City Council - Regular Meeting

There you go. She's not sure. Hallelujah. So everyone Excuse

I'll go ahead and call to order this White Fish City Council meeting for May 18th, 2026. We're also joined by some folks remotely, but thank you very much for joining in person. Appreciate it. And we'll start with our pledge of allegiance. Eric Greenberg, my friend, will you please lead us?

You just say I I to To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nation with liberty and justice for all.

Thanks very much, Eric. Uh we have three public hearings scheduled for this evening, but if there's anything that the public would like to bring to the attention of the council, now would be your opportunity under communications from the public and your name and address for the record, please. Thank you. Good evening, council. DC Haw with the Whitefish Fire Service Area, 103 Malard Drive in Callispel. The Whitefish Fire Service Area Board recently met with the uh Flag County Commissioners individually asking for a rate increase. Part of that rate increase request was uh $720,000 to hire six additional firefighters for Whitefish City to help the city help us uh with that uh contract of service uh that Whitefish Fire provides. We modeled our request after a step plan, which is a set of a flat rate fee. Kind of looks like a mill rate. It's based on a model Lewis in Clark County uses, and it's based on uh value of property as opposed to that flat rate fee of $180 that everybody pays. We also asked for money to help remodel station 22 at Hodgekkins at Whitefish Stage and also to acquire land on on the east side of 93, a location yet to be determined for another station. Our request for uh a meeting to be put on the agenda was denied by Flag County Commissioners. Uh by state law, MCA uh the Flaad County Commissioners set the rate for a fire service area and uh we are woefully behind what we should be paying. Uh Chief Hadley and his staff prepared a very professional document to include in our packet to the

commissioners uh stating the dire need for uh the call volume that the city receives both in the city and in the waitress fire service area. My ask of uh council tonight is if you have any interaction with uh the flag county commissioners, please stress upon them that uh by law they are required to set an equable rate uh for fire service area for a fire the fire service area. Uh right now we are that flat rate fee you can't really equate to mills but we would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.3 mills for fire protection which is the lowest of any fire entity in Flathead County if not in western Montana is somewhere between 25 35 mills for a fire district. So even that alone we are behind. So, I don't think we were too far off asking for that rate increase. So, just to update you, we are uh trying to uh get additional funding. Uh again, it's the commissioners we are asking. Uh our petition for forming a district has not been received. Well, of course, no one wants to pay more taxes and we hear very loudly from HOAs and folks that uh we don't support the petition because in a fire district, we would pay more money. Um but yes, you'd get a chance to vote on it uh at least to see uh where you want to go. So with that, uh again, uh if you have the means of communication, please pass on that, uh we certainly need help with funding to uh um help the chief, help his department, uh help everyone. Thank you.

Thanks very much, DC. Any questions for DC since he is here this evening? Rebecca Are are you going to revisit this at all or is this an absolute no from them?

We were going to try to push again and try to keep communications open. Uh we have to get additional funding and I don't know whether it was that step plan being different. We thought that was much more equitable again as a um based on value instead of that 180 across the board. So to answer your question, yes, we're going to revisit it, but we sure would like some communication from White City saying, uh, commissioners, please, uh, recognize the need. And what about getting homeowners involved in a campaign to help you too? Is that possible?

It is possible. Uh, we certainly have, uh, some support for our petition, uh, but nowhere near the support that we need to be successful with that district. And again, it comes down to folks saying, um, I don't want to pay more money. I live too far, uh, away from a station as it is. Um, and I simply state that, you know, you'll probably need an ambulance before you'll need a fire engine in your lifetime. And, uh, it's, uh, uh, Chief Hadley's crew are are really uh, continuously busy and, uh, they certainly need some support. Was there even an opportunity for input at the count the commissioner's meeting from the

We we got a nice email back um from staff uh encouraging us to continue moving forward, but again, it's the commissioners that have that say. We were at least hoping to get a hearing uh to, you know, present the facts in more detail. I thought we did a really good job meeting individually, but obviously we missed something. Have they read our updated plan? Which which updated plan? The fire services area plan like the emergency services plan. I couldn't speak to that. Again, Chief Hadley uh Chief Person put together a very detailed packet for the commissioners. Great. That was uh very well explained.

Unfortunate. Okay. Thanks, DC. Thanks. Yep. Thanks for being here tonight. Mary, I would just add to the prayer speaker if he would send that packet to you and you could post it online. Folks like myself who live in that district would very much like to look at it and support their effort. So, um that would be wonderful. Um, merry flowers, citizens for a better flathead.

Thanks, Mary. Um, I'm here representing Citizens for a Better Flathead and I want to uh let you know about a community uh treasure hunt that we are kicking off next Thursday at the community college in uh Callispel. And the intent of this is to bring together the community to really understand why as a community we need the leadership to really look and evaluate where the community should be building and locating a um very uh capable and uh environmentally sound uh location for a sewer, septic, and bioolids facility for the county. Um, as you're aware, the current facility at Lakeside is being expanded. That's being expanded. The permit that they have been granted is only for 200,000 gallons of discharge. They are building a facility for 900,000 gallons. Um, we are concerned that the scientific reports show even at 200,000 gallons that is an inappropriate site. So rather than wait to find out what the court will finally rule on that, we think it's high time for the community to come together and to begin to understand the need to find a better location. So, you may not be aware of this, but back when the county was looking for a site to build their uh

compost facility, and they were proposing to build it near the Lakeside Sewer and Water District, but also near residential area. And folks banded together and went and looked to try to find a better location for that facility. And we did right in downtown Callispell with uh not downtown but off to the side and uh with uh access to the Calispa sewage treatment plant. And we were excited. We went to the commissioners, but by the time we found that property, they had decided they weren't going to move forward with the composting facility. But instead, they said, "This is amazing. We have been looking and looking for a site for a new jail. Well, they bought that property for the new jail. And based on that experience, we think that the public can be very helpful in helping to identify a new site. We also want to establish a steering committee that will meet on a regular basis going forward trying to evaluate the um scientific the transportation the um feasibility of building a new plant and where it would be. uh we have to look at all the issues of you know septic pumpers are strapped in terms of their ability to have a location that is cost-effective for them to bring their material. So, we need to find something that meets everyone's needs, but if we don't start to do it and we don't start to ask the right questions, we won't ever get there. And uh so I think rather than wait for the next application for more ground discharge at a wrong site, we need to begin this planning. So, I bring this to you so that the public is

aware of it, but also because we'll be coming back to you and asking um particularly at some of our meetings to have a representative come and uh help us explore this issue. As a city, you have bioolids. It's not the same issue that the other cities have because yours are much more dry. Um, but our landfill is a major investment in the county and the they're currently doing a study because they're not sure they can continue to take all those liquid very liquid um bioolids. Additionally, you have the impact from areas outside the city with septic systems and this is to try to find a way so that that uh the pumpings from those don't get spread in inappropriate places but that we have a sound place for them to go. So, we encourage you to spread the word and hopefully join us. Thank you.

Thanks, Mary. That's unfortunate to hear. The Evergreen aquifer is one of the most productive aquifer in Montana for sure in terms of transmissivity, in terms of groundwater rates. So everything that's pumped into that system ultimately goes down to the lake. Um so anything we can do to help you, we'll be happy to. Thank you, Mary. Anyone else? Yes, sir. And then Richard Hi there. Um, my name is Reynolds Cameron. I'm a resident uh, homeowner and property owner here in Whitefish. Uh, my kids all go to the, uh, public schools here. And, um, before I start, could I just I'm also on the board of the Glacier Symphony Orchestra and the festival Amadeus is coming to Whitefish uh, in a few weeks and I would really encourage everyone to go out and buy tickets. um we'd like to keep it going year after year and it's a I think it's especially here at the music school is the new venue. So anyway um if I could move I'm also the owner of a property in at the Lake Park um neighborhood over off State Park Road. Uh the neighborhood was first platted in 1926 and um as urban it some of the lots are 30 3,900 uh square feet and we're 200 feet up just past that. It's a gently sloping goes up towards Hagen Heights. So on both sides are the roads and we're served by 8 inch sewer and water on both sides of our property. and Craig Workman has said that there's like this is enough capacity for for our lifetimes. Um so tonight I'm not asking you to rule on anything, but

