dilemma with the state? Yeah, I mean we have pretty extensive dialogue in the 2019 transportation plan about working with MDT on um the downtown Whitefish highway study. Um you know really trying to point out the fact that while there's disagreement on a a short segment of that um project, we really want to work on the portions of the project that we do agree on. Um I I'm not sure how much of that we carried forward into the growth policy, but it's very much been discussed with with MDT and it is carried forward in other plans with you know that that this that council has adopted in recent past.

I think if it's well described in the transportation plan I'm that's all I have. There is a brief mention of it in here but I think that's it. You want to continue, Ben or Andy? Do you have anything? Transportation. Transportation. Nothing else on transportation. Okay. Who's next? Andy?

Um, I have a couple. Um, so it's uh 38 in the vision document again and 418 in the packet page. Um this is probably more of a question for Bridger, but just having driven around town for very long time. Um first statement there, vehicular speed should be reduced as appropriate throughout the community and complete street strategy should be incorporated. Question the vehicular speeds being reduced given the fact that pretty much 90% of our town is already 25 miles an hour with the exception of Wisconsin a little bit of Baker out at the end and Highway 93 coming into town and Wisconsin Avenue. So, I just kind of wonder why we have that in there as a goal. I'm not I don't know what we're gonna I'm not sure why we're gonna where we're going to actually reduce speeds that it's going to make a difference at this point.

I know during the safe schools, safe uh streets plan, we talked about dropping the five is what we called it. So, instead of 25, is that on? Can you hear me? I saw I saw you, Rebecca. Um instead of 25, drop it to 20. instead of 15, drop it to 10, 30. That that that concept, I don't know if that's where that came from or not, but um I know there's just some some discussion as well as lowering the speed limit as you come into town. Um 93 south, 93 west, those areas. I don't know. Maybe it comes back to a lot of my things that I look at in here. It's like if we already have it in a plan on our safe streets plan and we know we're going to go ahead and implement that, does it have to be called out again in the growth policy?

Allan, if I may, um there's several places where reduced vehicular speeds was added. That was added by the planning commission. Um it was one of those things that we didn't object, so you don't see it in red marks. That's how it ended up in there. There's there's a lot of edits that were made here that that that that there's some of them we had concerns with. Those are what you saw initially red marked. There was other ones were like okay and those didn't have red marks. So that's how those ended up in there.

So Craig, Dana, and I sat in on this access um um planned for from the MDT recently where they've gone all the way from Callispel through Whitefish and they're looking at where we're going to turn and they have um dividers throughout 93 South for instance and so if we were to get federal funding I'm thinking and this was in our growth policy as a long-term plan goal would that help get federal funding to make some of those projects happen.

I'm not sure that this written the way it is would um it's an MDT roadway, so if we did apply for funding, we'd have to apply probably with MDT since they would be the ones that are um doing that project. Um yeah, I guess that's my answer. If I could, I

Yeah, I think that I mean the general premise with the the drop the five kind of policy that's going on around the country is if the speed limit is 25, people are going 30, right? So if we drop the five, maybe we actually get them to 25. Um and so that that's the the overall premise. Um I will tell you there's going to be a lot of signs to replace. Um, and so maybe there will be some grant money that's required, but uh there's definitely been support throughout, you know, the bike pad community and um I think police supports it as well. We've we've talked to MDT about dropping the speed limit um coming into town on Highway 93 northbound uh to to 45 miles an hour before the new now that the Alpine 9340 is, you know, well under construction and will be populated pretty quickly. And we haven't had a response on that yet. But the general premise is if we can drop the speed limits, I think we'll be in better shape. So I I I I think I think it makes sense. I think it's a good objective for a growth policy.

Just happy. Um just on this topic, I actually agree with Andy and and for two reasons. This is under this objective is under the goal the goal that says develop and maintain a transportation network that provides multiple reliable route options between key destinations to improve connectivity. So speed limit uh probably is out of place there. Uh while the B makes sense uh C makes sense. So, you know, I I'd go with Andy and just strike that point. A Ben,

I can speak to this a little bit. I was actually at the planning board meeting when this was discussed. I think this was when Frank was out of town. Um, I believe the original version of it said reduce all speed limits in town by 5 miles an hour if I recall. Um, which I vote I actually voted against against it uh because I thought it was too broad. Um, there was some good, I felt, testimony and points made about certain residential areas possibly being justified in having reduced traffic speeds in them. Um, I don't think it should be everywhere. I mean, the opposite of speed is traffic. So, if you lower speeds, you increase traffic. Uh, so in any event, I I feel like in my head it could be maybe written in a more narrow way, something like consider reducing vehicular speeds in certain areas when appropriate. Um, or it could be left alone. I'm even though I voted against at the planning board, I'm I'm okay leaving it, but I don't feel incredibly strongly about it. Jeppe.

