City Council - Regular Meeting

and the number of people in the vehicles um in this these simulations and and I thought it was really compelling as to something that we might be able to use not necessarily directly in this planning process but as part of looking at the transportation needs and stressors um that we have in the event of wildfire evacuation. So thank you. I'll try to get those links back out to everybody because it was just it was just Thank you. We're good now. I had the wrong link open.

All right. Welcome those of you who are online. Thanks for joining us. We're um we've called the meeting to order and we're now in general comment. A comment that's specific to transportation is closed. But at this time, if you have a general public comment, you can raise your hand in teams and we'll hear from you. We're not seeing anyone, so we'll go ahead and move forward. And I'll remind you that there is a general public comment again at the end of this meeting if you hang with us through the whole thing.

Okay. So now we're moving on to um our transportation element discussion. We made it through this on our November 17th or 19th meeting through part of it. Um we'll review the sections. uh we may there may be some suggestions that are from the sections that we've already been over the first two goals but mainly we'll focus on the second two goals and the body so

yes Scott can I start two general questions um yes

thank you so the first question I have um would relate to um the map that's at the appendant. And this one would maybe be for Craig. um looking at the future land use map stuff that the consultants generated and I noticed that just across the viaduct on Edgewood um between the dog park and Texas Avenue there's next to Texas Avenue there's something called East Texas Avenue. Do you know what East Texas Avenue is? There's a county right of way uh just east of Texas Avenue that is called East Texas Avenue.

And how wide is that? Do you know? 40 or 60. It's probably a 40ft county rightway. And it only extends maybe less than 1,000 ft north of Edgewood,

right? I was and I got on the uh the GIS system and I was looking at those tracks landing properties in there. There's a whole there's a number of them that are large. Many of them been subdivided. One of them is a platted subdivision now. Um and it looks like that area is primed and ready for um uh what could be major subdivision activity. Um and when we're talking about extending that um or an above grade crossing there um somewhere and then I noticed also that I don't know if it's east Texas it's not directly avenue but it's darn close. Would that is there are there is there anything in the future extension of services or planning or anything that would be preparing us for that kind of large scale subdivision development in that area that has been done

is yeah so the city is working on um a railroad crossing elimination plan right now through a grant through the federal railroad administration and one of the projects we'll be looking at is a potential grade separated crossing between the existing vioaduct and East Second Street. I will tell you that is the absolute most expensive alternative. Um in order to do so, that vioaduct is going to start climbing somewhere between second and first street. So all of that entire neighborhood um will now have a bridge basically going over it. And then likewise on the north side of the tracks because it's literally the widest part, you know, the train depot, um it would go over Edgewood and come down somewhere around where that new development that um that Lewis is doing um on Texas Avenue. But yeah, Columbia and Texas do line up fairly well. Um, so there is opportunity there and and it's being investigated, but we're probably talking about a 20 plus million dollar project.

Okay. And so, and you're talking about the Ruiz stuff back there on Texas between Colorado and Texas. Okay. Just north of Edgewood. All right. And that's how many What is that? Uh, roughly 200 units? 190, I believe. Okay. 2009 190 units going in there now. Correct. And so and it I I mean would you agree with me that that area has a great deal based on um you know land use divisions and stuff that that area does have potential to become really large scale subdivision large scale subdivision.

Yeah I mean there's there's the potential there. But I mean the the the biggest um hurdle I would say beyond transportation is sewer. We don't currently have a sewer crossing uh of the railroad tracks to serve that area. And so there'd be a very significant infrastructure improvement to to serve that area with sanitary sewer. I heard rumbling somewhere that that's doable. Oh, it's doable for sure. Yeah. All right. How much and so that the the the crossing the you're talking about isn't down there where the current at grade crossing is. This will be different.

That'll be another option that we'll be looking at. Okay. Yeah. Is turning East Second Street into a a grade separated crossing either an overpass or an underpass. Okay. All right. Um and the uh second question I had escapes me. Um for Oh, I know. So in the in the very beginning in in that this would be like for maybe Mallerie. Um just a multimodal community statement here. Um where is that? Just right on the first page of the busy statement

where we we place equal emphasis on no non-motorized motorized forms of transportation while considering associated impacts on land use and existing transportation infrastructure. What that mean to you? I mean, I I'm I'm having trouble because I drive around here in the middle of winter and all the sidewalks are icy and I look at the bottom of page one and the top of page two where it says um older disabled residents who are no longer able to drive but still need access around the city. I mean, I don't see how the trails are going to help or the the multimodal stuff is going to help them in any way. I mean that's just a conversation that the city has to have more thoroughly on like how designing our streets to be easily uh accessible, right? That there are ways in which you can build multi-use paths for like both bike lanes and those kind of things. And this is a further conversation down the road where when you're plowing the street with a plow like a plow truck, you're also plowing off the area that people are walking. Right? If we really want to incentivize creating all forms of transportation the same, those are the kindations that have to happen down further down the line, right? Like um you know there's also conversations about and again conversation for another day, but like sidewalks right now residents are expected to plot of sidewalks, right? And so that doesn't mean that means that not all areas are going to be accessible for everyone. Um but I mean I think it's a good vision, right? like how do we create and policies that incentivize creating um like clearing of pathways so people can more easily get around.

So I guess my what's giving me the hard burn is the word eagle, right? I mean I and I understand the spirit in which that is offered and I've got no problem with that or objection to it, but it does seem to me to be unequal. I mean dur it's more like it's seasonal right I mean what we're talking about is you know that shoulder seasons and the summer for people to use these pathways because I mean you know if you're young and you got a fat tire bike and you want to risk going across that behind that you know more power to you it's not me and so um I I I get what you're saying but um I don't I I'm troubled by the word evil I mean I think like another argument here is that if you are building more densely and walkable and making your community more walkable there less of your tax dollars are being extended to extend services to extend the plowing so you have more funds to prioritize truly making those things right. So like if this is the vision that we want for our community, if we actually want people to be using our sidewalks and our paths year round, if that is the vision that people have, then that is like all of these things have to be integrated into the plan. Because if you take one thing out, then yes, you are not going to create a system that incentivizes equal um emphasis on non-motorized walking, right? Because if you're putting all of your tax resources into extending services farther and farther out of town, then you're extending how much you're spending on plowing on all of those things to maintain. Right.

I understand it. Like, but I guess what I'm I mean, we're driving year round, right?

But you don't like if you intentionally as a city are making decisions so that it is more walkable and you're putting that money into the infrastructure, it doesn't have to be that way. There are ways all across the world in which people have treat all forms of transportation equal, right? It's a decision that we would have to make as a city and commit to. Um, but you have to think about further down in this chapter. If you take things out that will negate what you're saying, right? Like we don't build densely, if we don't prioritize transportation, if we don't prioritize these things, then yeah, it won't be equal. is so I mean in all that your assumption is that that's the goal we that's the policy choice we want that's the goal we want as a community

that is what that says to me yes all right that that if you if you want an emphasis on non-motorized and motorized forms of transportation you have to think about all those things interconnected well and I understand it but I mean we're not like Florida I mean this would make sense to me if we were like in a in a warm state right but they do these in Nordic countries all the time you just have to you have to prioritize it as a city. Well, we don't have to. I mean, it's a choice, right? I mean, and there, right? But if this is the vision, right? This is the vision that the community said they wanted. Those are the things, right, that you you have to have in the plan. I didn't take away from the vision process the idea that,

you know, we want to have the the sidewalks plowed in the winter equally with the roads. Um and um then it's also then you're also saying that people who have disabilities, people who are older and less mobile do should not have the same ability to get around. No, well I'm not saying that. I mean I I I understand what you're saying and I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to get at here and I'm really looking for help on that word equal. Right.

Right. To me equal is great. That's the kind of vision I want for my community. So like to me that's what I think we should be working towards. I'm going to call this now. I think it's a good discussion to start on going forward because that's the idea and the goal of this whole transportation element. Um we've talked about throughout is making multimodal transportation. Um last time we added in all season um to ensure Yeah. So I on bill one we added the in all seasons. Um, so I think that was a good step towards doing exactly what we're talking about now. And I want to get back to um going through these kind of line by line with an ear to keeping it equal and how to do that. So um I did have one thing we had a comment come in that was written um and in this way we will revisit a few things if the comments are in writing. Um so objective uh goal one objective A uh I would like to add objective A. This policy will promote mobility and accessibility for people of all ages and abilities. Um, this is something that came in on the 13th of November from Mc uh, Kate McMahon and I know that we had referenced um, of all ages and abilities, but in her email she discusses um, when we apply for grants and those are looked at very closely the objectives, not just the goals.

So, I do think it's a good idea. Yes. Yeah, I just Go ahead. We're talking about this one here. Yes. Okay. How are you saying revise this or add a second statement? Add a second statement. Okay. Second statement. Can we get to Wait a minute. Let me get my track changes since I'm trying to stay up here and Okay. Say it again. So second sentence uh on a this policy will promote mobility and accessibility for people of all ages and abilities.

Yes, according to me. Does that suffice for everyone? I want to honor that comment that it's not just a goal but also an objective and I appreciate that addition. Was that a public comment that came through? I don't remember. Yeah, it was um Kate McMahon on she's usually commenting on airport issues, but this was referencing several people had talked about uh disability and access for all. So that's the reason that we add added written public comment that you got out of a red mark. I guess I'm confused where that comment came from. It's an email. I don't know.

Was it an email I posted or is it a different It's in our It's in our comment packet. Okay. Okay. Okay. Not just to me. All right. Fair enough. I know. That's That's why they I do not accept public comments to my personal just getting um and if we needed to pull it out, but I don't. Yeah, no worries. There's 160 pages. That's why I didn't answer. All right. Um, anything on goal number one that anyone wants to add? I would like to add an objective. Yes. Two objective E goal one like to add to go one objective E. Yeah.

And this is from public comment. Vehicle speed limits should be reduced throughout the community. reducing speeds, improve safety, mobility, and comfort. That's a second objective underneath this one. All right. Part of E. I think it would it looks to me like u a sentence added to goal one section E. Okay. Goal one section E to the develop prioritization criteria one and that's talking of missing sidewalks and forest.

Objective. The objective E I have I said I gave you a copy of those along with Yes, it does. And I would add that as objective F. So I've got Oh, did we do that last goal three? Oh, so we're adding a new objective. A new objective. new objective. This one does not um necessarily have to be with another objective that's consumed.

That's fine. That's what I was talking about.

All right. like I'm running out All right. Any discussion about adding this objective?

Um, do we have any idea of like what the speed limit would be like 15 miles an hour or is it could that be left up to and I think a lot of it would balance on the police department but the general nationwide kind of trend is drop the five, right? So 25 would be 20. H and I've heard support from Chief Kelch that he would like to see that as well. So So do we need that or we could I would not in this document. No, I I just like reducing vehicular speeds.

So everyone in favor of adding this hand. Yes. Any opposed? Ben wants to drive fast. Final objection is very broad. It applies to every single street in town. I'm not sure it makes sense for every single street in town. That's my you could add what adding it worth help that like as appropriate. Yeah. Not to include collector street.

No, I I think of speed on something of like an engineering fan. It's like some roads something else. I would say green wording suggestions for people. My only push back against that though is like the as we see more traffic and like if the goal is to be like a a place in which there is a lot more like walking and biking decreasing the speed throughout the city just seems like a safer way to go if we truly want to create a place where people feel comfortable to walk and bike and all those things. So that'd be my only push back against not dropping it on the main roads like you know like people go like 50 60 miles an hour on 93 coming into town you know before it narrows and so I think it'd be great to see like those things but that's just my it's not I'm going to die on from a safety standpoint noted

I'm only one opinion I one comment. Uh, yes, legally. It looks to me like this is not taking away the discretion of the police or the transportation department. I think they still have discretion to do what they feel appropriate and well, especially Montana Department of Transportation on the road. There's a lot of rightway that we don't have jurisdiction over and we can't make the change, but I mean it could just say consider reducing speeds.

I do note that there is a note that goes along with this in the comment that talks about that's in the transportation plan and gives the the site that's in the safe streets for all and it gives sites there and it's in the downtown business district master plan as well. So I think that's in design to incorporate or at least call those things out. Yeah,

we took a vote, right? Well, we confir have one objection and a reasoning and we're going to move on. So, thanks for adding that we voting on these individually. We're saying yay or nay. Yeah, everyone said yes. So, as long as there is an accident with nobody's on board, we all raised our hand. And then I'm sure I have one for Yes. Go ahead. F which um uh I guess it would be its own objective. So I don't know that we would necessarily call it F. Adopt a traffic calming program as recommended in safe streets for all page 66.

So we did add that last time. That was our last action. We made that item K. I'm not opposed to putting it in this as well. I don't think redundancy is a bad thing in this document. Oh, I see it. Yep, it's on screen.

Yeah. So, I just want to alert us to the fact that we did add it. So, this wouldn't be do we want to add it? We already have. It would just be would we like to put it in goal one as well. Um, and I think it does fit in gold one also. Um, so that's up to everyone if there's a place that we would like to add this same statement. Ben, any uh advice on redundancy in this document? Alan, strong feelings. Strong feelings. Mhm. Okay. What was that?

So, where are we adding it? The same same the same uh yeah the exact same verbiage. Okay. Writing to which one? Uh an objective under goal one just as a brand new objective. Yes. Um the I see that I was working from the previous draft on this one. So I apologize. No, it's fine. We had just um Oops. I'm gonna do that. We had discussed it with the Whitefish youth um when they were here to to add that somewhere and it seemed to fit in three as well.

But then we had a suggestion to add it in one. So is everyone agreeable to this being added to one as well? Raise your hand. Great. Leave it. Moving on. All right. And we added two things last time to objectives and goal one. So unless someone has anything else, move on to goal two. Okay. Um I have an objective to add in goal two and that's uh to add a new first objective which would be reduce vehicle speeds throughout the community

as needed. Um I think as we have jurisdiction 2A you're saying yes and I think it's the same discussion we just had that the city has the ability to in certain places and does not in other places and the police chief is sounds like in favor of this a dropping fire. Yes. Yeah. And it's a national trend. So any discussion or quick question on that what what does that have to do with connectivity connectivity

um so reducing vehicle speeds like as you're connecting because we're talking about um all of these different like what we were calling a collector street and deciding not to call a collector street. So, as we're connecting, reducing speeds to make those connections work for neighborhoods throughout. Yes. Can I comment? My only comment would be maybe goal three because that talks about the transational needs and associated impacts.

Yeah. Yeah. No strong feelings, but okay. would to me fit probably better in three than two but again don't have a strong thing about it. It's a little random in the connectivity. Okay. Sure. Yes. I have a question. So I have also possibly adding incorporating complete street strategies and reduced vehicle speeds. So um I think that sort of connects what you were saying about. So, um maybe we could make one sentence out of that. That makes sense. Reduce vehicle speeds throughout the community. Um and incorporate complete street stat strategies.

That's in the same spot. Yeah, we did that. Any discussion on this? Um, Ben, go ahead. I'm still hung up on the fact that it's everywhere. I mean, what do you think about that, Greg?