I would like to ask you to please put on the a future um meeting agenda to reconsider the Lake Park um road zoning. Um, it's according to the 2007 zone uh zoning the uh planning documents, it was registered as rural. I mean, excuse me, it was it was urban on the the map that's still on the GIS website today. And my property was registered as suburban. And in the 2045 document, both the urban and the suburban has been reclassified as rural. And I mean this has been industrial, residential, multif family and retail for over hundred years. So I think if you want I could invite you over in my property but I think it's just an egregious violation of the Malupa in terms of here in town doing infill whereas some of the rur like literally rural over by like bunched road is going high density. So, I don't like that doesn't seem like it's the intent of the legislature to encourage farmland to be plotted over while infill is not. Um, but anyway, I really would like a future chance to talk to you about the ideas I have for the property. Um I'm having come from San Francisco, I'm used to affordable housing and I would like to make it workforce kind of um housing at the area affordable 80 to 120% AMI could be the whole property and I'm really excited to hopefully live there someday. But um if if I could just ask you to put the this on the agenda in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Richard,

honorable mayor, council members, Richard Hilderner, 104 Fifth Street, White Fish. Uh, speaking right now, I'm wearing my Habitat for Humanity t-shirt, and I'm speaking um on their behalf. Um, and, uh, later on, you're going to hear from Mary Beth about an opportunity that the city has to make an investment. um that will yield um a it'll yield six bedrooms, two town homes uh on a piece of property that has had a significant contribution in terms of funds uh to Habitat for the purchase. And um I just want to encourage you when you get around to the discussion of that particular uh request from council for funds to finish this so that we can build two town homes i.e. the equivalent of six bedrooms uh right in Whitefish. So please give it some serious appreciate that

Karen

thought since we were right in the phone book right after Hildner I should speak after him. Karen Hilding 1016 Creekwood Drive. Um, I'm speaking on the same topic that Richard addressed and I included there should be a letter that you may have received today um about the Habitat for Humanity project. So, um, that included two photos that you go you see when you're at Wild Coffee of the original Whitefish Town site. And so they're at the top of the the letter that um that I'll read. Um you can see from the photo above that the Great Northern Railway invited the mechanic quote mechanic and laborer a location in a thriving community community that needs his presence in order to prog to progress and grow. Um end quote. So this is a quote on the original town site display at Wild Coffee. The Whitefish Town site was being established for needed workers to create a community. We are at a similar place today. We need workers in a community to keep this city vibrant and a family town. We are presented with a great opportunity to advance this goal. Tonight you are considering a request from Habitat for from for humanity of the Flathead Valley for funding to purchase two lots at 1958 and 1966 Whitefish Avenue. The city would contribute 250,000 towards the purchase price. I'm writing in support of this contribution as recommended by city staff. Habitat for Humanity has had a great success in creating affordable housing in Calispel and Columbia Falls the past few years. They have a proven track record of creating homes for local families. In figuring out how to move forward, look to our community's history

of attracting workers to create a thriving town. Thanks for all of your service on the city council. Thanks, Karen. Good to see you. Z.

Hello, everyone. two unrelated issues. First, welcome everybody to the visual vomit of primary campaign season. All the signage is out. Um, I find that more of a threat to my daily life and annoyance than the deer, but that's just me. Um, I know that there's nothing you can do about it on private property. However, there is one particular property that's in and of itself is vile. And I say that with the hope that a certain person whose campaign sign is on that private property. I don't know if there's anything that you can do to um I don't know if it's a fire department issue or I don't know which department it is because I'm a big city gal. I I haven't lived here forever, but I know in other cities if you have a house that is obviously uninhabitable just by you can tell by looking at it's just you do something about it. And I'm talking in case nobody's aware um is that house on Second Street as one travels out of town. It's on the not good at directionals, but as you're traveling that way, it's on that side. Um, and it's owned by a current United States representative. And it's just it's an embarrassment. You know, I I had people visiting from elsewhere at a huge gathering, no kings, if you want to know, and people as we marched on by and were looking out as getting ready to enter beautiful town of Whitefish, like ew, like what? How? So anyway, so I'm really appealing to you, Jeppe Calabiano in particular because

your campaign sign is out there. Um, so maybe there's something you can do, I don't know, to just do something about that eyesore of a property. Just hopeful, ever hopeful. I'm I'm an optimist. What can I say? So that takes care of issue number one. Issue number two. Mayor, I'm so glad you're here because I am doing the work for you. Let me find it. You know, I'm nothing if not tenacious. I think my score is probably 0 for five, so I don't really have a great a great record. But here I try again. And it's May. It gives us a couple of weeks before the beginning of June, which is Pride Month. So, this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to read what I hope you will adopt as the official City of Whitefish proclamation acknowledging Pride Month. So, if you would indulge me, cheers to you. Whereas the city of Whitefish is a welcoming community dedicated to the well-being and equality of all its residents, employees, and visitors. And whereas lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, interex, asexual, and other diverse community members, LGBTQ plus contribute significantly to the cultural, economic, and social vitality of our region. And whereas June is celebrated globally as Pride Month to honor the historic 1969 Stonewall uprising in New York City, which served as a catalyst for the modern fight for LGBTQ plus civil rights. And whereas while significant progress has been made toward equality, LGBTQ plus individuals, especially youth and transgender members of our

community, continue to face discrimination, harassment, and inequality. And whereas the city of Whitefish is committed to standing in solidarity with our LGBT LGBTQ plus neighbors, co-workers, and families, ensuring that everyone can live openly, authentically, and without fear of prejudice. Now therefore, I that would be your time do hereby proclaim June as LGBTQ plus pride month in the city of Whitefish. I call upon all residents to embrace diversity, promote a culture of inclusivity, and celebrate the rich contributions of all people. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand and cause the seal of the city of Whitefish to be affixed such and such a day of June 2026. I am ever hopeful you have time to do that. It's a simple download and get it going. And I'd love when I come back for the beginning of June meeting to have that get put in effect. Thank you for listening. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Z. I just want to remind the audience and those listening that years ago I did in consultation with the council and staff draft a non-discrimination ordinance that specifically prohibits discrimination against anyone regardless of their sex, gender, race and we continue to uphold that ordinance today or that resolution. So, I appreciate your comments, E, but this council is fully committed to those rights of those individuals. With that said, anyone else willing to provide comment tonight, Chris?

Good evening. My name is Chris Shrom. I live at 504 Spokane Avenue. I just wanted to express uh wholehearted support for the request submitted to you by Habitat for Humanity. Um in getting to know the organization and Mary Beth and a group of community members who've been working hard on housing solutions in Whitefish, I'm so impressed with the work that Habitat's doing locally and across the country. It's pretty amazing. They're vertically integrated. They build things. They're ready to go. and I hope you'll look favorably on their request and um you know get some housing built for people who live and work here. Thanks Chris. Thank you. Rhonda

Rhonda Fitzgerald love for uh ditto I I was a signatory on a letter that's in your packet. I think a a group of us have been working with Habitat for some time to try to put together a partnership of all the uh public, private, nonprofit people who want very much to get some housing built in the community for our workforce. And I think this is a great opportunity um to apply some of the funds that you've earmarked for that purpose and I just strongly urge you to approve that request. Thank you.

Thanks, Rhonda. On that note, uh, one second, Mary Beth, is there any other public comment this evening unrelated to agenda topics? Carolyn, I'm sorry. I'm Carolyn Pitman. I know. Sorry.

I live at one Tideway. Um, and I could say ditto for what's been said tonight, but um, for the fa past five years, I've been involved in housing issues and trying to see how they can be resolved. And to me, working with Habitat Flathead and the possibility of building two homes in Whitefish, two three-bedroom homes is the beginning of what could be a um a fantastic relationship between the city, between public money and private money. There are a lot of people who are willing to put their money into this organization and to the possibility of building many, many homes in Whitefish. So, I hope you will support their request tonight. Thank you.

Thanks, Miss Bitman. Appreciate it. Jamie,

good evening everyone. Jamie Goen, 117 Washington Avenue. And I just wanted to agree with everyone that has stood up here tonight uh in support of the housing initiative that Habitat for Humanity wishes to do and partner with the city and its philanthropists and its communities of volunteers. Uh this is a really truly feel-good opportunity to do the right thing. I posted today uh parcel that has been donated to Habitat for Five more town homes. Uh those will be two bedrooms if we can um you know get this going which we certainly intend to and uh the feedback from the community is fabulous. It's been over a hundred comments and probably 30,000 views and it just I love the idea that Whitefish can stand up and do the right thing for housing and take the initiative this way and send out a signal kind of to the rest of the valley that you know we are here to supply housing for the people that live and work here. So, I just want to say thanks in advance, I hope, for approving a $250,000 contribution to the build of six bedrooms. Thank you.

Thanks, Jamie, and thanks for your contribution very much. Further public comments. I'm going to rearrange the agenda, Mary Beth, so you don't have to wait through our long agenda. And I will move item 9C um to right now and I'll invite Mary Beth up for from Habitat for Humanity. I told her it was going to be late and bring snacks, so she's she's going to be very thankful. cast me.