So if we leave it, I would suggest we move it as an objective under goal number one that starts with talking about safe balanced uh system. At least it hooks up to the safety aspect and the balance aspect and and and it's not about being multimodal. And Jeppe to your point um which I just noticed this onee actually says vehicular speed should be reduced as appropriate throughout the community. Reducing speeds improves safety, mobility and comfort. So it's almost duplicated I think. So it's redundant. Yeah. Okay.

It really is. We should just get rid of it then. Yeah. Because I it does get picked up in the first goal. um under under E, you know, and that's it says what it should reduced as appropriate throughout the community. Reducing speeds, improve safety. So, everyone in favor of just eliminating that. Okay, Rebecca, there's a second part. Oh, there's a second part that says complete street strategy should be incorporated and that doesn't say that in E. Oh, well

okay. I mean, I'm fine with that. Complete streets is referenced many other times in the document document. So, I think that it won't get lost by being eliminated at one one thing. I have a couple more if I may continue. Yes.

Um, if I can find my space here again. Um, where was I at? Um, F. I would like to eliminate F. I don't think that's in our purview and I don't think it has anything to do with transportation. Certainly has something possibly to do with safety. It's outside of our corporate limits. Um, and I don't know who we're going to encourage to do that. And that is discourage new subdivisions development on Big Mountain, which relies on unimproved secondary emergency access, which does not meet city or county road standards. True statement after discouraged new subdivision development. So, but the first part of it I don't know. Yeah, we know they have a substandard secondary act egress or access and but I don't see how discouraging subdivisions fits into our transportation element. Yeah, I mean it's yeah, they got a problem if it burns and yeah, they don't have a great secondary access, but why is that a goal in ours to discourage subdivision as a result of that for on land that's outside of our corporate limits that may or may not someday be annexed and it will be at some point, but I just I think at this point having it in there doesn't really make much sense to me.

Ben, I agree with you. I I this als this exact topic comes up again in the environment, natural resources and hazards section. I'll comment on it then too.

Yeah. Yeah. I I had in that section I had suggested a rewrite that says encourage county efforts to establish and improve a secondary means of egress from Big Mountain and f further analyze egress safety as a component of any future possible annexation of Big Mountain. Now, that's in the different section, but in general, I agree with you. I don't think I I think it's hard to say we're going to stop subdivisions when we don't even control the the area. And it's in the transportation plan anyway. And so, in the event, I support that. Everyone in support.

Okay. Four to one. Rebecca voting in opposition.

Um and then I have one final one on that page. Um item D which is pursue and prior prioritize opportunities for alternative access to Birch Point Drive across the railard separating North and South Whitefish. It's one very short street um a very limited number of houses and why we would prioritize that as a community. I'm not quite sure. You know, we are working obviously on and will get done finally the uh quiet zone crossing and we actually do have for emergency egress. We do have the sky park bridge which they can pull the ballards and that and that will have a vehicle be able to cross it. So we actually do have an emergency egress from there. So, I'm not sure why we would want to prioritize some sort of alternative access to literally seven houses or eight houses, which you're going to be talking either a tunnel underneath the tracks or an overhead crossing. And if we're going to prioritize an overhead crossing, I would think East Second would be where we should go ahead and put our priorities.

I I think I I agree with you, Andy. I I think the Uh the concern the concern was Yeah. No, I I agree. Never mind, Ben. I agree. Okay, that's not a 4 to1 vote with Rebecca voting in opposition. Andy, anything else on Are you done with transportation? Rebecca or Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Uh so I these might not fly but I wanted to add under a new a new goal which would be um oh map and sign wildlife crossings and mitigate lethal impacts as able.

And where would that go Rebecca if I may? And okay, I could add on major arterials. We just we have a lot in the growth policy about wildlife um quarter quarters and protection of wildlife and this is a concern of the public and so I didn't see it anywhere else and so I thought I'd just add it in here. Do you guys have it anywhere else? Planning department? I was just going to say if you're talking about safety, um, it probably should go under goal one as an objective, but Ellen thinks it might be somewhere else.

It's pretty Hang on one second. Um, let me look at the wildlife. I thought we had something about that, but it may not. Just give me one minute. I would support that. I have to back up and ask you again. You want me to read it again just for while we're waiting on you? Okay, I will. O map and sign wildlife crossings and mitigate lethal impacts on major arterials. Period. As able, how do we map wildlife crossings? I don't I think it would be the role of FWP.

Well, um but I I'm not the public works director. We Do you want to ask the public works director? Okay, public works director, what do you think? Does anybody know where there's not a wildlife crossing in the city of Whitefish?

Um, so we we have worked with MDT on Highway 93 and Wisconsin Avenue to um to put some wildlife crossing signs in. Uh but the reality is our urban deer situation is such that they cross everywhere. I I'm just not sure how to even go about starting to accomplish that objective.

Well, um we do the police keep track of of that, I think, don't you Bridger? And so we do have um we do have traffic study um information. And so I it it's a goal that the community wants to protect the wildlife. And so Allan says we have it in here. Um but does it talk about it? So you're saying okay wildlife habitat and corridors. Um but okay but does it so the wildlife crossing areas will be on streets? That's what the assumption Should we add anything to it or you think you have enough direction to move forward?