I mean, it's clearly redundant. I mean, it's a goal that we've already established, an objective we've established in goal one. Um, but it I don't know that it hurts to be redundant. I'm just still struggling with how vehicle speed has a correlation to this particular goal. And I think the complete streets is three times mentioned as an objective. Did you mean the fact it's everywhere to reduce the speed? Yeah, I was still Oh, I thought you meant everywhere in the plan. Yeah. Well, I'm I'm open to that. I mean, if it's in there, that's my purpose. And I I was working from the previous draft. It's always

Yeah. I mean, the fact that we're saying should be doesn't mean that we shall be, right? Or must. What What's our new word? Will. Will. Will. Well, it's I'm finding new ways. So, in favor of leaving it here as it is, raise your hand. Not in favor of leaving it here.

So, we're going to leave it for now. And if council would like to strike it later, I assume there'll be some of that. Um, but yeah, we'll leave it for now. And there may be other places where it fits better and we can come back and say we don't want it there. So, yeah. Thank you. All right. Um I have from a public comment that we received um also on F incorporating complete street strategies and speeds and that's in connection to all sorry yeah to F okay to two to F sorry

and this would been referenced to Migan Road Fish Avenue Baker tarot. So incorporating complete streets there. So it may fit better there than on its own above. So I'm not to having it either place, but one of those two. Does anybody have thoughts on whether it goes with Carol these newer um newer?

I would think it was a little more specific up there. That is kind of been a major concern that's been expressed by a lot of people. Okay. What did I miss? Putting it adding it to the um objective. Uh what was that one now? Adding a last part. Just adding a last sentence to the last phrase to the sentence on objective F. Is that right? Suggestion. Oh, we're not on. No, not at all. No, this is my bullets have changed now and things than yours.

That's right. So, you were talking G. Okay. What are you What are you suggesting? So that would be after Caro Avenue. Um incorporating complete streets and reducing vehicular speed. We are adding adding at the end of that sentence. Complete street strategies. You say complete or safe? Complete street. Complete.

So he's doing it. Can I do this? Question please. So it's a question for Craig. So would a complete street strategy include things like connecting East Texas to whatever is down below. Is that part of that concept? No, that would be part of connectivity. Complete streets just means when a when a street is designed, it's designed for all modes of travel. It includes Okay. shared use path, a sidewalk, street trees, street lighting. Thank you.

Any objection to this being added or in favor of us. I have a John. Go ahead. Something bothers me about that. I mean, the definition of complete streets, including street lighting, that seems to me to be an invitation to uh light pollution and excess expense. Well, it just adds to the safety of a a bicycle or a pedestrian,

but it decreases from the the character of the neighborhood. Not sure what to do with that. Just bother and it's expensive, but I think affordable housing would be a better use for expensive street lights. I don't disagree. Street lights are really expensive. But I also struggle with the idea of introducing new active transportation to a roadway without having safe lighting. Yeah. Kind of annoying for the people who like to live along where the lighting is.

I think it's still dark sky compliant light, right? Yeah. We still Okay, that I raise that. I don't I don't have a a a destination to Yeah. I don't know that we have an actual changing definition for complete streets, but I think there's a nationwide kind of

um you know definition that we could at some point add. But in general, I mean not only do the street lights provide you know safety for walkers, bikers, wheelchairers, but they're also a traffic calming mechanism that kind of let you know you're in an urban environment. you should slow down and you should pay attention to other forms of you know traffic.

Quick comment here. Um, so I mean to your point, John, like there are different types of lighting, right, that can be added to paths that recognize that like light pollution like smaller sort of ballered type of lights versus like the tall, you know? And so I don't know if within that objective if there's something that you could put that still allows for that accessible use of that. You're suggesting something out the lights on Carol Avenue that are new. I haven't driven down by that. But is are they those shorter kind of ball? That's exactly what I I think you I think we're all the same. Lights on Carol.

This city will do the appropriate thing in each area, right? I mean I mean the lights on Carol are standard 14 foot dark sky compliant, you know, street light, but they're not bright bright. Oh, no. They're as dim as they could possibly be. Um, which has been a product of years of, you know, trial and research. Um, we did do a number of Ballard lights, lower scale, like 4 foot ballard lights on Texas Avenue, um, which are fine in the summer, but they tend to disappear in the winter as we plow snow up against them. So that's fair. I don't think

but yeah and the in the city's engineering standards we show a number of different alternatives for dark sky compliant lighting. So thanks for figuring all that out for us Greg. Is is the term complete streets used anywhere else in this document or defined anywhere? Yeah, it's referenced multiple places. Um there's a definition in the narrative. Yeah. All the detail in the bottom there also national descriptions of what it means.

Yeah. where we can get that exactly. And then we talked last time about um having you know like a glossery or a list of terms that are used in this and Alan has you're not going to have it by not going to have it by February 19th probably.

Exactly. But we'll keep that in mind that all of these things that are being mentioned will be referenced and available. All right. So I don't think that we ever all said yes to this um in reference to Carol on G is everyone okay with incorporating thanks guys. Okay. So that will be there. Moving on, the next thing I have um is under what was K with explore opportunities to improve connectivity. Um a comment submitted in writing. Um, and I appreciate that this was geared toward all downtown neighborhood streets with a concern for um, parking not being reduced with connectivity being improved. So this is adding to K um that period at the end of that sentence and saying or materially reducing on street parking spaces on any streets in our downtown neighborhood downtown neighborhoods.

Yeah. or material on any streets reducing on street parking spaces any streets streets yeah in our down downtown neighborhoods

session on this one if that conflicts with our pedestrian accessibility goals We sometimes don't like to choose between street parking and skylights instead. Feel like our downtown streets already have sidewalks that are present because we've had that program. Do you know of any unsidewalk streets downtown that would conflict with that? Craig,

it's tricky. I mean, every downtown roadway reconstruction project is different and has its own variables. Um I I don't know that I have an issue with that addition though. I I guess my only question is materially reducing. Does that mean like you can reduce 5% but not 10%. Well yeah. What comes to my mind is sometimes for safety, I know on these a lot of these small side streets, occasionally a sign will pop up that will say no parking from here to corner, which is very appreciated because people will park right to the corner and you can't see.

So that to me is not materially reducing the number of spaces, but is increasing safety. So that wouldn't be a problem to take away one space to make the road visible. You're going to paint that space red. Yeah, paint it red. You know, for safety reasons or if a fire hydrant has to go in. Um, so all of these things might take away one or two spots, but you're not saying no parking on this side of the street. Does that make sense? Yeah. No, that doesn't make sense.

All right. Any more discussion on this? All in favor of adding it. Okay. Thanks. That will stay there. Yeah. So, now we're back to where we started on goal three. Thanks for hanging in here with us, guys. Um um thing to bring up in this is the term of the word mixed use uh is scattered throughout this. Um yeah, this document, but this goal in particular. Um I know that we have talked about this before. Um and to me this screams commercial and residential. Um, if mixed use in some places means adding residential where there's already commercial, I think that's a great addition and improves transportation. Um, but overwhelmingly from the public, I've heard do not add residential. Um, so we can have that discussion, but I'm a fan of removing the the term mixed use. Um, we had that discussion in the economic section and I think it stands in my mind here the same, but we can talk about it if you guys would like to.

I'll go first.

All right, go ahead. Okay. So, um, like I said in my intro, uh, when Scott asked me about equal access, um, without mixed use, this document will not be multimodal. It will not accomplish the things that are set out to be done in here. I just want to make that really clear because if you do not allow for some limited commercial and residential throughout the community, you are requiring that people who do not live in the areas closest to downtown that they will be driving to get their basic needs met. I just want that to be abundantly clear to the public that if you take mixed view south, like just be aware that you are not going to be able to accomplish these goals. Um, and then I'm going to go through and I'm going to read some things. There's a lot of really important research around transportation mixed use and I also want to speak historically. My mom grew up here. My grandpa grew up here. My great grandma grew up here. My great great grandpa grew up here. Mixed use is a part of the history of Whitefish. There used to be commercial in our residential areas. And it was not uncommon to have small stores in the residential. You can be very prescriptive in how you zone for commercial and residential, but people are making it out to seem that people are we're going to get big box stores in our neighborhoods and there are ways to control against that. Um right now what that says when you take out mixed use from this document you are saying that the only people that should have the quality of life in which they can walk to you know get a coffee to go to the grocery store to do some of those basic needs are people who can afford downtown neighborhoods along Wisconsin and there are plenty of neighborhoods in our community that are not within walking distance not within a type places. So, I'm just adamantly opposed about mixed use pulling. I was against it in economic development. I'm

against it in this. Uh, so this book is called Walkable City Rules: 101 Steps to Making Better Places by Jeff Spec. Um, so in chapter 9, fix your codes, eliminate eliminate legal barriers to mixed Use. It is clear why the city of zones is the exact opposite of the walkable city. If nothing is close to anything different and the only connection is a single fat roadway, then the population is automatically conscripted to driving. We have a great walkable downtown area. We have parts of just on the other side of the vioaduct that are great and walkable. Shouldn't we make it so that more people in our community have access to that? Um, so that's one quote from this book. Um, communities that fund infrastructure with an eye to long-term return will invest in compact mixed use development, especially in historic districts and not in sprawl. From the book, Happy City by Charles Montgomery, transforming our lives through urban design. It helps to compare cities and their transportation systems to forests. Rich, diverse ecosystems are always healthier and more resistant than monofilters. Just as the mixed forest can better survive a beetle infestation than a free tree free tree farm consisting of one variety of pine, a city that enables endless combinations of mobility will be more resilient than a city that organizes itself around just one way of moving. It will adjust more easily to shifts in economics, human taste, and energy supply. It will fill in the blanks that master plans cannot see within the tangle of the complex urban system. It will make the most of technologies that can evolve, solve the problems, particular cities, tight spaces, congested streets, and most of all, people with wildly varying preferences. And then lastly, as a

mental health therapist to teenagers that I see daily, one of the best things that you can do for kids is give them access to things that they can walk to. You give them freedom and you give them autonomy. I grew up in this town. I built trust in this town because I always lived a mile from downtown and I think all of our community should all of our kids should have access to that kind of thing. So Valerie, can I ask a question? Since you are a fifth generation white fisher, what happened to the prior small businesses in the neighborhoods over the last 100 years? I mean cease to exist

over time we zoned it out. So in the 1960s throughout the country there was a lot of ways in which we as a society decided to zone to separate our zones. Um and it happened all over the country. Saying actual zoning, you're just saying like we decided

no zoning like we changed the zoning laws throughout the country. Um, and so Whitefish, I think Whitefish was like 1980s is when it hit here is when we did a lot of the zoning and we zone, we literally made it impossible for us to have those kind of things. So, as those disappeared, right, as as people were, you know, they aged, whatever, and they no longer ran those institutions, then it was largely illegal in most of our city. So, you're saying that businesses didn't necessarily fail. I mean, they they zoned out, some of them potentially. Yes. Yeah,

just kind of leaving that side, a couple comments if I may. Um, if we are not supporting mixed use when we're talking about putting residential into commercial areas like the hospital property 493, that's mixed use. Um, what we want to do with the what's been talked about with the hospital property, adding residential component into that area, that's mixed use. So mixuse doesn't just mean putting commercial residential neighborhoods. also means encouraging developing commercial, residential and all those things together as one co cohesive development that could be anywhere along the 49 corridor. And the other thing I guess I would strongly recommend is if we do that we're in conflict with all of our growth policies, all of our transportation plans, the climate action plan, the climate action committee, like we're going down we're going down a very different road. punitive.

Okay. Um, back to the spring of 2024, the visioning process, over 250 people participated. And, uh, when asked to rank values, the number one value that they wanted to preserve was a small town field of white fish. And uh we have had comments and and I believe that spreading commercial into residential areas like spreading it into the avenues that erases the small town feel. So I think we have a strong consist constituency against this kind of mixed use. I'm all for mixing residential into the commercial areas. you know, the second, third, maybe fourth story can be residential. So, we could adopt some language that makes that happen. Um, and the avenues and the older areas right around downtown are more vulnerable. The subdivisions like Great Northern Heights, Oldtown, O'Brien Bluffs, a little further out, they all have covenants against commercial. So, it's really inflicting commercial on the older areas of town which are defenseless and not and it still won't be allowed out in the subdivision areas by up by the food bank station and west of the golf course and so forth. Um, and then if it is if mixed use is allowed then it's a slippery slope. How do we avoid strip malls? Uh last time when in August when we were going over the economic development goals and objectives again

there was a comment made that this was the road to Helena and Helena. You go from one end to the other and it's all commercial. you go out toward where I was a soccer coach for nine years and we went to Helen a lot and there's a a uh a connector going north there's commercial all along that one in addition to their downtown so and the whole area by the capital couple of those streets are all commercial it's just this mixture and this mess that uh I don't think the majority of these people who went to um the visioning sessions want to have. And so for the avenues, we still have an area where people can walk from the high school down to downtown. It's like six or eight blocks. That's doable in good weather. Uh I think that's how Whitefish should feel. I think it's how the visioning people want it to feel. And so I I would uh eliminate the mixed use or uh qualify it allowing it outside residential areas. That's another solution.

I just make really one quick. So that is already allowed. So by state law uh where there is commercial for the most part you are already allowed to build out. understand that. I I think that's the issue with this term

broadly mixed use. What it is doing is allowing commercial and residential and that's what we've heard resoundingly. It's been tried. It didn't work. Um I'm not sure that those businesses were zoned out. I think that to have a walkable neighborhood with a coffee shop, either you're going to have a lot of traffic that coffee shop is going to survive. I mean, how many cups of coffee per day would each neighbor have to walk and purchase to make it a viable business? Um, and what what people are envisioning might work for a year to keep that business afloat, but if it is successful, then you have not the neighborhood that you had before. You have a busy street. if it isn't successful, it goes out of business and you have an empty commercial building. Um, and I think that's what we've heard again and again. Uh, I cannot support commercial and residential and we've done this before. So, I'm requesting that we remove throughout the term mixed use. The term infill can be defined later and that does actually mean adding things where they already are. Um, and we're going to have to define what we mean by infill in each zone. Um, however that's done. But this term mixed use and then actually saying residential and commercial uses integrating. Um I think this is not what the community has asked for. So

sure. Yes.

Um my concern is that kind of basically this is premature. This is really a land use issue and discussion that we're having now and if we put it in now here then it seems to me that that would then predetermine the outcome of the subsequent discussion we're going to have. So I would favor taking it out now. Um uh and if the if the ultimate decision is that we want mixed use um then we can we have the track we can come back and put it back in. But um that's my choosing.

So you're going to pay striking go number three all together. I've got some specific lines. Yeah, I just have the term mixed use um because it's peppered throughout um and I just I don't think it means what we want it to mean past discussions on your the handout I gave you. There's a list of red line, green language that would do what you're suggesting, I believe.

Yeah. So, would you like to go? It might be quicker just to excuse.

Well, there are some other things in here. Um, uh, but I mean, David, just read a couple and see if you think it's relevant to go there. And if not then um uh on five growth read I guess existing and future land uses should steer infrastructure planning could add something. Investments in transportation infrastructure should be made to stimulate desired development patterns. It's a sentence.

These Yeah. Don't write it down yet. I'm just you and if if the the tone of this is something that people would want to do. So then on objective six, objective X strike misuse plan, right? Cross that out. Um uh just keep the encourage and we're saying prior prioritize. You're striking the first part and you're leaving the encourage part. Right. Then that one would read encourage and enable the development of housing, jobs and services in close proximity to one another in in proximity to jobs and services to present straw. So try Scott. Yeah. At the top of the page, we have a phrase that was stricken.