Thank you very much, mayor and city council. Thank you for contemplating this this evening. Um, and thank you a couple months ago when you gave me the opportunity to talk about Habitat Flathead and how we work. Um, and thank you for reviewing tonight's request for funds to buy the lot at 1958 1961 uh Whitefish Avenue. Um it's part of our grounded in whitefish campaign um that we're kickstarting. So I guess importantly there's a party an open house on June 10th at the Oshanaugh from 5 to 7 p.m. for that launch. Um where we are committing to building 10 houses a year for the next 10 years. Um I think we can do better than that actually. Um because what I'm seeing right out of the gate is this beautiful intersection of the government, the city of Whitefish, private philanthropy and private sector donors who are not just contributing financial resources but companies like WBC who are also contributing significant inind contributions to our projects too. And I think this is when civil society is at its best when we we circle up philanthropy, government, and um businesses to work together. Um so this would be a two-bedroom uh three-bedroom, two three-bedroom town houses. Um and it would be the first of of many that we build. Um we would like to get P plans approved. We would submit plans probably by the end of this month. Um we'd like to close on this property within upcoming days. Um we're we're ready. We've got we've got it designed. Um and it by this time next year, there

would be two households living in those town houses. Uh we would if all goes well, we would um break ground probably in August. Um we we've got some we've got about 10 houses under the hammer in Columbia Falls right now too. But uh we have increased capacity um thanks to our Murdoch grant. We just got one more construction full-time uh staff member. Um and uh I guess significantly too is that the um contribution will go toward the price of the house. So we're looking at these two town houses being sold for four under $400,000. Um, interestingly enough, the owner of this piece of land, uh, Jack Alton and his partner, uh, Zack Pittz, they just had it appraised, um, and it appraised at $400,000 just for the parcel of land, which, um, is astounding. Um, and they're offering it to us as a bargain sale, um, for 33% less of that than that. So, um, and it's a it's, you know, it's just such a great kickstart to like get more and more people to do things like that and and work with us because, you know, we um we will continue to be opportunistic and work with anyone who wants to sell their land at a discount or or donate land and like to speak with you and um so yes um thank you very much for contemplating this and if you have any questions So, I might just touch on the developers agreement that you'll be acting upon this evening. So, um thank you for uh sharing what the project is. Um the request for the city is $250,000. I'm calling it a grant because it's a one-time uh payment to purchase the land. The there's a development agreement within the packet that you'll

be uh deciding to execute um and provide me uh the authority to execute. Um, but there's a few things I want to point out. One, um, there's a restriction of the ownership by households, um, with income at or below 80% AMI. U, I believe, correct? Yes. Okay. Just make sure. Um, a term of two years for completion of the project. Uh, we just want to make sure that the $250,000 um, that project is completed within two years.

Um, that they would also provide an annual progress report um, related to this project so that we would be updated on the status of it. that uh there is a deed restriction that uh restricts the appreciation share of the homeowner to 25%. And then um it does provide us the ability to audit their records related to this project um since that has been a concern in the past. So we did include that as well. Um we have the budget authority for fiscal year 26. Keep in mind this is for this year actually not next year. Uh the uh closing on the property um is in May, I believe. And so we would be looking at uh funding this uh within this month and um we have the funds available. We have about $252,000 of resort tax funds that are uncommitted um but budgeted. So we have the budget authority, we just haven't selected a project for those funds. And so it is available for you to direct staff to provide the funding for this project. staff um is fully uh supportive of this project. When you look at $250,000 for two uh three-bedroom town homes, it's roughly the same price of what we have contributed for the depot park town homes project. About $125,000 per unit to make it pencil. So, and it's at a lower AMI than what our depot park town homes um were originally estimated at. So with that, staff does recommend approval of the request and um direction for the city manager to authorize the development agreement within the packet.

Thanks very much, Dana. I'll start with questions. Jeppe Ben, I just have one. I just wanted to make sure um the deed restriction that you use for these units, it is permanent, right? It's a permanently affordable home. It does not revert back to a market rate home in the future.

No. And thank you for mentioning that because all of our homes, no matter who where the land comes from, um land we buy someone else buys, there's a deed restriction in all of our homes that the Northwest Montana Community Land Trust has the first right of refusal to purchase them. And we changed our shared appreciation formula to mirror theirs so that it's easy for them to come in and do it. So it's we want everything we build to end up with the Northwest Montana land trust to stay perpetually affordable. And so does it become a part of the land trust at completion or only upon resale if the land trust chooses to?

Resale. Okay. Um, and then also I might mention that, you know, by bringing the price of the house down so significantly with land contributed uh to either donated or financially contributed to, then it makes it easier for the Northwest Montana Community Land Trust to come in and buy it. So, even if these houses have, let's say, a $100,000 appreciation in five years, that means in five years they can come in and buy those units for 425 or less. Thank you. Further questions, Steve.

Uh, yeah, just wondering is there is there an easy way to volunteer to to help out once you start once you start building? You bet. Um, we build on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. Um, we've got our caravanners in town, so we're kind of building on Thursdays, too, because I don't like to rest. Um, but yeah, habitat flathead.org and just volunteer button. Um yeah, love to have you. That's awesome. Further questions. Jeppi Rebecca,

could you um talk about how you choose the people that get these homes? Um because I had a conversation with her about u essential service workers in town. I'm kind of concerned about how a lot of people that we require to help us run the town can't get housing here. And I just wanted you to review that a little bit.

Yes. I'm glad you brought that up, too. Um because we as part of the grounded in whitefish campaign that this these houses would be a part of we are requiring someone in the household to work at least 30 hours a week for an employer in Whitefish. The last thing we want is remote workers in these and then essential workers always get uh preference or we have a scoring system when we select the homeowners. We have like a rubric and they always get extra points and we take this really seriously. I mean, of the 11 houses that we're building have built in Columbia Falls in the last year and a half, um, all of those homeowners have a very strong attachment to Columbia Falls. They either grew up there or they work there or they have grandparents there or something. So that, you know, this is really about keeping our town intact. So, we will be doing the same plus a new requirement of at least 30 hours Mr. Mayor Jeppi, please.

Are you ready for a motion? I would love one. As someone who learned to play with nail guns working for Habitat for Humanity,

I'm honored, Mr. Mayor and Council to uh move to approve the $250,000 request from Habitat for Humanity to purchase the lots located at 1958 and 1966 White Fish Avenue for the construction of two affordable town homes serving households with income at or below 80% of area median income using available uh fiscal year 26 resort tax fund dollars and to authorize the city manager manager to execute the related development agreement.

Thank you, councelor. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Norton. Further discussion.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Uh I've always believed that uh affordable housing in Wish is not going to be solved by government alone and it is not going to be solved by the private market alone. It will take partnerships between the public sector, the private property owners, the builders, the employers, and the nonprofit organizations that are willing to do the hard practical work of getting homes built. This project is a good example of that approach. The city is using an already budgeted funding source. Habitat for Humanity is bringing non it's nonprofit housing model and the result will be two real homes for families who need attainable housing in our community.

Thank you Jeppi Ben.

Yeah I would say affordable housing is a particularly difficult problem and ownership housing in particular is a very difficult nut to crack. It's just really expensive to build homes. And um I will say I I am very excited to see uh the initiative that's being taken here. Um I do, you know, looking at the other ways that we spend affordable housing dollars, whether it's on, you know, rental projects or or other activities. Um, I think the fact that it's through Habitat with the discounted land and other contributions being put into it, I think it's a very good value for the community what we're doing here in terms of creating an 80% AMI home, which is almost impossible to make any other way. So, um, I do find this to be a very effective use of funds. Um, I am very excited that there seems to be some momentum to doing this in the future. Um, I would like to encourage that. So, um I hope uh yeah, I hope there's other opportunities to to fund projects like this in the future and um we'll work out a system one of these days, but uh this is a good a good way to get started. And so, um good luck. Thank you.