I guess I assume that's what you meant. I mean, yeah, this this is saying this is in the wildlife section. This is saying that we should preserve these corridor habitats that we should be have a wildlife management plan to mitigate conflicts between humans and wildlife. So, that's what that would do. A wildlife a wildlife management plan would look at areas like that and make those recommendations. Um, I I would agree with I think it was it either the Ben or the mayor about corridors. I hit a deer in front of Safeway and I don't think that was a corridor.

Okay. All right. We I will withdraw my motion to add language then if you think that's sufficient. Um, we did have comments about signage recently, too. So, I'm hoping that includes that. Okay. But the next one is um would be o investigate downtown by Can you reference the page, please? Oh, sorry. It's No, it's okay. I'm not sure if because mine's printed. I'm not sure if it's the same. It's the the plan page at the top left would be the very similar

37 is at the top. This is um Okay. And it it just is at the very bottom. It would be o investigate downtown bypass options. Would that be goal one? It would be just um M O. It would be a new goal.

Oh, MN. Sorry, you guys. Okay. Glad you're on top of it. Okay. So, it'd be N um and it would be investigate downtown bypass options. This might not fly, but I'm bringing it up because we we lost our opportunity years ago when um the downtown merchants decided not to create a bypass. But I'm just wondering if we put it in here if there was a way to actually keep that as an option for the future because of congestion. and um we don't might not ever actualize it, but I just think it's an important part for safety.

I'm pretty sure Craig's really excited about this one. Well, it might never get done, but

I can tell you that it was the number one comment that came up in the downtown Whitefish Highway study that we did um five or six years ago. and it came down explicitly clear from MDT that they are not doing any new lane miles. So I get concerned that if we put something in a growth policy that we've been told very explicitly from them that they don't plan to do that it may backfire on some of the other objectives. Um, by all means, uh, it's at the council's discretion, but I would advise against it,

but staff changes, so maybe I mean, it's a 20-year plan, so you especially if we're going into more warming and wildfires and Oh, well, my thoughts are, Rebecca, on that they don't even have funding for the medians to put on Highway 93 South. Um, I don't see that ever becoming a priority of MDT to create a bypass. It would have to be a fully city-f funed project and with the price of land and private property development that's occurred, I don't see us being able to do that at this point. Just you.

Yes, just a quick comment. I I would give I would give a bone to Rebecca on this. I I I I if I look at uh objective J as in Juliet, it says the city should work with Flavet County to improve active transportation blah blah blah. So I mean you can put a N that says the city should work with the state to evaluate future bypass options. I I would accept that altered language for J. No. No, it would still be N for a new N. New on the on the same tone of Jay is with Flatted County.

We can control what the city can work on with other parties. We cannot tell that we plan for a bypass. So if we put it's harmless in my mind and can satisfy Rebecca's voters needs. Did you track with that, Alan? Is that right? So, it would read, "The city should work with MDT to investigate downtown bypass options." It's right there. Oh, gosh. You guys are so good. Okay. Thank you. Everyone in favor on a 4 to1 vote with Councelor Fury in opposition. I disagree.

I'm not supporting it. Okay. three to two with councelor Sweeney and Fury voting in opposition. Anything further, Rebecca, on transportation? I wrote one out, but it'll probably die, too. But that would be MN O Baker Spokane MDT plan to expand to three line three lanes and create a protected bike path. So, oh, this is to to actually finish what we're trying to get completed. Should I read it again?

Yes. Um, O Baker/Spokane MDT plan. Wait, wait, hold on, hold on a second. One more. Okay, say it one more time. Um, let's see. M N O um Baker. No, I'm still at N, aren't I? Okay. No, you're on O.

Am I? Okay. Baker/Spokane MDT plan to expand to three lanes of traffic and create a protected bike path. I you know I'll go back to the comment that Craig made earlier perhaps one of the counselors that these that plan's already articulated in an adopted plan as part of our transportation plan and I don't think it's its place is needed in this document. Well, we hope we're working on it actively. We've tried Craig.

Yeah. I was just going to mention the fact that um that's what MDT wanted to do and the city shot it down. So, um it was the three-lane issue that um became the controversy between essentially like 7th Street and Second Street on Spokane Avenue. So, this is a tricky one. I don't know that you want to just throw this into a growth policy without going back to the public. Are you saying that we are no longer moving forward with that plan ever?