Yeah. About integration of residential and commercial which doesn't say mixed use, though we should specifically strike that one as well. Yeah. I know I I there's a number of them. I'm just kind of like I was highlighting a couple to see if you think that that's worth having that discussion or not. I think it's worth uh because if simply taking out the term mixed use does not allow doesn't allow direction if that makes sense. Yeah. Um so I could propose these or you could propose them as a specific one by one. Yes. you you can. All right.

Um the the one after existing that was in the goal. Um I I agree with that. Uh so Alan, did you type that? So I guess I No, maybe not. Where where are So go up a bit. Um line three. There's in the size portion. Okay. where it says sorry I'm trying to find it existing yes so after infrastructure planning infrastructure yeah

add uh new sentence investment in transportation infrastructure that's directly after infrastructure planning Yes.

Um stimulates bizarre development patterns. Transcribe that. And in the next transportation begins a new sentence. So, this is taking it back more to where we're putting transportation and that stimulating where development will happen. I swear I've heard you say in council meetings before that you never build infrastructure before it's needed and that's still true.

Uh sorry never never is a strong word. Traditionally that hasn't been the way that Whitefish has grown. Yeah.

We've we've relied on development to expand our infrastructure. um it doesn't necessarily fall in line with um the concurrency policies that we've talked about in the past where you know the if you build it they will come kind of a thing. Um but the city doesn't have funding capacity to, for example, extend Baker Avenue from 19th Street to um JP Road, you know, and so we're we're relying on developers to come in and subdivide and build pieces at a time. Um so I I wouldn't say never. Um, but the reality is it it would require significant additional funding sources if we were to expand our infrastructure to allow for future development.

Yeah. And how would you even do that? I mean, we might know that some general area town might be developed in the future, but future could be a long time from now. Well, that's a chicken and the egg, right?

Yep. Well, at least in part that's what we're doing plan, right? We're looking at those areas think are possibly be developed and then you know after reaching sort of a consensus and this plan then it would enable the city to begin that extension of services strategy or continue I guess. But um I mean we had a conversation Craig where um I think other the other cities that do extend that stuff out um initially that can afford to do it that's the better way to go right I mean because you're um planning for your growth um and by um not having that stuff in place now it's it's a hit or miss whether the the city or or develop or anybody and we'll ever get the money to do that. But we still have those things being approved even though infrastructure isn't yet built.

Yeah, I don't get me wrong, I don't I completely agree with the addition of the statement into the plan. Okay. Um it's just a matter of planning for the future to make sure that the city can afford to do so. Yeah. because all of our current transportation planning is based on packet counts and ter service and stuff which are a measure of things today. So to do this correctly, you would have to have a separate study or something that would essentially try to develop what traffic capacity will be in some future period of time. Yeah. Well, I mean every plan that we do has a growth component to it. you know, we project growth um

and we look at what the today's traffic counts will look like in 20, 30, 40 years. Um well, private examples, Wisconsin Avenue, right? Your projected growth at 3.9% per year. If it's quite that high, actually now we're Yeah, we're a half in the 2018 Wisconsin corridor plan. It says 3.9.

We went through a spike, but we've definitely slowown down since then. But, um, nonetheless, I mean, I I think this is a a valid addition to the plan for sure. I was in favor of adding this. What did we adding? this no doubt

investment in transportation infrastructure to stimulate desire development patterns. First first green line on Scott's second page. Second paragraph language time. We got that John right. Okay. Find it. have doubts about that one because of the cost.

Well, if if the money's not there, they aren't going to do it. I mean, if the money's not there, of course, can't do it. which is like the use of the word should good thing will self-limiting. You will just sometimes I like to stand up for the taxpayers. Sounds expensive to me. Those in favor of adding this

I close this. Thanks Alan Scott. you want. So,

so the goal three first paragraph there's the use of mixed use in the second sentence of strike that replace it with compound. Yes. have that Alan think so any discussion on replacing mixed use with compact

going to kind of make a comment. I don't really know how to vote on this because benefits to mixed use I like a lot of stuff that Mel said I I do believe to be true but I also don't think that necessarily means mixed use is everywhere in every neighborhood in every way and I I don't think it necessarily means we're redeveloping historic neighborhoods have commercial in them and I I do feel like sometimes historic neighborhoods actually compose a pretty small percentage of our town and they tend to drive a lot of policy and I'm not and something like this actually applies at least as much if not more to new development that we're talking about somewhere else that may be further from the core and may not have closer proximity to other things and where where mixed use may be broadly acceptable and so I I hate to close the concept of mixed use as much as I would hate to say it's everywhere all the time and that's a very like nuanced argument which is very hard to make in a transportation plan because it's a land use argument and so I kind of agree I don't know why this is here and so um I'd love to see that concept developed further in the land use section and I don't know what to do here I don't think mixed uses inherently bad I just think it needs to be thoughtful

that yeah what about mixed use in new developments well right well that's What's the problem with that? Yeah. Can I make a comment? Yeah. I guess the the only thing we haven't mentioned is remember that you are also going to be seeing the zoning and the zoning particularly the capital we're going to do is going to control where this type of development goes. But if you close the door here, it's going to be difficult than when we're looking at the zoning to ever open it up. So from my perspect,

you're going to control where it's going to go. I don't think we're closing a door here. I think we're just saying this does not belong here and then we will have that discussion of where and when. By us taking the term mixed use out of transportation, I don't see that as closing a door in zoning. I think that there will be places in zoning that we say this is a great spot, you know, where there is potentially already commercial. Let's add in infill with residential or there are no developments here. This looks like a great spot to have mixed use. But I don't think it applies broadly to be in the transportation section in the goal in the objectives. That's my issue. It's just threw out mixed use and I hear lots of murmuring around that people are very concerned about that will allow commercial to come into a residential be that a historic neighborhood, be that, you know, a development somewhere else that they may not want more traffic. Um, so I think that that's not up to us to put in the transportation plan that we want to add mixed use around. Um, that's a discussion that we'll definitely have again in land use and in zoning. Um, I just I'm not a fan of it being in here.

Madam Chair. Yes. Um, so Valerie, when you were describing before, I just want to make sure that I understood that the intent of your interpretation is that mixed use should be available everywhere. That's not what I said. You're just taking it out of the entire document. That's what was discussed earlier. So that's why I brought it up because looking at the public comment, mixed use is pulled out from throughout the document and there is no like nuance discussion until right now having Well, I don't want to know.

No, I mean I think it has to be a nuanced discussion on where we want it, right? But to pull it out just wholeheartedly like that was why I responded the way that I did it because that has been that that was the discussion during economic development too that it's not small town character to have mixed use development. Well, so my my perspective on it would be if I may respond um would be that that's the where the reason it's so nuanced is because we're trying to discuss something now that should be in the land use where these concerns would be addressed about um where it is and isn't appropriate.

But I argue that you have to you have to have it in the transportation document if you want to meet the goals of the transportation document because mixed use is a part of creating multimodal equal Because people like you cannot not have mixed use in areas that are right now you have to get in a car and drive for everything, right? You have to have mixed use in this document from my perspective. Right. Well, so then but you're not qualifying it in any way, right? You're just saying

I'd be happy to have that conversation if that is part of the conversation. But if hypothetically in one minute if you were going to um keep it in here, how would you qualify?

I mean there's lots of ways that you could do it. You could right now like to Ben's point like we have a lot of mixed use right in the downtown core. There are studies out there that show that people are not likely to to walk more than a mile. So you would want to look at your community. Where are your commercial hubs now? Where are there no commercial hubs? and how do you create connectivity so that people can within a mile from where they're living can walk and access and we can have that conversation about what is it do we want to allow corner stores do we want to allow small coffee shops or small little cafes right like those are part of the conversation but there is a ton of research out there on how far people are willing to walk and when will they start to drive right so those part of the conversation

I mean there's all multimodaling there's all kinds of different transportation we're talking about let's just walking, right? Yeah. Um, and so with with biking, it's I think it's like up to 2 miles or something like that is what you can do, right? So then you would have to figure out what is that that happy medium that you're comfortable. Well, isn't that the land use plan? I guess is my question. And that we're going to decide on. Yeah. But if you take it out of here, you're just setting it up to have the conversation when we have land use planned, then it's not going to be included at all because we already did that in the economic development. No, we did. I I I I I respectfully disagree. No, there I literally had this conversation. You took mixed use out of economic.

Yes, we did. But not for the reason of eliminating mixed use. It's because you know that's a land use at least that was my perspective. It's a land use discussion.

I mean, but like to to the point of this document, there are areas where we repeat and we repeat and we repeat all throughout the document. So to me saying like oh we can't put it in here like we're going to talk about it in land use doesn't make sense to me like in land use we define where it happens and like what are the parameters of where we want it but you take it out of economic development and you take it out of this you're kind of sending the signal like and and John has made it clear both times we've had this discussion that there are people that believe that against small town character right so if you take it out of economic development you take it out of here you're sending a very strong message that you don't want an excuse in the in the discussion at all. I'm just saying like that's how I interpret it and that's how

well I I would disagree with that but I appreciate you explaining it to me. So here

yeah let's let's keep it because we're on transportation we will continually say wait for the next section until two months from now when there are no more sections and we're moving into zoning. Um but we'll continually say this is not the right place to have this discussion. We've been having this discussion throughout and every time something productive comes up, we learn something else about it would be appropriate here, it would not. So looking at transportation and how do we keep that term if we're going to quantify it, qualify it, where are we going to put it? Um so that's the discussion we're having, John. Okay. Our choice is to either include it as 100% in or exclude it as 100% out.

Yeah,

we just can't draw all the distinctions of where mixed exchange may be appropriate or inappropriate here. That's a land use question. So I think that's saying that I am in favor of removing that term from this transportation document. uh not not because I don't want a mixed use anywhere but because I think it opens the door for commercial and residential across the board and I don't think that that this transportation section we should be making multimodal useful neighborhoods whether there is a coffee shop there or not people should be able to walk and bike and move on sidewalks that are say whether they're headed to a a store that's one block away or coming two miles into town. To me, that's not something that makes sense in transportation. I don't want to say because you don't have a store in your community, you're not going to get access to downtown. Those things should happen no matter what in my perspective. U so adding mixed use in here does not make sense. to me. So I would propose that we

so I the term mixed use out. So my thought was on that first paragraph strike mixed use replace it with the word compound. Yes. Just trip over. So if you're in favor of replacing the first term next year's and goal three with compact raise your hand. against it. So, we're going to leave it for now. Replace with compact. Thank you, Alan. All right. And then the second one, do you have following paragraph?

It says where it says prioritize compact excuse compact development. Yeah. And you just And at the end of that sentence, strike the words and encouraging the integration of residential and commercial uses. Striking that the end of that sentence. We're striking that.

Yes. Right. So, that's two separate things, but we can vote on them together, I guess. If you're in favor of the changes that just happened in red at the bottom of this page, well, the changes that just happened striking mixed use and striking encouraging integration for residential and commercial raise your hand. Yes. So those changes will stay.

Um and the next one. Did we add that in already? Um I'm kind of lost here with the changes in number. So this will probably be the page five. Absolutely.

I'm trying to find the one that says existing and future land use should be could steer infrastructure planning. I think we already dealt with sentences. Investments in transportation infrastructure that all right. Okay. Thank you. Um so then on page six I had it as objective F prior to mixed use land patterns. Okay. So that is already struck. All right. From earlier. Okay. Um and then add

static higher density. Uh well no I would I would say um where it says encourage enable development of housing jobs services in close proximity to one another. That doesn't make any sense. Just I don't I don't that the next one was objective eight. Oh I guess we need to we already did on that priority.

Okay. Yeah. All right. So then the next one would be transportation infrastructure should be prioritized in areas that are ideally located or um it says higher density housing um would strike higher density housing and and replaced here the the comment would say affordable or attainable in quotation marks but I sat in on the housing element and um uh I understand that the term of part for um that is community housing as will be defined. Is that correct? I mean, well, so the the housing community housing, we've got this housing bridge, right? It says that we need x amount of units. I can't remember what the number is over the next 10 years. Sorry about that on the top of my head. And it says of that number of units, there's percentages. This many needs to be deed restricted for 80 amii. This many needs to be way below the average median income. Community housing is one type of housing, but the housing element refers to needed housing. The the housing bridge, that whole spread of housing is what the housing element says is the needed housing. And then there's different types of needed housing. So I guess community housing was a term that has been used I think with the community housing committee. Um there's so you could use a tandle, you use a for community, but the housing element uses needed housing.

Needed housing. needed housing directly links back to the housing bridge that is in the housing needs assessment. The reason why I didn't want to use community housing is because that's a portion of the needed housing, but there's a spread. That's right. Like like there like you could require, you know, you could argue and people will that there is some market made housing that is needed, right? There's also some extremely low income housing that's needed and there's some median income housing, but that's all different types. There's affordable housing, there's attainable housing, there's workforce housing, there's missing middle housing, and then there's also high-end housing, but the spread that says we need this spread, that's the needed housing. So, that would be the term I would recommend. That's what's being consistently used in the housing.

Go ahead. Is this What is this thing trying to say? Is it trying to say that we're prioritizing transportation infrastructure for certain types of housing or is it trying to say we're prioritizing it to where housing is generally or more which is reduction intensive? Well, are you asking what the intent of what's written now is what is the intent of what's

the intent now is saying that where your higher density housing is is that the transportation should be adequate for that. That it should be ideally located and prioritized in areas where you're not getting enough higher density housing. That's what this is saying. That's pretty common sense, right? Again, that's what this says. So, so, so if you're building I mean I Texas, all the the some of the apartments out there, it's saying that transportation that if you're going to build that transportation infrastructure, we should be building that infrastructure where we know the higher density housing is going to be. So, we're talking apples and noises here. Um, but what Mr. Worster is saying is not what the intent of this was.

Okay. Madam Chair, give us a second to all sync what what was just said. Um, give me a second, I guess, before we uh I just want to read this again and think about what you just said, Alan, that changing this to affordable, attainable, is not the intent of this. Correct. That's a different ingredient goal. agree now. Yes, John. Okay. What what Allan said is perfectly correct

and I might add that in the housing needs assessment 2025 at page five there's definitions and uh affordable and attainable housing are considered the same thing. Then under that there's community housing which includes that and it's not totally but it means about the same thing as affordable housing. Mhm. I'd have to go back and look at it but it is a little confusing and I don't know if that helps or not but um it's based on AMI levels. Yeah. Ultimately it is based on income levels the types of housing based on income levels. Correct.

I read the the HA Attainable housing is means attainable to the I mean that is kind of a tricky one. It's affordable housing is also tricky. It's really based on average median income and where do you fall in that spectrum. Missing middle is thrown around a lot. That's for the teachers, the firefighters and the city planners. They can't afford to live in white fish. That's miss that's that's what I need and I don't have and I live in Cal Bell. That's missing middle housing, right? And then there's the the service workers housing that might actually be subsidized. That's affordable housing.

So, should we have two separate things here? Because if what we're really wanting to what you're wanting to say and what we're wanting to say and I is prioritize for higher density, that could be a subdivision that has million-doll condos that are definitely not attainable or affordable, but they're very high density infrastructure. rather those people be coming in on bicycles rather than all driving.