Thank you, Ben. Further discussion, Steve,

just a quick comment. Uh, you know, about four years ago when we when we decided to go back to the um to the community to take um part a portion of the um the tourism tax and put it towards uh towards affordable housing issues. I think this is exactly what we were envisioning when we said we're going to set up a fund that we'll have available for people to come and ask us. And this is the exact kind of project that we did that hard work for. And it's been a long time coming to have some kind some money like that. And to finally see this come to fruition where we actually get to we're going to get to homes for people rather than just rental assistance or uh or buying down, you know, buying the um the land underneath existing homes, which we've been doing. Um and we've been um and we've been very fortunate that we've been able to have this money available to us. And uh without the resort tax funds, I you know, I'm not sure how other people are managing to do this. And it's uh it's just I just want to say uh thank you for coming to us. Jamie, thank you for um donating your property as well. And uh it's just been um it's been a long time coming to finally see some of this um this money that we've been setting aside come into into play um and to make a real difference for people. So, thanks. Further comments from the council. Thanks very much, Mary Beth. All those in favor of the motion to approve, please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign. And that motion does carry unanimously for item 9 C on our agenda. You do have enclosed in your packet. Actually, before I go there, any volunteer board reports from the audience? How about the council? Not seeing any, we'll move on to item five, your our consent agenda with the May 4th special and regular meeting

minutes. Can I have a motion, please? Move to approve the consent agenda as presented. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by councelor Cornell. Further discussion. Just Yes, please. First, the mover wants wants to speak first. The mover. I have nothing to say. I just wanted to congratulate our new officer. I know it's always one year late uh for congratulations, but today is the day uh we are approving him uh after his probation uh tenure. So congratulations and congratulation to you Chief Bridger uh Kelch to grow your organization to keep us safe.

Thanks Jeppi. I appreciate that. All those in favor please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign and the motion does carry unanimously for our consent agenda which does bring us to our first public hearing of the evening which will be ordinance 26-6 an ordinance amending title 11 zoning regulations of the whitefish city code WTA 26-01 and this will be on a first reading Dave on page 161 of the packet. Um so this is the culmination of um first part of culmination of three years of working on our growth policy was started in summer of 2023. Um May of 2023 is when the state of Montana adopted the Montana land use planning act MUPA um which whitefish is subject to. And so that started this process of needing to update our growth policy. Um and then these particular changes are are more specifically implementations of MLUPA as well as some other um legislative bills that were passed in this last legislative session. Um there's going to be a second phase of this. It's going to adopt and implement our vision whitefish 2045 community plan which was adopted by you guys on uh April 20th of this year. And that will include much more robust um changes including zoning map changes um rewriting a bunch of our zoning districts to comply with the place type maps that were um adopted as part of that vision whitefish 2045. um these changes before you tonight, which include 101 pages of zoning changes, um and then the next public hearing, which would be another 140 pages of subdivision changes, for the most part, are just implementing M Lupa um in the requirements of state law. So, I just wanted you to keep that in mind. Um

we also there's a few minor housekeeping amendments in there. So, specifically, um I know there's been some questions about like the WR4 zone downtown. Um I did provide a map on the table for you guys in case you wanted to see where those were, but I'm changing that zoning district. It's more than one location in the city. Um we're not proposing any map changes tonight. These are just text changes to the zoning districts and most all of these changes are implementing M loopa or um moving a few of the items that were previously um administrative conditional uses into the permitted conditional uses um as well as we created a whole bunch of um additional development standards for when we review conditional use permits um so that we have more substantive criteria in which to review them. So, um, page 207 is, um, the ordinance, which actually has the text in there. We didn't, since those texts were so long, we didn't want to have multiple copies in your packet, so we just included one with the ordinance. Um, so just kind of a quick summary of the zoning amendments. Um, under the basic use regulations, um, one of the bills that came forward, um, required us to exempt, um, amateur radio antennas from height restrictions. And so we have some uh language in there that does that. Um within that there's a couple housekeeping items which is um it was unclear in the code whether safety railings counted towards building height. Um so we clarified that. And then um there's exemptions from setbacks that are required um in the code that you can go up to a third of a setback, but we wanted to qualify that the Wisconsin Avenue setback was not eligible for that um due to the intent of why that setback was created, which is so that Wisconsin Avenue can be widened someday and there's not a bunch of encroachments in there. Um a lot of the um changes were the different zoning districts. There were certain uh state laws that required us to um have type

one community residential facilities and fostering group homes as permitted uses. We can't treat them any differently than any other residential uses. Um so in the past those were um fully conditional use permits and those have been moved into permitted uses. Should be noted that type two community residential facilities which I believe are more than eight people um still require a conditional use permit. Um there's some of the as I mentioned administrative conditional use permits such as professional offices and personal services along major arterials. Um we moved those into the um from out of the conditional uses into the permitted uses. Um and then a couple other uses as we mentioned with you guys when we had a work session with you that have minimal impact which is churches and guest houses. Guest houses are not a conditional use permit in the county. you know, we've never had issues with one as long as they meet our standards, for instance, and we did um for churches create some specific standards for those. Um, one of the other minor changes in the zoning districts was to the suburban residential zones, which is a lot of the properties around Whitefish Lake. Um, when they annex in from the county, the county only has a 10-ft setback on many of those, and we have a 15oot sideyard setback. And so it's created issues over the years of when someone annexes in because they want to get on water and sewer, suddenly their setbacks change and there's a lot of buildings that become non-conforming. Um so um that's one of the things that we worked on to add in here just to make it clear when that happens when annexations happen. And then um probably a little more interest is the height restrictions that were required um downtown heavy commercial industrial zones um for multif family and mixeduse developments. Well, technically that doesn't we're not required to go to do that until October 1st um due to the timing of when this stuff's coming forward. Um if we were to try to get it on October by October 1st, we'd have to bring it to the U planning

commission by July 16th for the timing to work out for that to go into effect before October 1st. And since we're doing all this stuff at once, um we just determined that it was easiest just to get that done now. um with uh you know the short staff that we are with Wendy leaving and stuff there's you know not sure we're going to have time to be able to pull that together with all the other development permits that are coming in the door right now. Um we had to modify some stuff with our architectural standards just removing reference to the ARC committee. Um there's also some building height standards um since the the standards over 35 ft no longer relevant that stuff was removed. Um and then as I mentioned in our um 11-3 of our code, that's all of our development standards for different types of things, including conditional uses, mostly conditional uses. Um there were several of those things that were modified. Um just um either amending or improving some of the performance standards for things like um professional art studios, professional offices, personal services. And then we added a host of new ones um for gas stations and convenience retail and with fuel sales um hotels and lodging u churches light manufacturing and assembly as well as uh automobile or vehicle sales leasing and display. So we've created development standards for those things to help us review those things um when they're um conditional uses. um the off- streetet parking and loading standards. There's a bunch of additional state laws that required us to implement like House Bill 492 where we aren't allowed to um add additional parking when someone does a change of use for instance, which is um unfortunate I think in some ways because of something is a much more intensive use. Yeah, we can't require them to have any more parking for that. Um we're not allowed to have parking for daycarees. Um, we added some parking for pickle ball courts because it wasn't something that

we had in our code. Those types of outdoor small recreational uses. Um, modified our language for drive-through windows. Um, something that came up somehow we had missed one of the things out of HB492 with regard to um, residential uses. We can no longer require more than one parking space for all residential uses. on your dasis there's a copy of a revised section of the parking code that just is the residential portion of it with some additional language. We also added some language in there that addresses the state requirement that we can only require or that we can't require any parking for um accessory dwelling units and we can't require parking for deed restricted housing as well as assisted living assisted living facilities. So all that stuff's in there. um some of that was already in there, but um that's the version that we'd like to see adopted that because it covers all the state laws and I don't know how we missed that one thing in the stuff that went to the planning commission, but um and then moving on to the M loopa processes. Um, as you guys probably know, um, there's a lot of things that are going to be administrative going forward where it won't be going to the planning commission and the city council, uh, for conditional use permits, for variances, uh, subdivisions, and we'll talk about the subdivisions at the next public hearing. Um, so we had to revise a lot of the processes. We had to revise the zoning administrator duties. Um, the appeals process, we revised that to comply with M Lupa. Um the variance process again modified with regard to the conditional use permit process. Again we modified that to conform to M loopa. Um there's sections of that that um we're going to have to modify again in about a year because when um M loopa was was adopted and it was amended this last May. Um there's a section in there that talks about the process and when property owners are notified and how they're notified that sunsets um on June 30th, 2027. And so based on

state law, we'll have to remove some portions of this and do a revision. Um we did add some additional review criteria specifically when it um with regard to traffic impacts and some other impacts just to make that more robust process so when we review those things that we have more criteria in which to review a conditional use permit. Um the non-conforming use portion was also amended. Um that's per Senate Bill 214. Um if there's some ambiguity in the code with regard to a non-conforming use and we have to always um rule in favor of the non-conforming use being okay. Um and then we added some additional definitions. Um you know removing our references to growth policy, adding a definition for community plan. um we added a new definition for change of use and we improved our definition of open space. So that's the majority of the amendments that we brought forward and um there's a list of findings that support those things. Um on April 29th and May 5th um we had public hearings before the Whitefish Planning Commission. Um at the hearing on May 5th, um there was several motions that they made to do some um amendments. Um one of the amendments was moving uh personal services, professional offices, and art galleries from the permitted use category to the conditional use category in the WR4 zoning district. Um they did not move to change that in the WR3 or other arterials. Again, those things are all things that we do permit on arterials. Um there's some other minor changes to the um 60 foot height definition that clarify that. Um there was an addition made about um conditional use permits and um utilities and concurrency being in concert with phases of the project. Um just to clarify some things related to some public comment. Um we also had to delete references to manufactured

home subdivisions. like there's a state law that um forces us to treat all manufactured homes um like we do any other residential home. And we did do some amendments a year or two ago that um talked about manufactured homes and how we treat them. But um there was some additional language in there that somehow we missed that just in the different zoning districts that required a conditional use for manufactured um home subdivisions. Um and then um again some of the stuff to the parking, we had some references about parking for daycare facilities that um needed to be fixed. So the planning commission did unanimously recommend an approval. Staff does support the changes that were made by the planning commission and we do recommend approval of the zoning changes as drafted.