No. Well, it's a it's a plan that we haven't come to an agreement with MDT on. Um, you know, the intention, not the plan we wanted. Yeah. Okay. I'll leave it on the table then and we won't vote on it. All right. I guess it's too still too controversial, but I do think it would help. Thanks, Rebecca. Frank, anything on transportation? Jeppi,

on this one though, I have to make a very quick premise. Um, there will be items and terms sprinkled in all the document that if we work one area, uh, we then have to be careful to be consistent uh, across the whole document. Uh, so a couple of general comments. Number one, this is a growth policy and part of of the growth is to plan for additional dwellings. Um, specifically the assessment called for 2,100 units within city limits. So far, I haven't seen in the three areas that are designated for infill, I'll bet you, whichever amount of money you want to bet me, there is no room for 2,100 units. So we're talking about we will annex only ones we feel being infilled. And if we do this we need to be aware that really we're planning for sprawl because unless we we do something different 2,100 units uh defined by the housing housing needs assessment it's analistic goal given the premises of this gross policy. Now let me go back to the to the uh transportation plan. Uh it starts with goal number three and under I think I think it's 38 or 39. My eyes are getting tired. 39 um recognize the transportation dash land use relationship and associate impacts and encourage infield. And the original uh sentence was mixed use development pattern over development which results blah blah blah. I don't know how this word compact which I don't find defined anywhere found its way into

this document because mixed used is a well-known common term in urban planning compact. I can picture Jeff's Jeff Bezos container house in North Las Vegas. So I would want to revert to the the previous version. Am I correct that mixed use was the previous version, Alan? Yes.

Okay. So my on my comment on this particular item is to go back to staff's recommendation eliminating that new word uh compact. It's not that key here because this is transportation, but we need to decide if we're going to address this because it will be sprinkled all over the document. Ben,

I have a feeling we're going to have a lengthy conversation about mixed use. I just don't know when. Um, I know for my own opinion, I uh I have some things to say about that, but I'm generally fine with the whole thing about mixed use or where commercial is or isn't being something that's a part of the land use plan and because it really is a land use issue and so we can I'm happy to dive into it. Um, but I think I'm generally happy with the language that's there. And uh, you know, I don't think while I do think mixed use has a place, I'm not necessarily here to say it needs to be everywhere or it's our top priority or anything like that. And so I would say that uh um I'm okay with the language that's written and I'm happy to in my opinion dive in depth uh in the land use section.

And I'm okay with that. And I pointed out by saying that's the most minor uh uh place where it comes up but it it will come up as you say more and more.

Sorry, next page. This is a little stronger where inside the box it says the city should prioritize compact uh mixed uses being erased and infield development in appropriate areas and and so on. And later on it says um he used to say um creating uses within close proximity and encouraging the integration of residential and commercial uses that's been deleted. Now it's still in the transportation plan but it starts um putting a pace and the tone and meaning to what and corroborate what comes later. So I again propose to go back to the staff's version.

Frank, I'm I'm not interested in going back to the staff's version. I mean the I and this is a concept that we'll have to get over when we get to the whole concept of mixed use, but I am fine with encouraging residential uses in existing commercial areas. I am not fine with encouraging new commercial um uses in primarily residential areas. And I don't want to get into that trap where by putting this language back in that we're somehow because in my view of life, we have plenty of commercial within walking distance of our neighborhoods and our housing. Um, and so I don't I don't want to confuse anything here by adding this language back in and suggesting that we need uh more commercial in our neighborhoods. I'm happy to encourage um residential in our commercial existing commercial areas. Does that make sense to you? Do you understand?

What are you saying? Makes sense to me. I disagree that that's what the community came here for because the staff interpreted what the community put together. I've I've seen word clouds. I've seen stickers. I've seen neighborhood meetings. and the consultants also composed some of that. So what I'm saying is if this growth policy needs to express what the community including the high schoolers including the businesses in downtown and not in downtown expect to dwfish to look in 2045 which I don't care. I'm not going to be around here. So I have no skin in the game but to try to interpret what this community is envisioning and I believe and I disagree with you that this community sees neighborhood neighborhoods where there will be some commercial and that's because those neighborhoods will not be in practical walkable walkable distance to downtown and if we applied some of the criterias that come later in this document to current whitefish places like the top house probably would be forbidden. So I have a problem with agreeing. I understand what you're saying. I fully record it, but I disagree.

Ben,

I'm just going to go back to my previous comment. I mean, we can dive into mixed use now if you guys want. The proposal for mixed use is actually very small. It it's only in three areas of town. I don't think it drives this document. I mean, right now, the way that it was originally written, it is written all over the document and I don't know that that's necessary. I'm generally happy to address this in a more nuanced manner in the land use plan because I think that's where it belongs. Um, and it allows us the ability to be nuanced about how we look at it. Um, and so I think um I I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that I'm okay. I am gonna not support it just because I think it's better addressed in a land's policy in a more holistic way in my opinion. Jeppi, I'm not going to support it either because I um I have a problem with that mixeduse term and also I have a problem with the compact being in here. I think it should read the city should prioritize infill development and that's a inappropriate areas. But um I don't know when we're going to talk about about these three areas. Um,

okay. I'm good. Are you okay? Okay. Anything further?

Um, we're going to take a break here in one second, but just to wrap up transportation, I guess this would be more I lean on Jeppe, your input on this item, but I'm referencing page 420 of the packet. Um, goal three, objectives zero and P. Uh, zero reading, consider a study in the area surrounding the Whitefish Airport to determine future needs and potential restrictions on future development. And then P being to encourage the state to facilitate a study of local impacts related to airport expansion. And I guess the the question I have is, you know, we don't own the airirstrip as stated under P. It's the aeronautics division of MDOT. And when you look at the current airirstrip, which will never be expanded, all of the private parcels adjacent to the airirstrip have developed with the exception of two lots. So, what what benefit would the city undertaking a study have and how did this get in there? And I know there were comments during the the hanger.