It's it's saying transportation infrastructure. Yes. Say you need to have adequate infrastructure for the higher density housing project. You should be prioritizing it to where you know more of the housing is the higher densities of the housing is going to be. So this is the same as the sentence that we added earlier with the investments in trans transportation should should be reaching areas where we know that there's going to be

it's similar but you can make the same argument but but that you can make the same argument for areas where you know they're going to be highly commercial too. If you're if there's a new commercial area that you know is going to build out again I'll use a hospital so I'm just picking on that because that's a big bas vacant site. You want to make sure if you're going to build a big if a large development is going to be built there that you're prioritizing that the road infrastructure is going to be able to support that. So what I'm wondering is leave I is it I on your it is now.

Okay. So leave that the way it is because that's a given that we need transportation for but also we should be prioritizing it for affordable and attainable housing. That's if that's different if that's a different it is different. So that's why I like Allen's suggestion of the word needed, right? Because it covers both. Does needed cover high density? That's not a

for strike high density and strike affordable or attainable and it's located for needed housing, right? I'm saying yes, but keep this for high density because we still do need concurrency for transportation for high density that will come and we know it will come like you're talking about Texas, but then we also want to prioritize it for needed housing. So,

okay. You know, big summit is coming, right? We know in the future big subs coming the city needs to be prioritizing them. If we know it's happening or it's going to happen, we want to be targeting our infrastructure to serve that. But that's may not be affordable housing. Yes. Um I mean the the opposite which is not investing in transportation infrastructure is what creates traffic. Traffic affects everybody. Exactly.

And so I personally sure how you distinguish between affordable or nonaffordable really it's just density because if you don't put transportation infrastructure in or high density non-evolous housing just get traffic and that affects everybody in town in a negative way. So would are you saying don't add anything about affordability just if it's high density? You would keep it the way personally this looks like a common sense

in my well now I'm leaning toward just prioritizing affordable attainable housing because where that should be placed and how it can be done is really important for the city. and everything else just falls say a slight step below that. So we prioritize affordable and everything else will get its needs met met. Um so that's how I would solve this. I guess my question is how do we say we're affordable? That would be how do you define?

Well, how would we say we're building this so affordable housing could go here without the city owning that land or somebody already saying I'm building affordable housing here? We can't do that. So higher density makes sense.

Yeah. Okay. So I am uh going to say we do not change it. Thank you, Ben, for your input. No change. Does anybody have a so moving on from that? Anything else on there was one park instruction? Yeah.

Okay. I agree with that. So that's our the last one. Um the city has talked for a while about adding more structures, not just parking lots. Um so the end of our the last just above pill number four, the last objective on three. see where I am. Alan, not yet. Okay. I'm looking at Scott's letter. Uh, well, I'm looking at Am that one. It's on the

I'm looking at the draft that you have. So, actually, it's just Yeah. Okay. Got it. Yeah. I was looking at his letter. Sorry. So, you you have the last um bit of that public parking. Okay. Just add structures and lots. So, not just public lots, but structures also. Structures and lots. Yeah.

And while you're doing that, I just like to point out this is not Scott's letter, right? These are public comments and I'm raising them for the purpose of respecting public comments that I provide. It's public website section comments. I'm not correct.

I think it's might have been you have to Oh yeah. Okay. Yeah. Does anybody have uh thoughts or objections about adding parking structures? Everyone agree? Raise your hand. Great. And moving on. So, this brings us to four. I'm going to look up.

I don't think we put a concurrency policy in yet. And I thought maybe it'd go at the end of three. So I would propose that we adopt the 2007 growth policy concurrency policy which says it shall be the policy of the city of Whitefish to require concurrency of all urban services including not limited water and sewer drainage streets public safety and emergency services pedestrian bikeway and trail facilities parks schools That's from page 69 of the 2007 growth policy.

Wonder if that should be in the goal or it was mentioned by Allen that this is in public services, but in public services I looked and it just says adopt a concurrency. It doesn't actually adopt one. So that's a step short of adopting adopting one. So I'm suggesting that we adopt it here. Uh can we adopt a growth policy? That's a genuine question. Can we encourage we can we can encourage or recommend or

advise. I will say the last sentence of the goal itself does say future development should be built in concurrence with infrastructure. So I think an objective discussing concurrency is applicable. Um that's goal number four. Oh sorry I'm okay. Hey, sorry. I Yeah, I just had We're on full three, right? We're still on three. Thank you. I need that language again though because that was more than I can remember. Yes. So, you can read your language again and I'll or I can just write it in. You guys can might be just better for me to write it then everybody can see at the same time.

Last bit. Everybody's watching you type because I'm gonna do that. Do you want me to dictate terribly? Let you know that's Do you want me to read it? I got it. I got it. All right. You want me to move your mouse? No. You want to be a stenographer next?

Not enough keys. How do they do it? Oh, shorthand. You have to type them shortand. I know. Sorry about if I make typos. to somehow while he's doing that. I just want to I I think you answered my confusion about the

Okay, thank you. Yeah.

You guys hear about the high-speed chase through town today? No. What? They somebody that was out on a bail bond or something. They chased him from Columbia Falls and he finally crashed on O'Brien Avenue. Oh, nice. We just talked about on the the south side of the river. It was like between Sawtooth and Street at about 11:00. Yeah, about that. Why would they go there? Chase they just follow the police station. Yeah.

You did not realize he was going into a dead end. He didn't very obviously, right? Up in someone's yard. Sorry. That's now public record. Thank you.

Already had been talked about numerous times in these meetings as being a dangerous road. The poker. Oh yeah. Got out and ran shortly tackled thereafter. I think the cony policy drive. Okay. Could you zoom in just like that? That would help. I'm sorry I didn't zoom in on that. Just zoom in a little bit. See later. Thanks, Ben.

All right. shall be the policy of the city of Whitebush to require concurrency of all urban services including but not limited to water.

I got that twice. That's my bad. And emergency services had too much public sake. I like this. Yeah. And the placement is nice for the school.

Good. Is there any problem with using mandatory language like that? I mean, I'm not opposed to it. I'm just wonder. Can we say shall say will? It will be. We shall say will. We shall say you shall say. as well signal. We could still say shall verbally still write it. It's already our policy today, right? I think so. Yes, we're just I mean it's it's in previous road policy and yeah, I would say the engineering standards talk to this but I think along with this we will want an official council policy.

All right. Any everyone agree with this? Raise your hand. Great. Okay, we will leave it. Thank you, John. Keeping us aware of conferencing that grabs up three from a current perspective. I kind of want to shake it up a 10-minute break right now and then come back and finish definitely finish transportation. So, all right, 10 minutes. 5 10 minutes. We'll see when everyone's back in their seats. See if there are any other grass of course.

Sure. Yes. There's like a crack or something. Yeah. I mean could Yeah. But um uh has any events ever investigate? pretty Imagine the fire it does exist best but I I know that it's in the plan just leave it Sorry.

What's that? I am. I was best friend. got my wife to go because I thought she was going and now any significant issues that happened in the last week or two? Yeah. No, we needed about recorded one more one more week to finish up

but you know that like first snow kind of disappears but then we got right one more week. Where do you get them from the landfill? Uh, no. We take my tour shop on 18th Street. You put composting. We allow people to come get them for composting. We don't actively, you know, wind. Oh, you don't go through that process. But I mean theoretically they're being posted just very

if we had a process you know you could you could make good leaf compost in a year but space because you literally have to put them like 4 foot tall piles that are you know 8t wide and get a device that that churns Okay. Yeah.

How about your retirement? I don't know about that. Thinking skiing and surfing. Less leaves. Big wave.

Yeah. Good.

I was looking right at you. That's

pretty presentation. win a while back and I was like, who am I supposed to hit with this? But I'm going to use it at least once this year. So I used

Sit down, dude. Your hats on a lot. I used it to call attention to Richard's hat. Night.

All unattended baggage will be disqu. I know. Open it. Ronald call up. There might be snake. He says Montana State Ranger. Come on. Oh, that's fine. All the answers. Yeah. Hide it back there. Decoy.

I called us to order to do that. Find out whose bag that was. All right. So, we are back in session. back from back from recess and we're going to continue uh on bill 4. So that is from this version page seven. Um does anyone have any comments or suggestions to add to the goal itself for the description under This is four page seven.

I do not. All right. Good job, Alan. We're going to move on to the objections on four. Objectives. What? Objection. Objection.

You just change everything. Objectives to objection. That'll fix it. Really? Suggestion. I think it's getting late. suggestions on objectives. Right back to back to this. Um, does anyone have something to add on page eight of the objectives? No.

Right. So then we will move on to page nine. I will move into the actual background and narrative that we're on. Um, and we had a public comment under the land use transportation relationship. Uh, that first full paragraph there. So after land use decisions directly and that sentence ends in accessibility. Do you see where I am, Alan? Four lines down the word accessibility.

I see more accessibility development and Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, new senates after that

and you can see it and Okay. Um, conversely, yes. still able to dictate. But maybe everybody knows how good or bad I can type. publicly.

The owl isn't watching the fingers. She swear that when I'm by myself, I can do it better. So again, this is concurrency. So investment in transportation driving areas and inaccessible. Um does anyone have can everyone read that first?

Yes. Discussion on this addition. I I support her.

So the sentence that directly proceeds is land use decisions directly impacting transportation. So this is saying investment in transportation can directly impact land use. I think that's an important designation. like this. There's your hand if you like it. Leave it there. Thank you. We're good. So, that was it on page nine. Have a suggestion or edit or objection on page 10? Page 10. Collector delete on your deleted and this new Yeah, this new draft it was

taken off. Oh, you're good.

Real quickly back to that. Okay. Do we want to say Columbia Avenue north of East 7th Street? Oh yeah, we have it beforehand. So you're saying we can duplicate it. Reject this and just saying well so well we don't want to add that as it would be south of 7th on the Avenue 7th to 13th south of East 7th Street. Is that a number or spelled out? I would use the number seventh street correct east west.

Thanks for that. Yeah or north south streets east west you'll learn all. All right thanks that will wrap up 10. Any suggestions, edits on page 11? Okay.

Um, yes. I just want to mention on um on 12 there's a red mark. You may or may not I added this under recreational trails only because I just wanted to make sure that I told people that the white fish trail is discussed. It's just not in this section. That's a great because I've had a lot of people that are asking that we have a section on it. The bit of the video that I watched from last time was you saying exactly that. Yeah. So I added this language because of that. There is a whole discussion about the white trail. It's just not in transportation because most would argue it's probably not an actual transportation route.

Thanks. But yeah, that's good. Good to stay in there. Thank you.

We have a snow push here. Um discussed are there any projections for snow u usage going forward? Is that capacity now? Does that mean to add another bus sooner or later or what? I know I can't answer that.

Yeah. And we're done with public comments, so we can't audience members as much as I can, but I don't know that. Um, and just a note that all of this will be revisited every five years. So, three years. By the time I'm by the time we're done with this, it would be three years from when we started. Might as well start again. Oh, that's ensuring your employment. In fact, I've as I've started putting this together, I'm actually already starting to update the demographics because it's been two years. Good.

That's the hope. Hope I hope that I hope that June of 2026 I have a job. The retirement date longer than that. Is that hidden somewhere in this document? the city can't afford not to keep. All right. Um, so unless somebody pipes up with an edit, I know that John has a few things about Wisconsin if you want to take us to that. Well, that's a lot of pages ahead. It's at page 25.

Yeah, I mean, I can continue to go page by page. I think it's but it seems silly because we we've been through jump into Wisconsin and issues, right? So age now it would be page um 21. Okay, if that's where you it's probably it's still 21. I mean the It's in two places. It is two places. Yeah. And the cor plan, which is what I want to talk about, is at 25.

Okay. Okay. Got it. Okay. So, this is the corridor plan, and I found some things in there that I think the public should know about. My idea is that the growth plan is the place to go for information. I think some things here like the 3.9% uh growth rate for uh traffic and the unacceptable roads segments and a discussion of the rideway should go into the growth plan. So, I propose uh to add to this U 2018 Wisconsin Avenue quarter plan paragraph add.

You want to give me the language and I'll write it up and then people can look at it. Yes. As long as everybody doesn't completely stare at me while I'm doing it because that'll make me nervous and then I won't do it as well. dance.

Oh, I can't type it up that fast. That's just as a word document. No, I can't that fast. No, but you just uh we won't have to get it up on the screen somehow. Um people can see it. Oh, I I did make copies for everybody. It's the best. Scan it. Um, let me see. Is it's in the Wisconsin plan. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Wait a minute. I do. I I have the No, I have the Wisconsin plan. Uh, what year? I'm trying to remember. 2018. Uh,

2018. 2018. It's I know I have it. Here it is. Um, what page is it? Page 3 through 10. Three. What through 10? I got it. Yeah.

See the bottom. Three dash. Sorry. Three. Section. Yeah, my mind is just like

I guess I'm confused. Are we writing it exactly like this or are we just writing? This is a copy and paste. I guess I'm confused then. Are we Are we writing only what's your highlighting or No, no, you're the whole thing. The whole thing. So maybe this I'll get Well, there's comment. I'm not just quoting. No, that's what I'm saying. It's not exactly like this. Okay. So, this is little Yeah, I can't write this that fast.

Well, everybody has a copy now. that way. Yeah, we can read it so that um the public can have this one then or that one that

do uh the audience members have audience public do the public have copies of no and we'll read it. Um, can we burn a couple? Can we burn a couple copies of I can make some copies?

Skills check. Start reading your s.

Okay. cells. Um, paragraph the Wisconsin Avenue corridor plan page 3-10 states, quote, traffic in the corridor is increasing at an annual growth rate of 3.9% and willing continue to increase growth percent growth rate is based on data from 2011 to 2015. A new calculation should be done based on data through 2024. Information on annual increases in ski days should also be included. Winter Sports, Inc. on Big Mountain has currently 878 housing units sold with an additional 644 units planned and approved by the county. Traffic effects on the Wisconsin Avenue corridor from all sources should be estimated out to 2045. I I think we're doing let's do this in chunks. Maybe we should discuss the first chunk.

This is directly from the corridor plan and your supported suggested memorization. I guess I'm a little uncomfortable doing it in chunks until I understand what the whole thing is. Um, we just kind of like go through it and I will read it. Okay. Yeah, you can read it. I can read it into the record. That's all that people at home on line will have anyways my reading of it.

The record we have. Yeah. So second paragraph the quarter plan page 3-10 states by the year 2013 and road segments along Wisconsin Avenue will experience unacceptable levels of congestion and delay close quot is four out of seven intersections along avenue with projected levels of service at G or F by 2030. Page 2-17. Level of service for all intersections and segments along Wisconsin Avenue could be projected out to 45. Third paragraph. The quarter plan page 3-10 states the current ride of way along Wisconsin is typically 60 ft. Both is 20 ft. Widening the ride ofway up to about 95 ft would be necessary to make Wisconsin into a three-lane highway H3-13. This would require the condemnation of private property by the state which would be expensive. At present, there is no plan to make Wisconsin Avenue into a threelane highway. And then the last one is the corridor plan. Page 2-18 states, quot Mountain Road provides the only general access for Whitefish Mountain Resort as well as to many residential subdivisions on Big Mountain. Balances for secondary emergency access, mainly egress, are in place and should accommodate potential emergency situations. Close quote. This has been corrected in the growth plan to state that there is no passable secondary should say

no passable secondary emergency eress from the big mountain area. And then I have three objectives to add which would cause these things to happen. I thought those were all very important parts of the corer plan. I think the public needs to know about them and the city needs to uh update these traffic counts and so forth and uh see where we are. John, you're saying that uh the current right away is 60 65 feet and with the expected growth have to be extended to or expanded to 95 ft.