Thanks Dave. Any questions for Director Jeppi?

If you would uh be patient with me. 11. That was a very exciting read by the way. I dreamed about title 11 for so many nights. Um it's around seven to 10 points. Uh first of all, let's start top down. Dave, right now you are the director of planning and building department. At the same time, under the eyes of our code, what are you? Are you the planning administrator or are you the zoning administrator? I know there is a a point in the document that says uh the zoning administrator from now on also planning administrator. Just to keep it simple, can we just call you you today? Uh uh whoever it is after you retire uh one way only instead of confusing between planning administrator and zoning administrator.

That's a great question. Um, you know, our code is always called out a zoning administrator in there. Many communities have a zoning administrator that's under the planning director. So, they have a planning director and the zoning administrator handles the zoning stuff. Um, so it's not necessarily the same position. Under Mal Lupa, they call it a planning administrator. So, it's basically um my job. And so, um, we left both of those terms in there just for flexibility. We don't have to go back through the whole zoning code and change all references to zoning administrator. Um and so we just basically added in a definition saying planning administrator also means the zoning administrator.

Gotcha. So on page 53 and on uh there is this change. The other the other thing I see is and again I'm always concerned when we do worse meeting that we accidentally put something that is knee-jerky. Not willingly but it happens. So uh and and you know being respectful to inclusiveness uh you and you have his uh uh his assistant once and then a bunch of times you have his and her uh so you could be her. Um I'm wondering if it doesn't warrant a fix there. That's

yeah I mean we tried to get rid of those things but you know there was a lot of text that we had to pull together in a short amount of time. So not all that stuff got caught but

okay that was page 53 and um uh and again at 1173 you become the planning administrator and his assistant. Page 67 you mentioned about this but I would like to be sure we understand it that's that was the last place where manufacturing manufactured houses appeared and then they disappeared and they never appear again. So can you you covered it very quickly. Can you explain again the logic and the reason why I think tiny houses I know it's not manufacturing houses but can you explain the logic why that kind of development disappears from all of our code.

Correct. Um so yeah you know we look at I mean manufactured home has changed definitions over the years. It used to kind of mean like a um like a mobile home, but there's there's a lot of manufactured homes that are made offsite and they're built to modern building code standards. And so um you're able to put them on a permanent foundation on a site. And we treat them under our building code the same as any other type of development. And that's state law requires us to do that. And that was one of the things that um you know, we had to modify that. And so, um, a couple years ago, we changed our definitions of that to make it consistent with state law, but, um, somehow we missed some references to that throughout the zoning code. And so, that's just we're trying to clean that up and take out references to manufactured home because we treat them the same as any other home.

So, if is it same as factorybuilt home? Potentially. Yes. Potentially. I mean when people but so we also define like mobile homes and the there's classes of mobile homes and manufactured homes. So under our definitions. So um and those are treated you know they're allowed in trailer parks but you can if you put a mobile home if it's built to a certain standard on a permanent foundation then we have to treat it just like we would any other house.

Gotcha. Can I continue? It's another three or four. Okay. Um All right. So page 54 and 143 and other pages we refer to the growth policy as community plan but in page 104 and on it becomes the land use plan. Now in legal documents I'm adamant about definitions like you mentioned. So which one is which or which one is it and where is it defined?

Yep. So that's why we added some definitions at the end to clarify that because the state calls it a land use plan. We're calling ours a community plan. Um and so as we adopted it, it's called the Whitefish Vision Whitefish 2045 community plan, not land use plan because we felt that our plan was more than just land use. We cover all sorts of other areas. And so um just from a semantics standpoint, that's why at the end of this we added some um additional um definitions that said land use plan and we talked about the community plan and C definition of community plan and we have a definition of community plan in there. So, um, you know, it's not always easy to be, you know, we want to try to when stuff references state law or things that are required under state law, that's when we typically call it a land use plan. But, um, you know, it wouldn't have made a big difference to call it all community plan, but um, I think it's called differently under the subdivision regulations as well. So, there's there's a lot of references to that through there. And there's a lot of references to the growth policy in there, and I don't know if we caught all of them, but we tried to catch as many as we could. I I thought that you started calling land use plan when you started uh discussing the PUD process. So I I was trying to understand if because it's a PUB hence it's zoning overlay

you changed the reference from gross policy but it's not it's just random the sometimes it's called one way but it's the same thing. Yep.

Okay. By the way, I'd like to recognize we have a senator in the house. And the reason I've been dreaming this stuff is also because of your bill. So, thank you very much. Um, let's continue. Oh, this was interesting. So, page 74 of our packet. Why are we talking about marijuana and and formula in the same line? Um there are formula businesses that sell marijuana that are like national chains. So

but why doesn't the formula uh come and apply to other types of business but it's just called out for marijuana? I'm trying to understand the logic. Well, just to make sure that if because there's a restriction on formula businesses and so um I mean I don't know if it's necessary but um we just added that word. All we changed in there is adding that word including to clarify that. Yeah, this is what it says. I'm sure you all have seen this, but uh marijuana sales as administrative coop was deleted and then marijuana sales including formula businesses the word including was added but for instance um why don't we say restaurants including formula restaurants

so well previously marijuana sales was an administrative cup right but formula businesses or were a full cup and so marijuana sales formula business were a full cup under the old code. We took the administrative cup out and that's one of the only things that was administrative cup that we didn't um move into the permitted uses. So we still felt it was necessary to do a full conditional use permit when one of those came in. Um and so we're just we were just combining those two things so that if marijuana sales and if it's a formula business, it's the same thing. We probably I mean we just wanted to clarify that you know you probably don't need that about the formula business because we already require that for formula businesses but that was the intent. So

all right thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you councel. Thank you Dave. Thank you Jeppi. Further questions? We'll start with Ben. I think I just got one for now. Um, it is my understanding in speaking with Dave before this meeting that this is essentially a a band-aid fix and that we will be revisiting a more comprehensive update of the zoning text later this year. Is that that's correct.

Could you talk us through really quick what the timeline and process will be for that more final zoning rewrite? Yeah. So, I mean, as soon as we get this um on the books and we can start looking at other things, we're going to be putting out a request for proposals um for some um another planning firm to assist us with the second phase of this, which is basically making our zoning code consistent with our vision white fish 2045 land use plan and the place type maps. Um we introduced some new stuff that's much more of a form-based code um in the in the growth policy update. And so we're going to be looking at um a lot of our different zoning districts and basically going through and doing a a code audit for our code and trying to bring that all into compliance. One of the things we're going to also look at is a unified development code where our subdivision regulations and our zoning regulations are um combined together. Boseman does that, Missoula does that, a lot of communities do that. Um so there's a lot of facets to that. One of them will be looking at um some, you know, looking at the downtown and the different zoning districts there. um the R2 zone and the R4 zone um are going to have to be split up in different ways and um different types of development requirements for those different zones. Um there's some language in the in the um Vision White Fish 2045 about um having some um character standards developed so that people can't um consolidate a bunch of lots and build really big buildings in some of those areas that are historic neighborhoods. So all that stuff's going to have to be developed and um worked out. And so that process um I think you know the RFP thing will start this summer. We'll probably get somebody on board um towards the middle end of the summer and it's going to be a process that's going to go through the fall. Um you know it's kind of as long as it takes but we're going to you know be expedited with the help of a a consultant.