I think it came in during the public comment to the planning commission. And was it from the same opposition to the the hanger? Yeah. Okay. I I would personally I don't have a problem necessarily with P, but I think for the city to consider undertaking a study when the airport's completely outdeveloped is is a complete waste of time. And to add to that, we ch we corrected the title 11 to be consistent and and future proof. So I agree with you, Mr. Mayor.

Would you would you retain P I'm not very familiar with the studies that the state does do on local uh the state normally does very little that's more of the FAA. Um I am okay stragging both of them but P it's encouraging the state so we can talk to them all we want um always considering a study so that's more penalizing on us on us on the taxpayers so I'll strike O for sure I'm okay striking P2 thoughts from the council I think my preference would be to strike O and P personally I'd support that I'd support that

okay Rebecca Yeah, I knew it. And that I'll tell you when I when I I can't I can't motion to that effect, but I would entertain. I move to strike OM and and I like to come and every time I come to land in Wfish, I have to buzz the runway because your deer that you want to protect are sitting there. Okay. And that does pass on a 4 to one vote with councelor Norton voting in opposition. That's all my comments on the transportation plan. and we're going to take a fivem minute break. Thanks everyone.

You're you're dear

Need a beer.

I'm gonna call the meeting back to order. Just a couple uh guidelines here. I'm just reading the tea leaves and it's getting rather late and I did confer with Dana that let's go ahead and get through the economic development section in hopes of wrapping up by 10 and then we can continue our discussion and direct edits at our meeting on April 6th and actually still adopt the plan which we need to at the April 6th meeting. So, if that's okay with the council, um it's getting late and this is important work and we need to give it our best. So, with that said, we'll wrap up with the economic development section. And who would like to begin? Ben, did you have any specific? Of course you did.

I'm sorry. No, it's I've only got two. Thank you. I only got two. Ben, may I ask you one thing? I have one that hits everything and then you can go in detail. You start then. Okay, you start. For the economic development, I would propose to revert completely to the staff's version. That's it. I will not I will not support that. Yeah, I got I don't either. I think there's more to it than that, Ben. Thanks, Jeppi. Okay.

All right. on the goals and objectives. Um I only have two edits to propose in goals and objectives. The first is the um right up at the top. This would be plan page 45 packet page 426. Um it has the same verbiage about uh policy supporting moderate economic growth. And I was simply going to say that's we had that conversation in the vision statement for the entire plan. I was just going to say we take the language out of that and incorporate it here instead. Um do you all remember that? Is that clear? Was that okay?

Okay. Do you want me to read it back again? Yes. Okay. So the the language that I suggested which you guys graciously agreed to in the vision statement was rather than this last part. It says oh there we go. We support local business retention and expansion. I don't mean to erase the entire thing though. Uh we can make it red. Yeah. I'm just talk. Um Oh, yeah. Okay. You're right. Never mind. I'm sorry. This is correct. Yep. What that says,

that's my proposal. Sorry Ben, are you saying that statement to be inserted into under the goal at the beginning of the economic development goals and objectives is shown here replacing

I'm looking at the page 46 of the growth policy. Oh, that's why I couldn't find it. Sorry. Right at the top. Okay. All right. We suppose you simply want to take your prior edits and replace. Yes, it's essentially the same replacement from the beginning of the document.

Yeah, I do. You're going back to the staff's version. I'm doing something different entirely. Andy, our in-house economist, do you support it? And that's unanimous, Michelle. We'll just go ahead and replace that text, Alan.

Um, and then I wanted I wanted to address um on page 429. This is objective 2.I. This is the one. It says, "Support creative, lowercost enterprises that cater to locals such as food trucks or temporary pop-up shops using existing underutilized buildings, facilities, or outdoor spaces." And I wanted to propose that we put this back in the document. And um I know we've had this conversation before. Um I do believe that the majority of the community does enjoy their food trucks. I do believe they can provide um lower potentially lower cost food options for folks um as long as they're properly permitted and then designated designated locations and their sideboards etc. So um I am personally comfortable supporting the the concept of food trucks.

Andy Frank I don't feel strongly, Andy. Um, I guess just a couple comments. I'd say that we have done that. In fact, if we can look at the lot across the northern that was a vacant lot for a long time, change our zoning regulations to allow for more than one on one site. I think we've done that and we've seen some investment in that and I think that's a very good thing. Um, I could not support pop-up shops in any way, shape, or form. Yeah.