Yes, that's what I found in the plan. And that would mean imminent domain and uh by the by the state as well as the city.

Well, it would be by the state because the road has a number. It's a state highway. U there might be a small it says typically 60 ft could be less than that or more than that a small area but basically it's it's a big chunk to to dam and if it's unnecessary that means it's inhibiting growth on big mountain pass it, right? Yes.

So, I want to allow Craig to read this and get his take on it. Um, so I'd like to read in the three objectives or you can film.

I'm sorry. I'll read you three all the first three paragraphs. One, the annual traffic on Wisconsin Avenue should be recalculated based on data through 2024 and projected out to 2045. Two, traffic impacts on Wisconsin Avenue from all sources should be projected out to 20. Three, the level of service for all intersections in the segments along Wisconsin Avenue should be projected out to 2045. copy. It's not on anybody else's copies. Uh it's handwritten and saying any project north of the viadeuct which will cause additional traffic on Wisconsin Avenue should trigger a transportation analysis including cumulative effects of all contributors. So if there's a project that requires city approval, I don't know how many times a year you get that wouldn't have to do the whole transportation analysis every time. It's been a year and there should be some thinking about how much has been built on Big Mountain or along the lake shore and how much worse it's getting. Hopefully that can be done in a reasonable way, not a 50-page document.

Madam Chair, that prompts a question for me. Then I put back what Ben was talking about with the city engineer. Um, traffic studies seem to be done kind of like in isolation per project. And um I I wonder and don't know about how that overall cumulative effect figures in um when you're considering the impact of one project. Can you explain that process briefly?

Yeah. So any any project that the city is reviewing that generates 200 average daily trips or more is required to go through the traffic impact analysis. And we have a pretty specific bullet point list of what needs to be included in a TIS. Um included in which is current daily trips at each affected intersection and projected 20-year trips. not only based on the project that's being proposed, but also other potential growth within the area. So, I I think a lot of this is already included in current zoning and engineering standards. Um, I also get a little nervous adding this much language to the Wisconsin Avenue corridor plan when we have what, six or seven other plans that are discussed.

More than that, more than that in a paragraph.

Yeah. That are all, you know, Yeah. consolidated into one paragraph. But yeah, in answer to your question, the the traffic impact analysis process is pretty clearly defined in the city code in the zoning code um as well as the engineering standards. So I included this language just for Wisconsin because it seemed like Wisconsin is the one in most extreme crisis or heading for crisis. Well, I guess we know that 93 is has good capacity both south of town and west of town. So, this is the area that's sensitive 103 of the 10 worst intersections. I'm not Wisconsin. Uh, well,

I'm pretty sure intersections of the the eight of the 10 or worse intersections level service. It's not Wisconsin. Craig, were any of these indices uh addressed in the previous 20-year forecast on Wisconsin? Yeah, the 2022 transportation plan which is discussed in here does have an entire chapter on Wisconsin Avenue that corridor. Sure.

Were those objectives met? I mean, in other words, yes, it's being projected 3.9% increase. How was it 20 years ago? And did those were those projections realized or exceeded? Not that I'm aware of. I believe the projections in the 22 transportation plan were under 2%. So I I'm not familiar with where the 3.9% came from in the the Wisconsin Avenue corridor planning. I guess what I'm saying is that there's a table giving the data for 2011 to 2015. Okay.

And that's where the three came from. But the 2022 transportation plan has already updated that. Is that correct? Well, it it hasn't updated this plan, this corridor plan. Yeah. But it's a city-wide transportation plan with a different growth projection. I looked at the 2022 transportation plan, and it wasn't just stop. Well, I mean, it showed specific projects on Wisconsin.

Yeah. um to and all of those were intended to um alleviate congestion, you know, with turning lanes and a potential, you know, roundabout of Big Mountain Rose essentially. But specific to Wisconsin, how do you accommodate the increased traffic that will most likely come in the next 15 years by the way it's structured now? Yeah.

I mean, yeah. Oh, it would definitely require a right ofway acquisition. There's no question. It's also really tricky to get too deep in the weeds on Wisconsin because it's not a stateowned or operated roadway. Um, so we can make as many recommendations as we want, but it's not a city. It's a it's a state right away. Yeah.

So, that's my um concern about all this. we can study. We can at the end of the day we've so we've dealt with the fact that there's no egress um to speak of. We shouldn't speak of it. We should never say the words basin grow again in this shall not be mentioned.

Do not. Uh and then we're also putting a lot of grant funding and money into different um railroad crossings. uh searching for that and to to go like you said into the weeds on just Wisconsin when we have other when we have a transportation plan that deals specifically with Wisconsin that's referenced in here. Um I'm not a fan of doing that in depth in this That does not mean that it doesn't need to be done. Um I just don't know how to do it in here for only Wisconsin and not for any other

Well, we could add the three objectives text, not the additions to the text. Those objectives clearly reference things that are here. Yeah.

In the text. Yeah. Um, and the objectives are really important and usually you have some text to support it, but uh the uh staff I suppose could greatly reduce the text so that it's got something as a foundation and then just go with the three or maybe four u objectives. So, are you saying to goal two or add to two objectives? Okay,

let's look and see how that would potentially fit. Oh, before we leave this area, if you're still here, I do have one thing on page 24. Uh adopted transportation plans a 2025 white safe streets for all action plan. Yep. Got it. So one, two, three, three lines down. Um solutions mostly involve Okay. adding the words vehicle speed reduction or better pedestrian crossings.

Yes. Say that one more time. Vehicle speed reduction. Let's see. Wait a minute. We might have it back. All right, we're back. The owl just went to sleep on us or something, I think. There we go. Okay, we're back. Sorry. Uh twoour window friends from home. just noticed it was not working. Okay, I think we're back.

I guess my sort of my point, Ben, is that if we're going to go into this much detail about Wisconsin, do we want to talk about Spokane or Baker or any of the others? But I think adding, you know, one kind of concise objective on Wisconsin Avenue is fine, but adding this level of narrative to Wisconsin without talking about some of the others might I think we're there. I think Okay.

And I think that was my my concern is it's not that I disagree with anybody. I said one one of the things we did is we tried to take everything and pull it together and kind of you know and I hate to weight one particular town that heavily over another particular because there are people that say that yeah okay so we just need to craft an objective that encompasses you think that Wisconsin is hemorrhaging spokan is I am a couple times a day

I guess I want to vote on the the text that I'm suggesting depends on may not may not pass but I'm very close statement of impacts that we're presenting uh and loo requires a statement of the condition of the resource. So we need a statement of the condition of Wisconsin Avenue. And so the the quotes go to that and then Lupa requires that we project out to 2045. And um I think this is an area where if we don't include what I'm suggesting, the growth plan may be a little weak legally because uh Wisconsin Avenue, especially in the event of a fire, is uh an important part of the plan. It's it's a we're in a hazardous area and I think a court would want to see some adequate discussion of the current condition of Wisconsin and an adequate projection out to 2045.

I tend to agree with you. I mean, I don't know that we need this much verbiage, but I think describing I mean, I don't disagree on a couple sentences. just worth. Yeah. Um, so it does raise the question about what we say about Spokane 93. I personally think Wisconsin is the one that's most in jeopardy of uh, terrible congestion, the D or the F levels. So that's why I picked it. But I recognize that it's hard to leave out the other. I make

Yes. It it seems like that last part of what you just said is really the point here. It's that Wisconsin uniquely has risks and congestion in the town. Well, it has a level of congestion that's very concerning without a lot of good options to improve it. And furthermore, it's a high-risisk road because of the egress and therefore warrants additional consideration in the future. That thing I just said, it seems like that's the real policy that could be articulated somewhere in this document. And I'm kind of here to protect the city against losses. And I can see an area of weakness here that is pretty important. This was this is one of the big ones because the court isn't going to get upset about I'm going to say about water quality because it's very hard to project water quality out to 2045 and the we didn't do it but the uh text could just incorporate what the white shake institute has for state of the condition of the lake. So that that would be covered. So I don't think that's settling compared to Wisconsin where there's a big hazard and already uh congestion at a bad level. So I will propose that we combine these four into one objective but then keep the the large chunk um of the narrative in and then when we see

this again if we find a way to condense it and make it much shorter we'll have an actual public comment. um we'll get to look at it. So if if these paragraphs that you have um once they're inserted into the body here, if we find a way to very concisely give those statistics that are relevant, um maybe Angie can look at it and say this or that, then we can condense it. But sounds like we need to keep the narrative and then these four objectives can be condensed into one. Does that I think that's a good idea.

Okay. So we just need to draft the narrative that includes these. So we um Craig, you sort of started saying work, right? So he had a fourth one that was um any project north of the vioaduct that is written but not on this printed sheet. Okay. So there's Sorry, I copied the wrong one. I added this at about 4:00. Oh, okay. project north of the bioduct traffic transportation rout.

Yeah, I guess that's the one that I may struggle with a bit because any additional traffic could be one single family home, right? or right one two lot subdivision. And we do have pretty clear um zoning and engineering standard language that that triggers a traffic impact analysis. Are we okay waiting until we have a project that has 200 trips? Well, it's going to be obvious. I guess any project north of the vioaduct which will cause additional traffic. We put significant in there. You can decide.

We say significant then you get to decide. I think we've already determined what significant is. So

let's ask our attorney. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I guess we could put significant, but that would be its own objective. Like the first three really deal with working with MDT, but that one is is a separate kind of city driven objective.

In the cumulative Well, I mean that's not what we really do when we do traffic study. We just determine the effect of I mean it kind of is. But we look we look at existing proposed development in the area and what that would add to the corridor. So I guess the question is is like yeah I agree that any project is like again single family home they have to do traffic study that's not going to make anyone happy and I'm almost wondering that legally I think with Amalupa oh yeah legally that is that's going to get us sued.

I agree with you. I mean, I I am fine with these first three. I I think the fourth one is fairly risky because again, Craig's right. We already have engineering standards that set when we require a traffic study. And what specifically called out in the subdivision code? Is it in the subdivision code, too? saying that the uh city engineer could uh conduct a traffic study on the Wisconsin if he deems it necessary.

Craig wouldn't be doing it. I mean, this is one of the problems that we just had in a public hearing where Craig said, you know, they were challenging whether or not a traffic study was needed and Craig said it wasn't and they lost their minds. They ran to sue us. I mean, honestly, they did. Car wash keys. Yeah. Who lost their mind? MVT. What's that? No. The car wash the street. Yeah. The competitor. The competitor is left turn 57 case supreme court. Okay. So, how do we get these first three into one? I'm familiar.

Can you craft those for us? off the top of my head, but I can No, yeah, but I mean maybe we could incorporate that. Yeah, we can put a placeholder. Yes, exactly. Um it's that important. Let me just put a goal that says work with MDT. Are we in goal one, two, or three? Two. Goal two. We're adding two adding an objective. We're adding two new objectives at the top or at the bottom? At the bottom. The first one will be a combination of the three that are on the handout. So it's I just say work with work with MDT

and that is that'll be the first and condense regarding first three. Um I can try and email it to you objectives and then the and then I'm just not sure what to do with the second one. and concern about the second one too. Yeah, I don't I think it's pretty vague, right? I I I in spirit I think I understand what it's after and that's laudable, but I don't know that that's the say number four is number two or number four.

Oh, I think you talked about number two. I included it because I have a feeling that if we wait until a a project with 200 trips triggers one, we could be waiting a long time and and that could be but on the other hand, we just throw in significance. Maybe that takes care of it. I think it's a hard thing to gauge and state in a way that it's mean, right? I mean, and for that reason, I think it's like a little bit forced. I mean, I think we do out of the standards and everything else in there. Um, uh, it's just it's it seems like it's just too difficult to quantify in a way that would survive scrutiny.

Yeah. Because what's significant, right? I I just I I mean, one house's going to like the neighbors next door will say a duplex is significant. Significant. That's my concern.

Well, significant gives back to the city discretion to decide what is significant and a court is going to defer to that. Well, and the reality is 200 average daily trips is not a lot of trips, right? I mean, so what it does is it's you look at the peak hourly trips. And so 200 200 average daily trips typically correlates to 10 or 12 peak hour trips in the morning and in the afternoon, which what's an extra 10 vehicles per hour at an intersection? I mean, we realize that those intersections on Wisconsin are already very stressed and not at a level of service that we want, but I I I think 200 is a good number for significant. And so, we've kind of defined that in the zoning code, in the subdivision code, if we want to add that goal and just say significant and allow city staff to determine what is

what that number is through, you know, the the standards or however Yeah. I mean, if we're not just making it peace meal, what is significant, Craig? What is significant? But if we have significant per city, yeah. Yeah, you could. Or we can we can just leave it as significant with the understanding that city staff's not going to be making that call every time a project comes in. That that's going to be when our standards apply and that's going to be a set number. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, if there's a four lot subdivision that's gonna, you know, change one lot into four, we're not going to require a traffic impact study. But if there's an apartment complex that has 50 units, then yeah, of course, there's going to be a TIS. So if it's going to still be that 200 trips regular traffic impact study is triggered then where the question is is there a reason to put that as an objective for Wisconsin only to call out the fact that well I mean I think I don't see the need personally um but I mean I think we kind of I mean, I don't really know that it really belongs in a growth policy, truthfully. I think if we're talking specifically about Wisconsin, I totally understand that the um recalculation, the growth rate, and the traffic effects, although that one's a little vague. We'll have to work on that one. I mean, I understand calling that out and providing some why we're putting these objectives in because that as John pointed out that

Oh, yeah. We did one about meeting you and today. Oh, nearby. City of West engineering sounds approved for contribution impact the direction for failure of the land specific to any corridor. No. Was it since the 2018 Wisconsin corridor plan? They haven't redeveloped the growth percentage for traffic or the has there been an evaluation? Well, the growth percentage for traffic was done on data that's 9 years old now.

Yeah. And that bothered me and uh it's getting really late. I lost the rest of the No, I don't I don't I don't disagree with you that that should that those objectives are are appropriate given that that data was even, you know, done before 20 2020 and we know what happened in 20. So you can turn these three into one. I can turn them into accurate. Thank you. All right. So we're gonna

So I somebody but somebody I think P work with MDT. I'll I can work on I need only because this is whatever happens here, I need to make sure it's done. So, yep, I cannot work on it. This will get done. Okay. And then the second one, what's happening? I think we're going to not include that. Okay. So, we're not going to include that. My advice is not to include including Go back to the three. This one this number. Oh, okay. Yeah. If you say second one I go to number two. Well, I'm saying second up there because the first that I can't see that.

I know. Um, so there we just put a placeholder to combine these correctly working on it. So, and then if everyone agrees with that.

Yep. Um and then the any project north shell tripper we're not going to do that because it's going to stay at the 200 trips per day which is already happening and need to put it because it won't change anything. It's just stating the obvious right feel that way but I I am concerned that the distance or the time between a 200 trip project and another one might be 3 four years or even longer. Yes. But the issue is the cumulative between those what happens everywhere else up to.

So is that embraced and the third being combined with those numbers? So we did at the last meeting add back to real quick.

This objective A under goal three to revise city of White Fish engineering standards to improve transportation impact evaluation criteria for land use projects. And the intention there was specifically to go into the engineering standards and look at that is 200 trips correct or do we need a more specific barometer that would trigger a TIS? I I wonder if we could add some language in there to say like specifically north of the vioaduct or something. Yeah, that would be very good. This is at land use.