So our expectation tonight is whatever we do here will be in effect for something like six months. Yep. You know a lot of some of the things will be the same like the process but um we're going to have um a much more Yeah. robust changes that are coming as far as implementing vision white fish 245. And and the last question on that would be is your expectation that what will come back later this year is that more edits of what we have or are we talking about rewriting the entire thing? And

I think we're looking at a a major revision of how the code's organized and it's going to, you know, hopefully be a lot more visual. Um, you know, if you want an example, take a good look at Missoula's code or Boseman's code because that's what we're that was kind of the model and what we're aiming for. And it's a just a lot more visual document. Um, a lot more diagrams, things like that. Sure. And so if I have some big picture things that did not get incorporated in this, I don't need to worry about that because that's really

start this before the v, you know, community whitefish the community, you know, the growth policy was adopted and you know just went into effect April 20th and we had to have this on April 29th to the planning commission. So, um there's a lot of things that we there's no way we could have implemented out of there. I we did what we could knowing some things that were coming, but um a couple little things, but in general, yeah, all the majority of that document, which you know has some significant changes to how we look at our zoning, we're going to be vetted out through that that process and we'll have public hearings and um all the stuff involved like we normally do. Okay. Thank you. Additional questions for Dave. Rebecca.

Yeah, I just um I asked Dave a lot of questions today already, so I feel pretty comfortable passing this through. I just one thing I just want to mention is Dave did work in an architectural firm before I became a planner. And I think that has a relevance given we we're losing some oversight of that. Um, and oh, I don't really have much more to change tonight. Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca. Further questions for our planning director? Dave, I had a a couple. Um, you mentioned the plan, the development board moved professional services, art galleries, and I forget there was one other use back to a CUP. Correct.

And that's the recommendation in the staff report. Yeah, I mean that's what the the planning commission did that just for the R4 zone. Um, you know, that's what it is currently. So, it's not changing what we're currently doing with that. Um, it's an administrative CUP and this process will be administrative. Um, you know, I'm not entirely sure why we would treat it in the R4 differently than we do in the R3 district, which is further from downtown, but I mean, I really don't care either way. It's just one one more thing that we'll have to review. But, and what and what about churches? Um, that was something we talked about in WR4.

I mean, that's something in every in all the zoning districts that we moved out of the the only one I kept it in in the conditional use was the WB3 downtown just because the impacts are so much greater in the downtown for parking and everything, but all the other districts, we created development standards for those things. So, as long as they meet those criteria, um, so downtown WB3, it's still conditional. Correct.

Okay. I'm just reminded of the Fresh Life Church application and in the interim before we formally adopt what will be what we adopt in October, how can we deal with downtown height restrictions? And and the reason I asked that is for 17 years now, we've been talking about a downtown overlay zone. And what's the status of that? Would it be more protective to preclude state law allowing for 60 foot heights on buildings or or what can we do in the interim? You're talking about between now and October 1st. Yes. Yeah. I mean,

and and in general,

I mean, it's just because of the the tight timeline on this, that's why we include it in this. I mean, I guess you could put a clause on there on that those three sections in those three different zones where they're added that that's not effective till October 1st. Um, you know, I mean, the chance of someone designing a building and submitting it in those three months, I think, is pretty slim because it only applies to long-term residential, multif family, or mixed use with long-term residential above, which I don't think, you know, there's a lot of incentive to do a building that high with just those uses in there. I mean, it's possible we could see one, but I think it's highly unlikely. But, you know, adding a clause in there. I mean, you could ask Angie how to make that work. But, um, I just know that we don't have time to come back in July and do do it again with that just for that. So, I mean,

I I'd like to see some language if the council agrees on how we can mitigate that potential. I understand that you think it's a low probability that that would come forward, but it's not a risk I'm really willing to take personally, and I'd like to see some language on how we could reduce that probability.

And as far as a long-term solution, I mean, that's something we'll investigate when we start the part two of the zoning revisions. I think our hands are pretty tied um by state law and what we can do and where we can do it. um especially in the downtown because we've called it the downtown and it's part of the downtown master plan and we use the term downtown for all of it. Um we have anticipated, you know, potentially some areas within our town that would have different requirements and so we'll have to investigate the legalities of that. Um

how would the adoption, which I would hope we would have done 10 years ago of an overlay zone affect that statute? I mean, it wouldn't have affected it um unless we had a historic district under state law, you know, that had specific standards um that was registered as a historic district. That's that was the only exclusion under state law and it had to be established before that bill was adopted. And so, um you know, I mean, we don't really have a historic district, but we have some historic properties in this town. Um there's just been so many buildings that have been changed and updated over the years that we didn't really qualify. like some of the older towns in Montana that have all these brick buildings that are, you know, been around since, you know, the 1800s.

Okay. Well, I I hate to put staff on the spot, Angie, tonight, but I think before we move towards adoption, if it's the council's preference, I'd like to see some language crafted that at least mitigates the probability of 60 foot buildings in the downtown. Angie,

I mean, pardon me. You could, as Dave put, you know, a clause in there that says it's not effective until October or you can just pull it out and we'll deal with it in October. My thought is that you have a representative in this room right now and maybe maybe just maybe we we try to get something through the state that um or see if a representative or senator would be willing to carry a bill that addresses resort communities different. I've thought a lot about this. When you think about resort towns that bring a significant amount of economic um base to the state of Montana, one of the drivers of people visiting Whitefish is how our downtown looks, right? It's on every postcard. It's used in in in the media. And is there a way to look at resort towns that have a resort tax different than every other community in the state of Montana? Because the fact is with with economics and I and I just attended this round table on with other uh communities that are tourist tourism based from like Hawaii through Colorado and and there was an economist on that call and he said ask for proof where the supply will actually decrease the cost of housing and he said I've never been able to see it and he'd been an economist his whole life. Um, and so I think that there there needs to be a bigger discussion of how communities differ. You know, they they use this as a as a fixall for everything. And I I know that Whitefish isn't liked at the legislature. Um, we can see that just based on some actions, though our representatives and senators here are great. Um, but uh statewide probably not. People don't care about Whitefish. But I think that there might be something to be said about the higher the supply in communities that are resort towns, it's not going to affect the price of housing. You're just going to get more luxury homes. Will that get through? Probably not. But I think it's a step that we should at least try as a

community to see if that's an opportunity that we have. Um, but as Angie and I had discussed, if you don't want to put it into effect, pull it out for now and then we'll face that when it comes. And what what item is that?

I mean, it's under the WB3 zone, the WB2 zone, and the industrial zone. Um, the one only thing I'd caution you about is make sure that we, you know, we have specific language in there that it only applies to multif family and mixed use because that's how we interpret that bill. Um, you know, if we don't get it adopted by October 1st and state law kicks in, um, I don't think we could stop a building of any use that's over 60 ft without that in the code. So, that's my fear. That's why I wanted to include that language. now um specifically limiting it to the things that we feel that that bill specifically um limits it to because it's under a section on multif family and mixed use and we feel it specifically applies to that that letter that we got from um the senator out of Missoula or whatever disagreed with that but um we felt that that we could support that under state law and that we'd be willing to fight for that part of it and you know kind of see how that shakes out first before we move on to um addition restrictions, but um just personally I felt it was important to have that in place and adopted before October 1st so that we you know have ground to stand on with regard to how we interpret that.

Okay. And then more of a Did you have a question Frank? Just more of a procedural question then I'll turn it over to Frank. And I don't mean this with certainly any disrespect for you or a future planning and zoning administrator, but under these sweeping changes, what oversight will this council have on the decisions that are made by the planning director? You want to speak to that? Will pro will projects be brought to the council in a work session or vetted in any capacity before?

I mean, that's under state law. We can't, you know, the only comments that we can accept would be if there's impacts that weren't anticipated either during the creation of the zoning, during the creation of the growth policy, or um you know, already in our code. And so, um you know, every single one of these projects has an appeal process. If you have standing and you and you think there's impacts that staff didn't address, then anyone can appeal it and it would go to the planning commission and then they would make a decision. And if someone withstanding um you know didn't like that decision that could be appealed to the city council. But that the council cannot appeal. Yeah. I don't know about that. Does the council have standing would be my question. Well, that's that's

it would come to the council on appeal. Excuse me. That it would come to the city council first through the planning commission and then to the council. You know, something that was appealed. But that's why we're, you know, part of this process and the oversight is that we would put the standards in place. now. And so, you know, one of the things we want to do is update our engineering standards so that we can address traffic impacts. Um, we're adding additional language in the code so that there's much more, you know, stringent criteria to evaluate projects. You know, trust me, I would like a reasons why to deny projects because of impacts that we can't anticipate, right? There's projects that aren't going to be good. So,

so are the is the is the are the is the process for updating our development standards on a parallel track to October one. Well, I mean, we've added a bunch of development standards for things like hotels and, you know, gas stations and things like that in the code already and part of this process. Yep. Um, and we're going to be looking even further and deeper when we do our zoning code update. But, you know, I don't think that's going to be in place by October 1st. So, you know, that's the process. I'll be starting probably in September, October, and probably last, you know, through the early part of the winter. Okay. Or however long it takes to get through the plan commission, put it that way.