And while we always forget, and I'm it's not that it's not a good way for people to start business in those things. People that do have brickandmortar business, and we don't have the same kind that we used to in the downtown, but I can tell you bleeding five or 10% of their sales on a monthly or a yearly basis can mean the difference between a make and break for somebody that's paying a mortgage. And so I would be a little remiss if I were to support this. I think the food trucks I don't have a problem. Pop-up shops I have a huge problem with. And I think food trucks we also do that and we support it through the farmers market and we do it every Tuesday night all summer long when it's really feasible to have food trucks and white fish and not so much in the winter. So I don't know. And it's and I kind of also think back to the days of zombie dogs throwing up all over the sidewalks downtown. some kind of luck.

Yeah, that part of me is like, well, I don't know if we really want to support that or not. But, uh, that's a fair, but I'm I'm not going to support that because I think we've already done it and I don't think that we can encourage it beyond where it's at what we've already done and be fair to our existing brickandmortar restaurants in town. So, I will not support that. I agree with that, Andy. Yeah, sure. Rebecca,

I one of the problems I'm having with our economics is that know three different bars were $13 million downtown and it's very expensive to buy anything downtown. And so I I I know the yards used to be an incubator potential for um for small businesses, but now that's changed to a residential kind of plan. And so I think we need to have more places around town where small startups can happen. And so I like the idea of keeping this in there. Um just because after a while we don't get these younger people or people that have a dream coming. So

yeah, I would just comment that I I agree with you Andy actually about popup shops in particular. I was really reading food trucks and thinking food trucks and uh in any event, it sounds like there's not really support to to do this. So, let's move on. Um and I'm fine with that, but uh I do like food trucks. So, anything else, Ben, on this section? Andy, any comments on the economics section? Um pass for one second here. my page through my notes that'll remain stricken. Alan

I mean I guess I have comments on more on the resource document side of it for economics but if we're just going through this portion I think for tonight the economic element I'm I'm fine. So I think we are going to go through the resource component as well. I know Ben that's probably that's probably the hard part. Yep. Exactly. Yeah. You want me to comment on that? Yeah. Or do you want to comment on it? Yeah, please call out a page.

Well, I don't have I don't have any edits. I Okay, the resource document. The whole thing's a giant red line. I uh I looked at this. I read it. I I will admit I don't really know what to do with it. I think that there were a lot of good ideas brought into it. I also think that there are elements of it that are not written the way that I would like to see them. I looked at it and I felt that it was too complicated to do on the dis and I was thinking it's like you know we it's like we're giving an option A and an option B. We have the option A is the planning board version and the option B is the staff version. The right answer might be somewhere in the middle. Um, it felt to me like the draft that I would most like to see is probably something that is a little more harmonious between the two and that would require somebody to do a little bit of work to put it together and perhaps we could task somebody with that in between meetings and look at it again when we come back. Just a thought. I agree 100% with what Ben just said. I do have a problem with what was fully adopted. No offense to anyone in the audience. Um, a little bit too much of a Chamber of Commerce blurb for me, not our necessarily Chamber of Commerce, but I just it paints a rosier picture of things than I think need to be painted. And quite frankly, I don't think we need to say in there that tourism is great and it gives us better restaurants. I don't think that belongs in this document. I don't think it's important to what we're doing as we look to the future. Did that in fact happen? You bet. You bet it happened. And so I'm comfortable with that and I think everybody knows that and I don't think we need to point it out to them. Um I

understand why it got included though. I will say that I have some serious reservations in the resource document about the wholesale striking out of anything to do with remote work. I think that's a problem. I think it's something that we've always looked at in this community for the last 30 years for people as a very low impact, high wage job that is great for the community. And quite frankly, it only got bashed in here, I think, because remote workers came here during CO and bit up the price of houses. And now therefore, they've been labeled as bad people. And quite frankly, I have a lot of friends, kids who have been able to come back and live and work here because they are remote workers. So, I have a problem with that. Um, I've got kind of actually a bunch of other problems, but that's sort of my big ones. But I think yeah, I think some words smithing needs to be done to turn this thing around to satisfy a few more people out in the community other than one particular group. So, and not that everything that's said in there is bad by any way, shape, or form, but I think part of the way it's presented is a problem. Do you think we could Do you think we could ask staff to take another look at this thing and bring us back a bit of a more harmonious version that matches some of the feedback that has been given?

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, if you guys give us some general specific direction, I mean, and that you gave us some a little bit, but um a little more direction of what you're looking for, I think, and then we can bring you back a draft and you guys can look at that. It's something that we, you know, when we got it done, we could pass around to you guys or whatever to get a feedback on.

Yeah, I I think it's kind of late to do a lot of changes. I'm not sure that what was written is going to really change much. Um, the only thing that I kind of missed out of this version was the reality of living in this town. And I I thought Alan actually did a good job describing the hardships that were that we're experiencing by being so successful. Um, meaning people can't always live here anymore and the commute is, you know, quite substantial for a lot of workers and things like that. Um, but I don't I don't know how much we want to change um since it's already been through so much contention like would it really would it really improve the product or not? Mayor Malib, I really don't want to put Allan in a difficult position. You do have a staff version and you have a uh version that was adopted by the planning commission. If you have specific areas to change like remote work, if you guys could do kind of go through the hand raise, we can we can edit it as need. We don't have to edit it right now on the screen, but um you know, if you cover the remote work or you cover the restaurants because of tourism, that would be helpful for staff. I don't want to put Allan in a difficult position.