This is under Yeah. Goal three. Okay. To current congested intersections. Yeah, I like that too. It's like gives you a little bit more broad base. Is that what you're saying? No, I think that Yeah, that that objective there is written seems awfully big. That was self-intentional. And we originally had an objective that we want to present in service and because M loopa has a very specific criteria about any impacts by any development and so could be challenged.

Yeah, we we started pretty deep in the weeds and wound up that. Okay. So now the question becomes so we're combining these three. You have a placeholder to be written. And then we're we're in lie of putting the fourth thing that John suggested. We're going to add to what you just wrote specifically about Wisconsin. Is everyone agreeing with that objective live? Okay. Thank you. No objections. And then um the tax or other other congested collectors

in Wisconsin or other congested collectors but we don't want to limit to just collectors right

read that specifically. Um, so Phil is suggesting that we make that specific to collectors and call out Wisconsin and say and yes collectors um

as they arise or something along those lines. I'm not clear on the reasoning to make it specific to collectors and not to other

I don't know if I'm talking to anybody I'm looking at you but So looking at me, I was saying I was just trying to try.

Ferris left the building. No, I was originally trying just to incorporate John's um comment on North of the Violence, but perhaps that does open up a whole can of worms about like what other Well, that that's too specific, right? Well, just we want to be somewhat specific. Yes, but that's why you had other collectors. I'm still looking at Greg for that. Yeah, I my thought was just adding a, you know, a comma specifically projects north of the vioaduct. But again, does that rule out what about Spokane Avenue, Baker Avenue? It does.

Yeah. Yeah, specifically as it relates to collector weights in any project with the viuct south of the viuct too if we don't know because we're 20 years ahead. So if we say specifically related to collector roadways and projects north of the VA collector roadways project any project north yeah wait projects comma comma okay specifically related to specifically related to collector roadways collector roadways

and any project north of the that would include a big mountain road right at that intersection this one. Okay, that's it. Let's go. Perfect. Thank you. And then you'll still work on those three. Now the question becomes I'm guessing that everyone's okay with that as it Okay,

great. Um the question becomes the text that John has proposed that is lengthy and taken mostly directly from the transportation plan. Um so do we my suggestion for this is to incorporate it as he's written it and you have it on a piece of paper into the narrative even though it is more specific. and then look at it and we'll have public comment on that and we'll be able between that time also to decide if that's very odd to have only Wisconsin called out and more specific or if that is actually what we want per Angie saying yes we're open to issues with Wisconsin

eliminate the egress paragraph I guess we we have made it Yeah, that is not we're not going with any down road. So he has just drawn an X through the last paragraph in this hand. So any the corridor plan page two through 8 218 states big mountain road provides that is no longer to be added. Okay. Am I supposed to be working on this? Okay. Three objectives. I just sent you an email. You did good. Yeah. So, combin.

So, page 25, I think, is so I don't know how he just did that. So the wizard this the second one objective John I think is kind of incorporated in the first two watch. So what I said was I'll I'll paste it in there right here. Um that can be incorporated. No problem.

Yeah. I mean because it just talks about effects which the first two really do. So it would look like this. I'll put it in red marks so you guys can see it. So page turn the bottom. That's what we would add. Can you see that? Yeah.

You want me to read it? work with MDT to recalculate the annual growth rate for traffic on Wisconsin Avenue and the level of service service for all intersections along Wisconsin Avenue 45. Yeah. So, go ahead. Go ahead. That's a pretty impressive threw out. I just want to leave all inclusive Craig. That's correct. So smart. So, so the one the other thing that he had is traffic effects along Wisconsin Avenue from all sources should be projected out to 24 205, but I think that kind of swallows that. Are you comfortable?

Yes. So, then we're adding these three paragraphs in Wisconsin. Are we adding it at the beginning or at the end of it? I hold it for her and if you wanted to note Yeah. page 25 where it says Wisconsin order plan. Yeah. Right. I just gave it to her. So now I know where it is now. I forget where it's going. Um yeah. So it's going what is it going after this? I'm adding those three paragraphs after this. Yes. Yes. Got it.

Going to call the John paragraphs so I can know what they are. John 36. We have to have some way to say it. Just sounds like a you're now a Bible verse. I know.

There's I didn't hear this one back. John 2018. Oh, I see. The Gospel according to John.

All right. So, let that will be added. I don't think we've heard any objections to adding that and then working to Angie will look at it, condense, figure out, and then we can see it again. I mean do it right. You can everyone agrees. Great. Okay. Wonderful. No one objects. Hey. So it'll it'll be posted on the website and in adopted draft so you'll be able to look at it. All right. So we still have

um is there anything else in the text that anyone would like? Yes, go ahead. One final mention up next to you. Yes, in the summary. What page? Summary page 27

should continue to the very last part the selling. Yeah. So it would be the seven lines. Oh god. Three, four, five lines from bottom. Compact infill development and delete and mix and get rid of Mickey that encourage compact infillment.

I take a comment. So show of hands for deleting mixed use in that application. Anybody for against July noted? Thank you. All right. So that will conclude our um discussion and direction. So, we have some projects forthcoming on this, but we all know the direction to Allan and he's written it down and um now we are moving well. Yeah. So, now we're going to move on on my agenda again. Lost it. It's await.

Um so um at this point we are supposed to on the agenda have a presentation. Mary is not present. I'm not sure she's she's online. Um will we be able to hear her online? Let's see. I'll have to unmute her. Let me try. Yes. This next section about it. And so I'm actually

Are you want to unmute your mic? Mary, can you hear me? Yeah. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Okay. Are you ready for me? I don't think so. Just a second.

Thank you, Mary. Um, so Mary, we realize that it is 9:00 and we have your um everything that you have submitted in writing. So, if you can quickly give us your presentation in just a few minutes, that would be great. We really appreciate you and we definitely want to get public comment in on what you're saying before we lose our public um and our board members tonight. And then we also want to be able to adopt a timeline. Um just give the dates for December and January that we will need. Um so thank you for being here and go ahead. Um, can you confirm that you have the comments that I sent today in front of you?

Yeah, they're on the table in front of me.

Okay, thank you. Um, and so that is somewhat repetitive of the statutes that are of concern. Um, so I won't repeat those. Uh the intent of this summary was to um again in the bullets there uh identify what we have been uh raising in the previous comments that there are uh portions of the public process that are not complying with the uh state law or the uh intent of the Whitefish adopted public participation. plan. What I'm recommending is that you make a series of motions as a planning commission to give direction to staff. And we talked about some of these uh at the last meeting. And it seemed like there was agreement that all documents subject to a public hearing would be posted two weeks prior to the said hearing. so that the public has a time that would give the public one week to make comments and then it would give those comments would be posted both the planning board and the public at large could review those. So the first motion we're suggesting is that you uh direct that all comments, all documents will be posted two weeks prior to the public hearing and that number two that um there will be a deadline of one week for public comment to be presented and that then will be posted for everyone to see. And as required under State law, all notices would clearly specify the nature of the land use plan

or regulation under consideration, the type of comments the local government is seeking from the public, and how the public may participate. So, um, it would require being really clear, which I I think it hasn't been up to now. Um the third point is that all written comments received including agency and stakeholder comments and staff reports will be posted for public review one week prior to a work session or public hearing by the planning commission. Uh it will be made clear that all oral comments are also provided for public hearings are also allowed at public hearings essentially. Um, right now, um, we aren't getting agency and stakeholder comments. And I understand from the discussion with Angie and Dana, and correct me if I'm not right, that there is an effort to make sure that those are now posted for each session that's been had, but previously they have not been posted. Um and then finally, there's an need for a motion that the planning staff will accept um on behalf of the planning commission without evaluating or editing all public comments including agency or stakeholder comments. And these will be imposted on the engage website again in the times specified above um so that there can be public comment on those. Previously there has been a filtering of the public comments and this would correct that so that um and as Alan said he would be glad to have

less to do. Um, and this would put the responsibility where the law says it should be that the planning board determines how to uh consider and respond to public comments. So, those are the four motions I think you need to uh begin to bring this process back into compliance. Um, and I'm glad to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mary. Um, so does anybody from the board have a question for Mary before we go to public comment? Any public have a question for Mary or in general public comment? Um, you can just make a public comment and then we will accept it and then answer in our discussion if you have one. Okay, Marty, go ahead. Um, I have I guess a combo comment and question. It has turned into a question in part because I had a comment written out based on the November 19th document, which is what was posted. And then it is interesting to me that this is a complaint about public comments not being posted in time. And yet I only had access to it today because it was a sheet sitting over there. Um, so I apologize. I might be a little scattered.

You got it this afternoon. Where'd it go? It was emailed to us this afternoon. I was at work so I wasn't able to review it in that timeline. Ellen, did you post it? I did. It's posted on the website. All documents that I receive are posted on the website and documents um that one's under general growth policy documents but public comment are arranged by topic under growth policy as I get them weeks to months in advance. Okay. So I think including this one the 123

that that one today I I so the one you're getting that we got today at 4 o'clock I immediately post it on the website under general growth policy comments. If you go to documents, public comment, it's all organized by topic in there. Okay. I don't. Yeah. No, I I don't think that's on you. I just You got it about that was I posted it at about 4:45 this afternoon. About 45 minutes after I got it. Okay. Um Yeah. So, I like haven't had time to adjust what I was going to say. I'm a little

so the planning staff will accept on behalf of the planning commission without evaluating all public comment including agency and stakeholder comments. So what is the is the planning commission then voting to incorporate those pieces or what are they just do want me to answer or you want to hold I'll answer whatever questions you want from So I was under the impression that this was what was linked to the agenda. We now have a new document that wasn't on the agenda. Document that was on your table I got at 4:00 this afternoon. Yeah. I don't have one.

It's I stacked them on the table. This this is what we're Yeah.

So, Marty, I'll let you go ahead and finish your public comment as directly as you can to us with questions or whatnot and then after that's over, we'll respond. It's just in our discussion amongst ourselves. You'll Yeah. Um, yeah, I don't know if like Mary was saying Q&A at this point or I don't someone mentioned asking questions. So that is my question. Okay. And it sort of affects the rest of my comment because I mean I could just plow ahead and would be relevant. It would I think plow ahead. Okay, we'll plow ahead. Thank you.

My my comment was just going to be that I mean we've seen how long a lot of these meetings have taken. We've spread transportation out over three meetings now and gradually less participation including this one as people drifted away. Um so already the timeline on this it's taken a really really long time and that is all with just adding public comment and then also board member comments. Um, so then if you add to that that the planning commission and also incorporating agency comments, which I would assume is all of the agencies MDT, I'm not sure if that also pertains to our own agencies like parks and wreck or public works, but if they also have to incorporate agency comments and then the stakeholder comments, that seems like it's really going to take an extremely long time for something that is already taking extremely long time and I do remember from previous discussions that there was a conversation about if we don't have this done in May the city can face litigation developers who want to start developing stuff. So um like like I said I I don't know how that pertains who's adding the Thank you, Marty. I do I do understand what you're saying and the question that's in there. Yes. With Thank you.

Any other public comment on this particular item on the agenda? Am I unmuted still? You're you're not unmuted, but we're just going to accept public comment right now, Mary. And actually I think that um I mean honestly I think that your portion of presenting is over so we can mute you and then we'll discuss and that will be good. So thank you

and I just clarify that since I couldn't be present um I wanted to have something that and I wasn't even sure I was going to connect. I wanted you to have something for my oral presentation. So it's nothing new that I haven't wasn't there before. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.

Steve Mer 306 for Avenue speak the executive director of shelter WF. Um I have a pretty dim view of this criticism. I think that in my mind what I see happening is that there's interest groups that have had power in McFish for a long time. The growth policy process is forcing some of those assumptions and some of those power structures to be challenged for the first time and groups don't like it. Um, in my opinion, I think that this concern and sort of threatening legal action is not about the process. it's because they don't like the particular policy directions of the growth policy that incorporate ideas from people that they disagree with. Um I think incorporating public feedback. I think that's what they're actually about. Um I think one possible option for these groups is that maybe theyations and examine why people disagree with that. Um I don't think they're willing to do that. find it um frustrating that this city has asked has had to like humor these groups over and over and think those concessions are ever going to be enough for people who fundamentally just have a problem the direction of the growth policy and because city staff is having to think about 20 years from now um then it's a problem with city staff uh but it would be a problem with whoever's writing it down in that case. I also do find it funny that they put a restriction on the city to post everything two weeks ahead of time and then are able to submit new things, new um new letters the day of um

let's keep this within the rules of the quorum. Yeah. Um because we just clearly had an explanation that that was to go with the to go with the presentation. So, you know, if you're if you're going to give a public comment, that's great, but don't direct it specifically at, you know, just keep it within the the rules of someone who's presenting to the to the But that's fine. Mhm.

Um I guess it's that things that happen in the growth policy as they do and I'm willing to express those and to come to you with more arguments to try to um get more people in the room. Um but sometimes that doesn't happen and the policy doesn't go the way you want. And in my opinion, I think that a lot of this is complaining about the refs and I don't that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any further public comment?

And I I'm sorry to like double on comments, but I do like it actually also still is a question. Yeah, we're going to answer it if it was already what?

Well, I just Yeah. Right. So, um I've heard that this is the same as what was submitted on the 19th, but then so I'm wondering if this supplemental or is this a replacement to what was submitted on the 19th because I did see pieces of what was or sorry the 18th 19th. Those are both I think staple together. Um but they weren't necessarily in the revised one. like there was a piece about um needing consulting data to be approved like and incorporated through the by the planning commission. Um there was a piece about like releasing emails. Um so I guess I I they do look different to me unless today's document is meant to be supplemental to the document from the 19th. They look different to the slots.

All right. Thank you. So, unless there's any further public comment on this, we're going to move ahead. The main issue with this um and I'll say full disclosure, I've met with Angie and Dana a couple of times regarding this. Um and basically what it is what we are doing from this we'll discuss this as any board member wants to um and then also address public comments online Whitney sorry to interrupt online public comment uh oh yeah it's my bad I'm I'm not doing it I'm sorry no it's fine

trying to manage this while I'm doing this so you can me so state who you are

uh Nathan Dugan 937 Calispell Avenue. Um and then um yeah, I do just want to reiterate the point that that has kind of been made um a few times and it it really isn't only applicable to tonight, but I think it it is important to remember that the the organization that's kind of requesting that um the public comment be published so far in advance um often arrives to to meetings throughout this entire process with a a printed comment that nobody else in the public has been able to to see to give to the board. So, um I think that's something to keep in mind as you're thinking about this. I think also Whitefish is not doing this in a vacuum. Um same thing is going on in Callispel and Columbia Falls. Um and uh I I have been to a lot of those meetings and watched a lot of those meetings and um these same comments are not being made at those meetings by by an organization that works valleywide. um the amount of time that Whitefish has spent on this process compared to Callispel um and Columbia Falls which really really hasn't even started yet um with that process in terms of of public participation um is probably a factor of 10 if not more. So the the sheer amount of time that the public has had to engage in whitefish um I would say probably is is some of the most in the entire state. Um what I what I suspect is happening here is a a case is being made to challenge the land use plan to um attempt to delay it or eliminate uh portions that aren't able to be removed during this process at some point in the future. And I think that that's pretty unfortunate to be

honest. Um and I I think that that case will not go anywhere because of the the things that I've already pointed out um in this comment. But um I don't think it's possible to meet those guidelines to be honest. Uh this thing has to be to council like next month. So I I don't even think this is possible. And uh I I hope that you all recognize that and don't uh adopt what has been presented to you. Thanks.