Yeah. Thanks, Dave. I appreciate it. Um, I saw Steve, you had your hand up and then Rebecca. Well, I just I just wanted to reiterate that I think this council made it pretty clear that we're not uh when we added the language back into the community plan or the land use plan, whatever we're calling it, seems like we're calling it several different things, um that we were not interested in um in having 60 foot buildings in our downtown core. And so whatever language or whatever process we need to go through to to make that happen in this even in this step which is I think what you were getting at um John I think we need to we need to take that seriously. We need to make that happen at this step. Um, I appreciate the fact, Dave, that you put it in there that, you know, there are very strict regulations on what you can do in a 60-oot building, but there is nobody in this room that thinks it's a good idea to have 60-foot buildings that are all residential with no parking in our downtown. That that somehow is going to reduce the price of housing in Whitefish. And I think the state legislature needs to take that very seriously. And I and I would hope Dave that Fern, Mr. Fern, thank you for coming tonight, that you can take that back to the state legislature and say, "Hey, these are unintended consequences of this bill that you guys rammed through. Um because it's infuriating sitting here trying to figure out how do we how do we protect the economic engine that fuels everything in this town which is our downtown. It's one street. It's two blocks or three blocks. And there is absolutely no reason to have 60oot buildings there for any purpose. It needs to remain what it is. Uh if you

look on any look on look on the city of Whitefish website, look on uh our sustainable um tourism website, it's all the picture of downtown. And when you see something in a magazine, it's the picture of downtown in the wintertime that um that Brian Shot took probably, I don't know, 10 years ago or so. And it hasn't changed. And so whatever we have to do to protect that, I think this is this is where we have to fight. This is where we have to say enough is enough. And hopefully um you can take some of this back with you to to Helena uh next term, Dave, and say, "Hey, we got to fix we got to fix some of these things because we don't want to we can't destroy the economies of our of our resort towns because we think that this is going to help that there's a one-size allfits-all solution to our housing troubles in this state, and it's more housing at all at any cost." because that is not clearly not the answer. Are there places in our town where 60oot buildings would work? Yeah, absolutely. But our downtown is not the place. And just because we've called it downtown for so long doesn't doesn't just give it a free pass to be the 60-foot building place. And I think we can make that clear and we need to start now making it very clear with just what we're adopting tonight even to get us through to October that we need to make sure that that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot economically as a city by destroying that because uh as you said Dana that this that there is something specifically different about Whitefish and it is our downtown. So, whatever we have to do, I I I want to challenge staff to figure it out. I think I don't know that we can craft any solutions up here tonight that are going to make it stick, but we have to figure that out. Just pull it out of the adoption

tonight. Buy us some time. Further questions for staff? Rebecca, sorry about that. So Dave, um correct me if I'm wrong, but um the PL PUDs still come to council, correct? It's a zone change

and every final plat for any subdivision comes to us on the consent agenda, but we don't get to change it because by the time it comes to us, the whole document is complete. They've met all of our standards and there and everything's approved. But we legally have to send it through the mayor and approve it. But we will see every single final plat that comes through. Correct.

Yeah. Under state law, this the council signs off and usually on the consent agenda final plat, you know, a preliminary plat is when all the conditions are outlined. um all the infrastructure requirements that the city has in our code and the engineering standards, you know, the streets and the sidewalks and the street trees and the infrastructure, the water and the sewer, all that stuff has to get installed before it can come to final plat. And that's when just the plat's created and those lots, you know, become lots. And so it's after all those, it's basically a checklist of all the things that are required under, you know, state law and under the city code, you know, that they've paid their parkland dedication fees and all that stuff's been done. At that point, the plaque gets signed off. So, it's not really an opportunity for a comment on the plaid at that point. It's just did it meet all the criteria? If it did, okay, you know,

we would be unable to deny it because they've met all of our standards, but it's a formality. And then a conditional use permit will not come to us unless it's challenged. It might go to the planning commission if it's appealed. Yeah. And then it goes only to the planning commission. would go to the planning commission and then that their decision could also be appealed to the council and the council's decision is appealed to district court.

Okay. Um Okay. I just wanted to clarify that there's still there there still is oversight. It's just that our standards are changing because we're required by law to do this. So that the public participation piece of it is essentially gone for a lot of it. All right. Thank you.

And and I would just add to that again, Dave, with all due respect, that you know, this council is responsible and manages the city attorney and the city manager. And if a pattern would to arise where we don't agree with the decisions of the planning administrator, you you you have options and I'll just leave it at that. Just

so just just for the record because that we that was brought up at the planning commission. Um, the local government review commission that was elected by the city did look into the possibility of having the zoning administrator report directly to council because by charter only the city attorney and I report to the council. Um, you can give me suggestions. You can't tell me what to do and and not that I wouldn't listen to your suggestions, but by charter that's how it how it's written. Um, and the the local government review commission. Um, actually Scott Worster's here. He sat on that uh commission. We had the local government center come speak to kind of that topic and about how politicizing that position can actually be very bad. And the local government review commission did um decide um I don't know if it was unanimous or not but not to proceed with going to the voters for that change because they knew Mupa was going to come into effect. So, just to just to be clear for the public, um you know, you would probably terminate me and then that kind of sends a message, but other than that, um I think that's the that's an important part of how this is managed with a with the zoning administrator under the the city manager. So, justation,

Jeppi, Mr. Mayor, may I raise a point of order? We do have a public hearing that's been published and advertised and we're kind of straying a little far away from questions for staff at this point. I think we're seeing a lot of pontificating and I'd love to hear us all talk but I'm sure the public would like to speak also. I'm going to go ahead and allow further questions because I think they're valid. With all due respect, Andy Jeppy.

Yes. And uh I was done talking until Steve said growth policy, land use plan, whatever you call it. And that just uh triggered what we call it. And I was thinking confirm everybody here. Are we compliant or are we supposed to comply to the fact that we are required as we operate and as we uh legislate to operate with a growth policy or a city county master plan that is not older than five years? Is that a yes? Okay. So may I humble suggest and this is not coming from me. I got input from bigger people than me. Um may I suggest that we call it growth policy 2026. So when it's 202031 we remember that oh we better update this because it's called 2045. It will never get old. Um I mean somewhere in the document it must say that it's been dated 2026. We'll close with comments and questions unless there are questions.

Thank you. One question. That's okay. I just wanted to follow up on one thing I heard earlier and I was trying to find it in the text and I couldn't and you talked about the concept of standing for appeals. Could you Who has standing exactly? It's a good question. We don't know, you know. I mean, it it's part of having a brand new law. What is an agrieved party? Is it It's clear when it's the neighbor. Somebody is coming in for a CUP, the neighbor disagrees with it. Um, you know, there's Montana case law that just because you're a taxpayer doesn't necessarily give you standing. I think we're just really going to see how the law plays out.

And can we can we define that here tonight? But I mean the appeal also specifically has to be on impacts that weren't considered previously. Understood. But I a lot of these projects I mean the impact maybe community as a whole, right? And so you know just I tell you what it shouldn't be is it shouldn't be the the three land owners on on three sides or whatever. It should be some of these we're talking about big projects. There should be opportunities for I would think almost anyone to be able to to appeal a a a bad decision. Yeah. I mean, that came up today just talking with other planning directors that are dealing with this. What happens if multiple people appeal all at once,

right? You know, how do how does staff even address that? Um, you know, so yeah, it's it's an issue that all the cities that are under Maloopa are going to have to wrestle with. So, what are we what are we doing with this starting two weeks from now or tomorrow? I mean, We outline the process that was given to us by the state.

Yeah. So can can we adopt a broad view of this for the time being? Like a broad view meaning again people should be able to appeal a bad decision. I I don't know. It shouldn't just be the adjacent land owners.

Correct. Any decision. Yeah. There's a whole complicated The definition of an agrieved party according to Senate Bill 382 is a person who can demonstrate a specific personal and legal interest as distinguished from a general interest who has been or is likely to be specially and injurously affected by the decision. That's the definition we have to work with. Tell me what it is. I don't know. We'll have to when that comes to it, we're going to have to really look at that definition.

And what does that mean? I mean, I I think you could take a broad approach, and I'm not advocating for not taking a broad approach because I tend to agree with you. You know, there's going to be decisions that, you know, are going to arguably affect the community as a whole. I mean, I guess what I would caution you, and again, we're just going to have to kind of feel our way going forward, is setting precedent, right? if somebody, you know, across town doesn't like what I'm doing with my house, but they're somehow agrieved. But I think we're just gonna kind of have to feel our way.