Do you want to go page by page now? In which version would you like to reference the red line? Okay. Let's try to get this done here in the next 10 minutes. Eight minutes.

So, we'll start on my page number here. Page 140 of the document. And that would be page 542 of the packet. There's so many. Okay, next page. 542 on the background. 542 of the packet 140 of the document.

Okay, we'll move on to page 543 of the packet. I don't think that's it's just all data. I don't think there's nothing to argue there. We'll move on to page 142 of the document. So as we're looking just a random question if I look at that page where it starts with contribution of tourism to the white fish economy in there there is a data point that says not resident visitors spent 314 million that's erased and turned into 1 billion. So I wonder are two different sources that cause that one to three ratio change and maybe if we're using two different sources that might explain uh the whole a a large number of edits because it's a big difference. Someone said the staff said $314 million and someone else came with data supporting $1 billion. I don't know how to I mean staff is the keeper of facts to me. I don't know how to sorry and to me staff is the keeper of facts. I don't know. I I think it's very hard to override staff on data. I don't even know what's right though. There's two different numbers here. Yeah, I mean we there's a footnote in original staff version where that data

came from. I see it. It's all being erased. Do you want to just re um put everything back into that first. Mr. Mayor, can we at least recognize Rhonda? You can. Yep. Rhonda, what do you have to say?

The uh data should be coming from the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana. And many of you may recall that I chaired the research committee for that group for about 15 years. And I can pull that up at any time for you. And you can see that about a billion dollars is fl spent by non-resident visitors in Flathead County. And much of the other data is coming from ITRR. and the corrections that were submitted by the explore white wayfish uh Zach Anderson and Brian Shot and also by heart of Whitefish are the accurate numbers. I'd be glad to show them to you. Thank you.

So what we're saying is the right number is 1 billion. Where did the 314 come from? Well, probably Allan and David and and Dave are answering by saying the Montana Travel Industry 2023 summary ITR and Kelsey Evans tourism outlook shoulder season grow blah blah blah blah. So,

I I think he's he's answering I mean, I I there's a there's a footnote in there with the original every the the original staff draft, every of those numbers are all referenced by footnotes. I'm I'm happy with the 1 million number. It's like that's what the number is. I mean that is accurate. I mean we've referenced this in presentations that we've given over the years and I believe explore Whitefish when they present their annual budget to the council that that dollar amounts typically referenced as well from ITTR. So um the 314 is certainly in my opinion way low. Y

the 314 is the one from IT RR or whatever it's called it. No, it's not. The one billion's from IT RR. Oh, University of Montana. And yeah, we're okay with whatever the number is, but we need to reference it in a footnote so that we back it up, right? That's our big concern. Yeah. Yeah. I don't I don't think we were contesting I don't think we had any issues with the we didn't have all the facts because we didn't the the change is we didn't have the footnotes for it. I don't think we were contesting any of the numbers. Yeah. I don't think we had any issues with that.

I think I mean if we want to talk about the language the the the there was a few different things but one policy question was was the council okay? We had a very neutral document and it's not a neutral document and was the council okay with with it being very pro- tourism based. Again, not saying good or bad, but that's what that does, right? So, as far as the numbers and the facts, at least as that goes, the studies and the numbers, I don't think we debated that. It was it was really a matter of about three pages of two and a half pages of tourism pro tourism was added. And the reason why I point that out is because part of what I heard in the visioning from other people was was how upset they were about the emphasis put on tourism. So when we wrote this document and this this is only part of the issue when we wrote this document, we were trying to keep it neutral. So our question we just wanted to make sure that the council knew that that's what we were doing. We were writing it from a very neutral tone and not from a pro tourism tone because we had been told by other sides right during envisioning that there was too much emphasis put on the tourism industry. Maybe I'm reading this a little wrong. seems to be more a recitation of what we are currently. It remains a cornerstone of the white fish economy. It represents 1 billion in spending. Those are not pro or con. Those are facts. Correct. Some of it correct.

I guess like um you could go to again I'm not saying pro or con on this. I don't have strong opinions. Yeah. On this on that particular part. Um if you look at page if you look at like it it talks about the lasting benefits to the broad to the Whitefish community. Again we don't aren't really contesting that. Okay.

But where we started was a very neutral document. So I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other that that part. What we did what we did have strong opinions about is findings that came from a report that were stricken or not included. We had strong feelings about that. You know we we the city hired a consultant to to do a study. They talked to 30 different stakeholders. 19 of them had notes. They gave us notes from the stakeholders said this is what they said. Those were included in the report. We included that saying here's what we were told and some of those were stricken because they weren't favorable. So that's some of the stuff we had issues with. is our only option to go sentence by sentence through this whole thing. I think as long as you're providing more like the bigger picture areas that you want to see changed, we can try to tweak it. Um, but I still think you're going to have to at least, you know, go through and and say like, "Yes, we want to recognize this part of tourism or no, we don't want to recognize this part of this section." Um, if you're talking about just the tourism section, but

I can do some line by line edit if that'll get us moving off the dime here. Let's go. Let's do it. Okay. Let's go to uh page 547 144 in the document. um would be the second paragraph, last line. I would strike everything after the word hotels. I'd be striking that contribute to the 3% resort tax. I do that simply because STRs that are within our city limits, they contribute to and the insinuation in that statement is that they don't. And that's not that's not a true statement. Where is that?