Thank you, Nathan. All right. Any further public comment online or otherwise? All right. Go ahead. Um I'm observe to members of the council uh on their devices and I'm sure that that's in so I just like to point out that it's not Thank you, London. All right, if that's the end of public comment, we will move forward with um discussion of this. any anything specifically from the board to start this? Go ahead.

Uh given that this is a predominantly legal matter, I think it would be helpful to have the opinion of the city attorney if she would be so. Sure. So, I'll take these just bullet by bullet point. Um first of all, to answer's question, um I see them as different versions, too. There's there's stuff in the first version that's not included in the second version. So, totally acknowledge that. Um, so let's go to the first bullet. Um, the two weeks prior to the hearing, Alan and I just chatted sidebar about this. We will be violating if you guys decide to do this tonight, we'll be violating it at the next meeting. Next week.

Yeah. Um, I don't I think certainly more more notice is good, but Allan is impeccable about getting it out a week before. Uh, state law requires 48 hours notice. While it might be nice to have them two weeks in advance, I would like a lot of things in two weeks in advance, like this right here,

you know, it Yeah. And I just don't know that we're going to get through through it. I don't know that we're those deadlines if we require Alan to do that two weeks in advance. So, as far as notice given by email, Ellen, correct me if I'm wrong. If you subscribe, you get a notice. 600 people have subscribed. I know that the um the the complaintant had an issue with their firewall and wasn't receiving emails, I believe. Is that what they said? Because we had sent them emails, but they hadn't been receiving them. And I think I talked to the executive director and she said they think there's a firewall issue with so we have sent the emails. So generally speaking legally

you've gotten emails they have gotten emails too the the newsletter alerts. So I mean I don't if we're talking about all city email which we do have an all city email list. I I don't think we should do that. There's people that don't care. I mean, honestly, you know, our L city email list, you know, encompasses issues other than the growth policy, and I really don't want to be spamming people who don't subscribe to this, you know, with an email. The other 40% who don't live here,

right? So, I don't quite understand number two, the point of it to tell you the truth. Um, all notices must clearly state the nature of the land use plan or regulation under consideration. what type of comments the public the local government is seeking from the public and how the public may participate. The engage white division whitefish does all of that. Allan posts and you just let me finish and then I'll let you um you know when he posts he posts what section we'll be looking at chapter we'll be looking at obviously public comments relate to that we have a public comment you know opportunity at the beginning at the end of every meeting for anything that's not particularly called out um and how the public may participate is obviously through these meetings through written comments through the online um that we're providing. Go ahead, Matt.

I don't know if there's anything I could add to that. And I think maybe maybe the only thing I could say is there there's so much on there that there's so much on there, but if I didn't put as much on there, I would.

So, there's a lot of information on there. There is a lot of information on there which I, you know, I think speaks to our commitment to allowing the public to participate to frankly the greatest level I've ever seen in my 10 years as a city attorney. Um, all written public received, including agency and stakeholder comments, and will be posted for public review one week prior to the work session or public hearing by the planning commission. Allan posts the comments that he gets one week before the work sessions and then he goes above and beyond and keeps posting them up until 4:45 today. So, I don't really think that that's um an issue. Um agency, are you are you posting agency?

Yeah. In fact, if you look at your transportation, you'll see MDT. You'll see here here's the thing is when I send these out for agency review, there's a I didn't hear a question. The mic's down. It is. It's not working. Another agency. Um, doesn't you guys can't hear us? I don't know if I have my hand. What's that? You can hear us, Nathan. Nathan, can you hear us? Loud and clear. Okay. What was I saying? agency. We talking about agency comments.

The the bottom line is when I send these out, I don't get as many agency comments is I don't get them that much. Well, and I will say that we rarely get them with any sort of

I don't get that many agency comments. Um, if you go into your transportation comments that were provided in your folder, you will see you had two different versions of comments from NDT. You got comments from Flathead County Road and Bridge. Um, you got comments from Whitefish Legacy Partners and Flathead Mountain Bikers. Um would so all of the comments that I've gotten I have put in if you go on to the vision whitefish folder the vision white fish web page you go to the right hand side in documents there's a public comments folder they're all organized by topic every comment that I receive is in a PDF and I update those pretty much daily when I get some emails I mean I can't I'm not perfect because it's just me but when I get some emails I put them in PDF and I will update and refresh that PDF. Um I do not post uh I have not posted internal agencies meaning within city hall comments because the drafts that come out the staff draft means that is the draft of the entire staff. So we write them first. I write them then it goes around to the planners then it goes around city hall and then when that's done then it goes to the agencies and then when the agencies comment I collect those comments I send them. So, so I guess I would just say which comments are missing because I would argue they're all there.

Well, I agree with you. And as far as stakeholders go, I don't know. I mean, you're just posting all the comments, right? Yeah. There's no difference. Yeah. So, we're not really like stakeholders or call it comment. We're just It's just working for comment. I'm going to put you in the PDF and I'm going to put it online. I don't differentiate. So, one quick question. Sure. You know we all know about the open meeting law right to know um when you are doing I don't I don't know what to characterize it as internal proliferations or staff how do you characterize that and how is that um uh treated under

it's it's the word product it's staff doing our jobs honestly if we invited the public to every meeting we have you guys I We'd be we'd never we wouldn't run a city. We get done. I understand. I mean, I think the criticism that's being leveled, but we're not a deliberative body. We're staffed. I I just want you to explain. I'm not trying to argue. Yeah. No, no, no. I I'm sorry.

I can tell you the process, right? After generally generally we write a draft, I pull it together. I send out the different departments and people red mark them just like you do, right? within the different departments, Angie or whoever. And when I get everybody's red marks back, I incorporate generally we incorporate all staffs because those are professional departments that are commenting on their department. Then the draft that you get that comes out of city hall to goes to the agent to to the transportation agencies or whatever that is the staff draft everybody in city hall compilation document.

Yeah. And that I would I would agree with that and I think you know the definition of meeting rather than a meeting really implies a deliberative body that's making a final decision or making a decision. Again it it's just is it's like I I guess we're product. It's just we're product. I don't think that we would have to send out every single red like how the staff redlined it because it's a collective. Well, I think what to the topic raised is um the question would be why would stakeholders get something in advance, read it, look at it, send it back. Um or not not why. I mean, I would we know why. Um but could somebody just walk into city hall that day and say, "Hey, Allan, I'm coming up to your desk. I want to take a look at these agency comments that aren't being distributed for public review at this time because we're deliberating. Could someone do that or not?

Well, we're not deliberate.

I have no hidden agency comments. All in they are all any agency comments. When you say agencies, I'm not talking about legal. I'm not talking about legal public works and parks and and wreck, right? Those are us. Those are us. I have a folder of us, right? But if I get something from MDT or Flight of Mountain bikers or whatever they email me, then I'm going to put it in the case file and I'm going to put it in the public comments and I'm going to post it and all of them are there available by topic. Now, um at the at the very beginning of the process, um no, actually I have I've done it I've done it for before I had the website, but I've pretty much said it the whole time since I've had the website.

You can go there and look. There's just not that many. Maybe part of the problem is the term stakeholders. We are not staff is not stakeholders. We are staff, right? You know, and I think I don't know what the word stakeholders mean. I don't know if it means organization as opposed like a realtor like a real like somebody that's a realtor or a business interest that I can give you an example of. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

No, no, no. I'll give you an example is when we did the economic development study, there was 30 stakeholders that we reached out to and those stakeholders were involved in the process. And when we were done, we also we sent it out for public review. And in addition to that, we actually additionally emailed those stakeholders because they were involved in the process to make sure they had any comments and anybody had comments went back into the public and it went on the PB. Okay. There's no hidden comments.

Okay. Well, maybe that clarifies it because I was I was really there hasn't been a really differentiation. It's basically either a it's either staff agencies or the public. So, I guess your comment is question. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Your question is if you if somebody walked in to Alan's office and is like, can we see agency comments? I'd say go to the vision website. It's on a PD. Thank you. There's no hidden comments. That's the answer I think. Okay, we've established there's no hidden comments, so we got to move along with this, please. Let's just Yeah. Yeah.

Um, so finally, I mean, this one's up to you. I mean, Alan has been doing and no good goes unpunished, I guess. No, he said he he doesn't have to. He won't. And I think that's fine. We already established that. He doesn't I mean, didn't we talk about that in the last meeting? We did talk about it, but we wanted direction from we wanted you guys to think about it. We wanted public comment on it and we wanted to know whether you want him to continue to make the chart or just give you his draft. And you guys can incorporate whatever public comment you want. That's up to you guys.

I mean, it's however you want staff to, you know, run. It's not changing the public participation because the public will still be participating. Again, if you guys just want a draft from Alan public comment and you guys can take what you want and leave what you want. I do disagree with this comment in a certain way and I'm going to say it because I don't think that um this one this one city planning staff has been making selective decisions of what public comment is submitted and drafts presented to the public commission in contradiction to S25201. Wait, where are you?

I'm on the last bullet in the first page. So, I disagree with that. Allan was trying to do you guys a favor. Truthfully, he was trying to make meetings that run this late shorter by sifting through public comments that he thought were kind of no writers, right? And then he made a chart specifically saying which public comment was incorporated, which was not, and why. So, this was not Allan nefariously accepting public comments that he liked and not telling you guys or disregarding people's opinions. It was simply him trying to help you guys do your job in a more efficient way. If you don't want him to do it, I think he'd be thrilled not to do it

because it's really put him in a in a horrible position with this kind of criticism because that's it's nothing nefarious. questions. I guess the only thing I would say about that is, you know, at the end of the day also, I'm a professional land use planner with 25 years of experience. So, so I do have some experience at looking at public comment and saying, "Hey, should this be incorporated or shouldn't this be?" I won't do it because it takes me, it's been a lot of work and I've been trying to help you. But do you like making the charts just a little bit? No, I do not like I do not like making those. I've been doing it because I thought I was helping you. Okay. So you you prefer not to make that chart. It's less work for me.

Okay. It's not a way that you use to organize as you're writing it is. Sure. And then it's just do we see it or do we not? Are you going to make it whether we see it or not? That's my question. At this point, if if I'm not if I'm being instructed to not make any changes after it goes out, I'm going to read the public comment and I'm not going to make any charge or any changes at all. I'm just going to take the draft. I'm going to give it to you and I'm going to say let them deal with it. Exactly. And that's how So that's what I was avoiding is the transportation element was 146 pages.

So so um for somebody that that that feels like, you know, of that 146 pages, I wanted to make them think that they were being heard. So I either incorporated in the draft or I'd said why I didn't. Um at this point now, if somebody feels like they're not being heard, it's on the planning commission and not me. So now we just have to discuss and decide what. But thank you for

your input. That's very helpful to know and thank you Alan for letting us know. Um the the thing that I'm seeing here that I feel is difficult and I have to say this is no matter who you are, you are a special interest group. You have an interest that you are presenting. Whether you're writing it, whether you're saying it, even if you sit at home and just hold it dear in your heart, you have a special interest. So to be in any one of those positions and thinking that you are calling someone a special interest group when you yourself are a special interest group, let's it's not an insult. It is something nice that we do. We all have special interests. Um, and I quickly have to say because I think that this this all makes a difference in how we look at this process. This process is long and arduous and I'm not in Callispel or Columbia Falls. Theirs may be going more quickly. I think we've heard enough from the public and then we all live here. So, we know Whitefish is a different animal. We do not live in a place that has such, you know, we have the ski mountain, we have a historic downtown, we have a commercial area, we have we have very different areas. So, I think inherently it will take us a little longer. And then we've also tried really hard to encourage and incorporate public comment. So, we want to hear from you. and the fact that this has taken three separate meetings, you know, we've we still have been receiving written public comment and I've seen people, you know, come three different times and have their written public comment heard finally this last time. Paul McCann, you know, he was so patient and he really wanted to speak again and we're like

just submit it in writing and finally tonight we got to say yes, we, you know, we understand that and we're incorporating it. That's just one example, but this is a long process. So, you know, to be insulting or or you know, even be criticizing of staff, whatever angle you're on, this will take a while. It has taken a while. That said, we have done it this way thus far. So, now we're being asked tasked and asked not to and tasked not to make changes at this point. And I think that we have to decide if anybody wants to make a motion to change something. At this point, I'm open to a motion to change something. I understand why we would want to. I also understand why we would not want to. So, somebody wants to make a motion, I will hear a motion. If they don't, I think this has been productive discussion and we can learn from it and move on. Does anyone your sleepy time fell? Yes.

I thought I was crying. Mine's a half hour. Mine is my wife texting me saying, "Where the hell are you?" So I also

Now we all have our own secrets out. You open it. So, I'm asking for a motion, but at the same time, I'm going to say that anyone who's communicating with somebody outside of this room while you're in this room, I don't think it's illegal. Do I think it's weird? Yeah. If you're, you know, communicating with somebody that's going to pipe in or sit out there, I don't think it's appropriate. You, you know, it's just not something that looks good. doesn't look ethical. You should have a discussion before, a discussion after. Be present while you're here. Be present. All of you. Um, but yeah, let's cut out the communication with other people while we're here. You know, I just sat through an interview and was asked, why are we having meetings that staff had asked us to have? And it's like we're trying to have everything above board. We're trying to do things in the right way. So texting while we're in a meeting probably not the best idea, but if that's what you need to do, I don't think it's illegal.

It is not illegal. So it is not illegal. And I'll just say from my people at families, you know, I'm texting my kids back there. So yeah, so you can text um you know, but if it's to communicate to also talk during public comment if you're communicating with people, I would that's where I think advise against communicating with each other. That is language. Yeah, that is language. So let's be cognizant that is my this is a world that we should be just conscious in and present in.

Yep. Yes. Um, so if anyone has a motion, I would love a motion and we are a motion pertaining specifically to this. We are going to adopt a timeline. Um, and I will tell you that for December, we have a meeting on 17th and I vote that we keep it only if that I can't be present and I don't think it's smart to add a meeting in the middle of the holidays. I would much rather do it after. So, we're gonna combine this. Anybody has a motion on what we just heard? No motion. Your motion. Your to provide some info on that. Just so you know, on that meeting upcoming. So, I don't want the 17th.

Yeah. Okay. That um Yeah, I don't know if it doesn't really change the schedule. So, you can vote on that, but you do need to know about that. Okay. Tell us in just a moment. And that means you have to stay here if you don't have hot. Oh, even the building just turned the lights off. Did your wife call you about that? Yes. Clock alarms going off.

So, if there's no motions pertaining to the information that we just got, uh, we're going to go ahead with a timeline. And I would make a motion that we add a meeting in January. Um, and I do have another calendar here that I just flipped over. Did you get the availability dates of the consultants or what? Um, Michelle sent at at the request of Dana who could not be here a list of available dates for rooms. Okay,

I may not have sent that. second. I don't suppose anyone else has that hand I can pull up room I'll be on second I'm sorry these things usually boring things so funny to me when it gets like availability.

That is good to know. There is a um Okay, I see it. January and February or I mean December and February, right? She just sent the ones for January. Dana said maybe both. So, you got those? I do. I'm just looking. Is it in a January? Yes. PDF chambers.

January 7th. That was my fault. I'm sorry. No, you're fine. I did get it. I just hadn't seen it. I do not like I meant to touch base with not everybody needs to know that in the world but now you all do so okay so I'm sorry this greatly complicates this discussion that I was about to have I was assuming that all the world available to us and we decide we want to meet well I mean to be to be fair probably a conference roomable I mean we have four of them but yeah this great books are just things that are booked. Okay. So, we're good on the seventh. Okay. We're good on the seventh. So, let's We're going to keep the seventh.

You think they January 13th? The 15th. Are we going to We're talking Janu 13th is good. 13th a Tuesday. I would like to keep it on Wednesdays just because it feels good to know it's Wednesday. Uh probably uh I've got two copies of the lake. I'm just going to let you get more on Wednesday. Wednesday. Yeah. I like consistency. All right. Um

sounds good to me. Frank's on these. There's council city chambers conference room. So, we could still meet somewhere on the 14th. So, or I think it's I think it's the Lakeshore. I think it's the Lakeshore committee and Lauren can move them because they're very small. They're very small. Well, this is January and so I think we're good on that. What did you say? I'm sorry. Yeah. Toby is on the Lakeshore committee, right? Yeah.

So, this will be in January. Okay. Yeah, this is in January, so we're okay. But we will have possibly have a Lakeshore representative that has to be at that Lakeshore meeting. Not to complicate things, but perhaps the only only one we can't overlap with. Well, this is pinitive. This is land use consultants on-site meetings to be determined. So, I don't even know if we need a conference room for those. I don't know what that means. Consultants are going to be on the 14th. They're mean 14th. Okay. I've already reserved that's a that is actually that is actually an open house.

Okay. So, I've reserved the council chambers for that. So that's not going to be a work session. That's an open. Okay. Okay. The 14th is not possible for us. No, but the 15th the fifth the 15th Whitefish High School is going to be presenting to you and um the the consultants are also going to be presenting to you. That's a regular a regular Thursday night planning commission meeting. Okay. So we're good on those dates. Okay. So the 15th is so there'll be like a five o'clock work session with with the the students and then the consultants. So that's okay. Thursday 17th.

So January the 7th we've said yes. Um and we obviously have December 17th. Yes. So that's already on December 17th. Allan is going to fill us in on in a bit. Um the 7th the 14th is an open house. The 15th with a work with a work session before and we're good. When is that? Sorry. The 15th. 15th. Yeah. So 5:00 p.m. work session with some students present. 5 p.m. work session. 5 p.m.

On Thursday the 15th. Correct. Yes. And Wednesday the 14th is something else. Thanks. Just my birthday. I know. Oh, happy birthday. Cancel your birthday. Um, January 21st right here. Thursday the 15th. January 3 21st. Wednesday. Dave's got the room already booked. That's not even on Dana's list.

It's on the calendar. It just means Yeah. So, the next thing that's on Dana's list. Okay. So, we're January 24th. You guys are doing land use. January 24th. Yep. Is that a Saturday? That is a Saturday. Oh my god. You're right. What? No. Yeah. Yeah. We're all getting together on Saturday. Not Not happening. It's probably going to be a powder day, too. No, I don't know where that came from. Didn't tell me that. I know that there were some questions about it and she said there will be inconsistencies between hers and what we were looking at from the room availability. So, just

22. For what it's worth, this room's open on Saturday. I'm glad you're going to be there by yourself, Craig. So, I think we can determine we can we can I would say that we can find a space for people to meet. If you guys want to let staff do that, find a space for us to meet if we just say a date. Yeah. Just not on Saturday. So, maybe you guys

Well, we do have to, right? Maybe if you guys, you know, somehow adopt or whatever you're going to do with this calendar, knowing that there's going to be some things that will change, particularly we're not being on Saturday and sometimes maybe we may not be able to broadcast to public who aren't here if the owl is busy or what what is the deal with that? The date with someone else. Um, can we I don't owl is reserved pretty much for planning commission. We bought it was a it was a planning department purchase dips. Yeah. Yeah. Pretty sure Dave had to pay for it.

Okay. So, I'm a little confused as to what all we're going to do on these dates. Um, but I know that you know, but we're just Do you mind just going over those dates one more time just to make sure that I So, all we have right now is December 17th. Okay. And then January 7th. Okay. And then January 14th is open house. January 15th is our regular meeting plus a work plus a 5:00 p.m. work. What happened to January 13th? 13th? I I didn't write that down. Do you guys want to Tuesday meetings? I didn't I didn't have

I think she was just being very tentative because I mean she's going to be in town on I think she might just on the 13th when they're I work till 7. I don't think but I think she's just saying that to be announced because they're just going to be in town those days. Okay.

Yeah. So then I mean maybe we could say we could meet with the consultants like if they're going to be in town and we could be here doing something we could we could do I don't know what we're going to have available for us to work on at that point. So this is why I'm just like do we just choose dates and then from there does that make sense? So I think what Dana is intent with this um work pro work program work still you guys are in prison. Well you kind of are um

so I think she was just trying to get us just to know coordinating between city council and between planning commission to get us to the zoning in effect on May 20th. So I don't know what you guys are going to do on this. I mean there's some zoning we want to be done by with land use clearly on January 24th. We might have to set more meetings truthfully not January 24th because again that's the Saturday. So it's a January 20th then work session. That's city council work session. The 20th. Yeah.

Okay. So Dana just booked all of her holidays. Well, the 19th of working day. It'll be a Tuesday. Okay. Okay. Yep. Ah, okay. So, and then if you got So, she wants you to be through layers in time to get it to just wants you to be done with land use and I don't we we'll move that January 24th. We need to be done with land use by the end of January. 28th. Is that was that the idea? By January 28th, we wrap it up. Yeah. Okay. So then rooms available. Okay. So if if we can say I mean I would just say let's do it every Wednesday. Yeah. Right. Keep Wednesdays open.

Just just do it every Wednesday through January. We'll figure out the room. We'llide us. But let's say every Wednesday we'll be here unless we have to move. Okay. Thanks. That's next with the exception of the 15th at 5:00 p.m. But that's a regularly scheduled meeting. All right. So, yeah, every Wednesday in January will just be

through January. So, I move as the chair because I'm going to make a motion uh that we meet on December 17th and then beginning the 7th of January every Wednesday in January. Okay. So, that's four Wednesdays in January. I second the motion. All in favor? Great. So, those are our meeting dates um through January and then we can add as necessary.

Um and that should put us wrapping up with land use on the 28th. Okay, that sounds I think I can't vote, but

you should be here. So, thank you for saying yes, that sounds good. Um because we did not have a motion on any of this stuff. I don't um I don't think that there's much for us to do about it. We're going to continue as we have been doing. You've worked through kinks. We've worked through kinks. We're at a point where we know what you're doing. I think the chart is helpful to some people in some ways. And I think that it's helpful to me when I'm looking for something. And I think where is that? Was it incorporated? If you don't mind to continue to make the chart, I like the chart. It's helpful to me.

I appreciate it, but I I'm sensitive, dear. Yeah. Go ahead.

Um, at the beginning of the process, I was told it was amazing, right? Um, but I The reason why I was saying that is because things are going to be different with this next final element. Okay. Um the housing ele the housing element is is working a little bit different because in this one we actually have the housing committee sort of involve cooperatively the staff and that's that is I don't want to use the word slowed because I don't know if the word is slowed but it's added to the process. Okay. So it's added about six weeks to the process because we had to deal you know we had to discuss it with them get it to them. They've got work sessions going. The reason why I say that is because they got our they got the staff version of the housing element last week. They spent two hours in a work session. Um they're working on the document right now

and the the thoughts are that they kind of know the parameters. were like this is the you know unless you want things really go wonky make your red marks within the document just like the fine connection keep it what your version I mean the the stat version

right that work within that document however you want to change it but stay within that format okay so they're going to they're going to have what I believe are their comments or their their comments done next Monday okay that's going to give us 24 hours to to make sure that you know there's some we don't have any heartburn with and get it to you. Okay. So, there's going to be no table because I don't know what I'm doing a table on yet. Um, and we could Sorry. Yeah, we don't have to have

we don't need a table. Okay. But the bigger thing is it's possible that in particular, if you remember the way I've been formatting it now is we've got the goal, then we got the little narrative, right, that you guys asked me to do. they might be adding goals. So, you might you're it's it's I'd say possible, if not likely, that you're going to get a version that's going to have some placeholders in it because there's no way I can get it done in 24 hours. So, just know that there's going to be a oneweek public input process. Generally, I've had to add like a month in advance. They're they're they're going to get it done on Monday. I'm going to turn around on Tuesday and send it on public input through the website with the the hearing being announced on the 17th. So the the public, the agencies, everybody's going to get a week and then I'm going to be collecting the comments up to very up to the day that you guys see it if we that's the only way you're going to make the 17th. I know I don't know what else to say. So I just, you know, that's that's the way it's going to happen. So I don't know if people are going to complain about that or not, but um but if we didn't have the housing committee intimately working on this, I would have heard about it worse. So we had to get them intimately working on this. Huh? I don't think there's any way around what you just said.

We could say no. We could say yes. That's what's happening. We could try to move it to a different gate, but I don't think I would get eaten alive if the housing committee didn't get to work on this. I'm going to say keep doing what you're doing. We appreciate it. And I don't think there's any way that we can say get it to us faster because it's humanly impossible. Amazing. But you can I think are we able to make comments from the commission real quick? Okay. So, I had a long comment that I wanted to make and I will make it eventually. Um, but I want to be respectful of every time everyone's time and group. You were the one who was asking both.

Yeah, I want to get out of here just as much. Um, so I just really want to like clarify and kind of push back against some of the things that I've heard tonight and I've heard for months and months and months and months and it gets me really fired up because so I'll back up. Um, so I'll try to kind of find where Oh wait, is this this is just a general public comment about this is like a So this is going to be like matters from commission. matters from the Can you just hold that for a second until we get this timeline? Yeah. Sorry, I thought we were And then we're going to do our last general public comment which should be very minimal and then

No, that's fine. I thought I was confused. It's going to be my brain's not function. No, you're fine. Okay. So, we we have adopted the timeline by motion and then Allan, you're letting us know right now and we're giving direction to you to keep on keeping on. We don't have any direction as far as changing things if that makes sense. So, that's our direction to staff if everyone agrees with that. And and I would just say that if you need something like an extra meeting or wherever that works out, please ask. Why don't call us what I said, not what she said. We're here for you.

So if there's anything we you need, we can do it if we'll try and our best. Okay. So that's our direction to staff. Thank you. And then is there any general public comment before we get to matters from board, matters from staff from anybody? Right. Thanks guys for hanging in here. It's for sure. Oh yeah. Is there anybody online with the general public comment? Going once, going twice. We can't hear you. I'm so sorry. It's not us. It's the There's no hands raised. Okay, good. I think it doesn't always show us if it's like disconnected and hands are raising. That's what happened tonight. Okay. Well, um

I see the camera, so it looks like Yeah, send it to us in writing. automate.

I'll try to as I can. Again, I don't want to belver the point. I've made these points in the past. Um, but I just think it's really important for the planning commission to be aware. And like I've said this in other public comments, often it is easy to get stuck in the people who are the loudest and the most consistent that show up at these commission meetings. the same five people with the same five opinions every single time they show up. Um, and that really what I really worry about in what's happening is that SB382 was designed to frontload the planning process to give more people in the community at large a voice in the planning process. We do the visioning sessions with 250 to 300 people so that more people in our community are represented. And I'm really really concerned and I continue to be really really concerned about the ways in which the voices of the like five or six people that show up to every meeting are tend to be uplifted over those people who are not able to be in the room. I joined this planning board last year with the understanding that I would be committing you know two nights a week or one night a week and then it moved to two nights a week and then it's three nights a week and I am someone who is stretched really thin just being on the board to participate in this process and I often feel gaslit about my experience as a working person making barely $22 an hour. I am not alone in this process. and I do my best to hold my space, but I'm not the only one who's feeling this way. And so, I think that I just really need you guys to understand that when younger people are showing up to these meetings and are getting upset, it's because their voices are not feeling heard. And the same people,

while their voices are important, who've been involved in Whitefish for the last 30 years, they are not directly affected by so many of these issues. So, I just need you to really sit with that because my community is being pushed out and the decisions that you guys make on this planning board because I don't have a voice. That has been made abundantly clear. I don't feel like I have a voice on this board. I'm pretty disconnected most of the time when I want and I represent a big part my community who don't have a voice in this community and so I think this board needs to be aware of how they're making me feel but also how they make other people in this community feel. One sec. Um I don't need to be labor this point. I make it all the time. I just need you guys to understand that when you crap on M Loopa SP382 for the front-loading process, it's not this evil angry devil that, you know, is in the sky. This is actually working to create a more representative process. And when we uplift the five people that show up every time, we're actually doing a disservice to the whole point of the law. Um, so I'll rest my case. I will continue to make that point because for me it's not about getting a voice in this matter on this board. It's about being a voice for people who don't have one in

Can I ask you a question? Yes. Where are your people? Why aren't they attending? They here just five people. But you're talking about a Do you know how many people are working two to three jobs to survive? Yeah, I am.

Okay. Do you know how many people have kids and can't be here who can't afford childare? There's there's a lot of reasons why people don't show up. Demographically, there is re research that shows that the people who show up to city council meetings and planning board meetings are older, are wealthy. Again, I'm not saying your guys' voices don't matter, but those should not be the only voices that are in the room. And I am so tired of constantly feeling gas lit about not just my experience because this like I'm privileged my my partner Ethan owns our home. You have renters often right now we don't. Um but when I bring that these comments into the room it's because those are these are the people I'm in my community that I'm watching displaced. I grew up in this community. You know how many people I grew up with in this community can't live here anymore? So, there's a reason there's not a bunch of people who are lowinccome here or younger who are here who aren't here right now. And you guys are supposed to be representing the community as a whole, not just the loudest voices. And I say that as people who are in this room right now represent my viewpoint. We shouldn't be just listening to them, but we have to take into account the whole entire community when we're doing this process. And I can tell you when I go to Columbia Falls and Callispell, they are way more responsive to the community at large than White Fish is.

Oh, maybe this is an anomaly, but I tell you, I have written numerous letters to the editor to embrace the community to be involved in city council meetings and every other public forum. And what do we have? Well, right. But what I'm telling you, I get it. I want for a lot of people, that's just not possible. And so sometimes we have to stop and think about how is my world view maybe I need to zoom out. What are other people experiencing? What are what would benefit other people in the community who are not in my shoes?

So it's very like and I think we're at this point kind of repeating which I understand. have heard you. Um, you know, it's not the person who said it in a time and I, you know, I look out and I I see various viewpoints and I've, you know, from the visioning sessions in the beginning, everyone has a different perspective of what the numbers that were, you know, recorded said. John often references one or the other. I mean, we all can look back on those visioning sessions and we all saw things through a different lens and then research back up. Oh,

I understand. So, what we're what we're going to do is we're going to say yes, we all have different perspectives. Encourage people to come. Uh, I want this to be a respectful space and for us to not get um, emotion is fine, but anger and judgment in a city space where we're all here volunteering time, we need to keep it at a level that it's productive because passion is good, but we have to be able to work with that passion and make it into something productive instead of something that's blaming or judging. We have to continue forward. We just set our calendar. I'm proud of us. We definitely represent different groups. We always will. That's why we're appointed by the city council to represent different groups. Um that's our matter from commission. Unless anybody else has something. Okay. From staff. We've heard from you guys all night. You done?

Make a motion to adjourn. Thank you. decadent. All right. Thanks everyone. See you just soon.