We're looking for it. Second paragraph, last line. 547 in the packet, 144 in the document.

So, you're just saying strike the STR reference, the last sentence. Not the whole reference. No. Um, only everything after the word hotels. So, it would now read STRs have a range of effects. They impact local hospitality businesses, which they in fact do. They alter residential neighborhoods, which they kind of do. Um, they increase summer traffic, arguably maybe not 100%. True statement in and of themselves. Um, and reduce market share for hotels, period. I would strike that contribute to the 3% resort tax. Again, the insinuation is there that STRs in the community don't pay 3% and they in fact do. So,

outside of outside of the city limits, true, they don't. But so, do hotels outside of the city limits not pay resort tax? Everyone okay with that? Okay. All right. Let's move moving down here. I lose my space.

I mean, um, page 545 and that would again be second paragraph. I would strike the last three lines beginning with the word tourism. That would be striking. Tourism brings substantial benefits to Whitefish. True. Excellent restaurants and unique shops are possible because of visitor spending, but these businesses also depend on consistent local support. True statement, not relevant here in our economic resource document in my opinion. Sorry, you're on page 545. Yep. 545 at least in mine. 142 in the um document. Yeah.

Yeah. I'm so confused. I'm sorry. I can't 142 of the document. Yeah, 142 of the document. Let's just stick with I see that as 544 page 544. Yeah, I somehow I think my counter is off here. It's the agenda. I'll reference um resource document page number or plan number.

Yes. Second paragraph on page 142 of the document. Is it Yeah. Striking essentially the last three lines. Could you read the lines?

So the paragraph you have in the middle of the screen there, Alan. I would everything. Yep. Strike that. Again, I'm not disputing the truth of validity of that statement, but I just don't see that it belongs here. I can support that. Everyone okay with that? Keep moving.

Okay, where am I again have? Um, so 145 of the document. So the last three lines there, and I'm not quite sure how to reward this, maybe somebody else might have it. I think that the way that's stated, economic growth and development plans would be wise to build on the success of tourism in Whitefish. growth policy should be designed to leverage the visitor economy to grow businesses business sectors beyond tourism. I like the last part of that. I'm not sure the word wise in there kind of doesn't really work for me. It struck me as a little odd today. Um

I'm trying to follow you Andy. I'm not where. So it's Yeah. So it's the second paragraph there. Um 145 in the document. It says it begins with there just strikes a bad chord with me.

That Yeah, should would be fine. Good. Good job, Rebecca. So, replace the word wise third line towards the end from the bottom um with should. Should build on. Yeah, I like that better. Yep. You got that, Alan? I think so. Yep, that's it.

Um 147 of the document. U we need to strike. It's in the very last um paragraph there, kind of middle of that paragraph. Over time, retail offerings have become more visitor serving. That's all really true. We really do need to strike liquor store out of there though because it's no longer there. And the snowboard shops for sale. Yeah. Yeah. But they're going to stay open for a little bit or No, no, I think Joe, they're just going up on the mountain, right?

Yep. Um, that's all I have for a moment.

I can support that. Okay, let's let's maybe call it at that to this evening. See a clean version at the next meeting on April 6th. And if we need to go into more detail like we did this evening, we can continue them. That's just my recommendation at this hour. Is everyone okay with that? Okay. So, again, we'll we'll go through the remaining remainder of the document on April 6th. The public hearing does remain open, but we do need to look to adopt on April 6th after we complete our redline edits. So, we'll follow the same kind of protocol as we did this evening. Everyone good with that? All right. Alan, thanks very much.

Thank you, Alan. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Dave. Thanks, Steph. We'll start with counselor comments. Just that be anything this evening? Thank you, Frank. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Rebecca. Andy? Uh, no. I do, but it's not it's not very timesensitive, but it is related to some of the information Mary handed out regarding the septic rule change that I would like to address at the next meeting. I believe the commissioners or the health boards meeting again on April 16th, if I'm not mistaken. So, we can bring that up at the April 6 meeting. I

Yeah, I I agree with you, John. I would I we had there had been some reference and some conversation I had that I think we need to have a uh a full discussion with our um member of the health department um our health board Yep. to figure out exactly what the hell happened here. Yep. Yeah. And I also think that we need to have a representative at the health board meeting. Yep. And just to let you guys know, um, your representative Grant will be able to attend April 20th, but he will be gone April 6th, so he cannot attend that meeting. Um, but he is planning to attend on April 20th. Thanks, Dana. On that note, we are adjourned. Thanks.