So, is there is there language that would make sense to put in here this evening or can staff take a broader view of this for the time being until we have better guidance? Yeah, I mean the I mean the definitions but the definition is uh again I think we're just going to have the legal interest I think like Dana just said to my in my ear is um where really gets difficult, right? Because when do you have a you can argue both ways, right? Everybody has a legal interest in good planning and seeing their community develop as they see fit. whereas I think the legislature would take the view that your property value has to be affected. So I I wish I had better answers for you, but the really no case law on it yet.

I imagine there will be. Sorry, Steve. Just to follow follow up on that. Thanks for asking that question, Ben, because it was on my list. Um, so I'm just again I'm trying to figure out the process, but who who determines whether you have standing and whether that standing is enough to warrant a um an appeal? Is it does it default to you? Is it the zoning administrator who determines if they're standing? I think it would be I think it would be all of us. And I mean, I think that when somebody does appeal, I mean, we're going to have to have a process where staff can take a look at it and be like, "Well, no." But ultimately, I think it's going to fall in your guys's laps.

So, we'll determine who has standing. I think that you can determine who has standing. I think staff can take the initial shot at it. We're just going to have to see how it pans out because I don't want I would not want Dave's job to have to try to At what point does it get passed up to us to determine if somebody has standing? So we we develop we approve the zoning administrator approves a project. Yep. Somebody comes in and says I want to appeal. Somebody says I want to appeal. And then at that point that the process is triggered to come to us to say does this person have standing? It it would go to planning commission first. And I mean I I think that that's an appropriate thing for planning commission and council to decide. I don't think staff should be put

in the position of having to determine whether or not somebody has standing. It's going to be argued both ways, right? you're going to have the person that's project was denied, you know, or granted saying, "Well, of course, this person doesn't have standing because it's now affecting my project." But I think ultimately that's council's role and planning commission's role in the first instance. Okay. Thank you. Going to go ahead and turn it over to a public hearing on ordinance 26-6. Any public comments this evening on this item? Michelle, anyone online wishing to provide comments?

Those of you who are online, if you'd like to speak towards this um zone change or regulation amendment, please raise your hand.

I think we're good. We do have some folks in the audience wishing to provide comment. Richard, you were late to the game.

I'm trying to establish standing. And now I'm standing and I stood earlier and I'm still Richard Ilner on Fifth Street in Whitefish. Um, and I'm assuming that what I'm going to say is applicable to 266. And if I'm wrong, please tell me to go sit down and wait for another opportunity. So, first of all, I think you should pull um from tonight's discussion the adoption of 60-foot buildings as you mentioned earlier and and I agree with that and I encourage you to make that a more formal uh motion at some point this evening. The other is that now is the time uh once and for all uh to zone the heritage urban neighborhood place type described as O'Brien Avenue from Third Street to the Whitefish River, Luper Avenue from Third Street to Riverside Park, and Central Avenue from 4th Street to 6th Street to be reszoned from WR4 4 to WR2. Uh, this is consistent with the current and historical use of this neighborhood. The neighborhood has long been from the 1900s, the early 1900s, this was a railroad um, shotgun house neighborhood. Uh in the 2007 uh land use plan, uh it was decided that

um because of the Mountain View Manor, that whole area would be zoned as WR4 to the objection of those of us who participated in the 2007 review. Now, uh, with the current land use plan or proposed plan, there has been a carveout for the Mountain View Manor, which now allows the remainder of that area that was previously or currently uh, zoned as WR4 to be reszoned as appropriate and as expressed in the 2007 land use plan that it should be WR2. And I encourage you tonight to just let's get done with it. Pass a motion that says yes, that's what we intend to do. And and that's what we're going to suggest because I think that uh the longer you prolong this uh the more controversy there's going to be and um let's just get it done, please. Thank you.

Thanks, Richard. John I'm John Heberling 42 Crane Marsh Whitefish member of the board of citizens for bitter flathead. Now I have to remember what's in the pile. No, I think I do. Okay. First, first of all, there are five copies of the most recent comments from citizens which adopt what Richard and Chris and Rhonda will all be talking about, which is to simply change the WR4 area to WR2. Then uh there are seven copies of our earlier comments which is called 15 comments on the staff proposals. Uh that one I submitted on the 13th I think. And I also included some of the pages from the staff proposal that we are referring to but I ran out of ink. So there it's only five of the 14 pages. So that's what you have. Um this is really a lot to chew on. U 108 pages of staff proposals and plus I

heard 140 on the subdivision uh regulations which I have not read and Mary will talk about that. Uh, and I I've also heard that maybe the subdivision part is put off till next meeting. I didn't know that, but that would be a very good idea. Uh, there's just no way to get through this so quickly. And we don't have to move that quickly because there's no rush. We're already past uh the MLUPA deadlines. and Lupa uh says that um the zoning regulations, zoning text, the zoning maps all needed to be done by uh May 17th, which was yesterday. And I'll read the Mlupa part that says that um says the land use plan must include a schedule for amending the zoning regulations and zoning map. Well, that schedule is an implementation schedule and I don't think it's been done yet. So for amending the zoning regulations and zoning map to be in substantial compliance with the land use plan and future land use map in accordance with the deadline set forth at section 105 which is the May 17 26 deadline. So there is time and uh hopefully the state will be patient with Whitefish and probably other cities that are in the same same position. Um and so there is going to be some more time to consider this. So I would urge you not to try to review everything tonight. Uh then there are some staff changes which are not consistent with the land

use plan. We have pointed those out in comments and I will leave that issue to Rhonda and Chris to address. I'll just note that the statute 762304 says zoning regulations need to be made in accordance with a go a growth plan. So if the zoning regulations are not consistent with the land use plan, they should not be adopted and that's we find that in several of our comments. So we had 15 comments. Uh I won't try to uh go through all of them but on the 60-foot buildings uh we pointed out that this is not in Alupa. It's 762304. Uh the effective date is October 1st. It's not May 17th. So the staff has proposed allowing the 60oot buildings now and I guess that would be 30 days from the decision tonight. So, as of June 18th, we would be allowing 60-foot buildings, and that's simply not necessary. Uh, we suggested simply adding wherever there's a reference to 60-foot buildings in the staff proposal, say effective 101 26. So that would solve a lot of problems, but also um it might be I really agree with the the possibility of simply pulling that from tonight's discussion so that there can be more thought. Um there is three months to gain here between June 18th and say September 18th. there's a a way to make it effective October 1st in you could do it

that in several ways actually. So it would give some time to think more carefully about what we can properly do to limit 60-foot buildings and one way that's been discussed is to create a zone of light commercial. 60 foot buildings are only required or can't be prohibited in uh in heavy commercial. So make some light commercial zones. That could take care of a a lot of area especially south of downtown. uh as it is now WB2 is large areas south of downtown and that's all going to qualify for 60-foot buildings unless there's a light commercial definition and there's going to be other ways uh we we had a good discussion I heard several approaches I have some ideas of my own which uh maybe I'll share next time so um on public participation We made four suggestions. They are numbers 11, 12, 13, and 14 out of our 15 comments. Uh the first one uh is to um require public notice at the time of the initial application rather than all the way down the line past determining it's complete down to whether there's any new impacts. make it the day after the application is filed and people will have two three four weeks more to prepare to participate. So as it is the uh first notice is when the question of doing further analysis of impacts and the question of new impacts is coming up. So the planning administrator would give notice at that

time and uh so then that begins the 15-day time for comment and 15 business days is really short. And on top of that, the uh person who comments and might appeal must state all facts that they're going to use later on at trial in district court. That's that's impossible. Lawyers just don't work that fast. Even if the uh the complaining citizen who wants to enter a comment, even if they could hire a lawyer in 15 days and get him working on it, it just can't be done. So, I think that's going to be ruled a denial of due process. That's just way too short. It operates as a 15-day statute of limitations. I've never seen a statute of limitations approved by the Montana Supreme Court that is that short. I must add that I researched this probably back in the 80s or early 90s. So, I'm not current on that issue, but I did keep up with the blue sheets on all the uh their summaries of the Montana Supreme Court decisions, and I can say I never saw one that short that was approved by a court. So, uh, interestingly, if there's notice at the time of the initial application, that could help save, uh, and Lupa from being declared unconstitutional and, uh, other things uh, on the appeals, the uh, regulations state now uh, just newspaper notice and it would be very simple to add uh, website notice which Callispel is doing. Callispel is doing a project

um platform where anyone can track any project what the status is, what decisions have been made, other comments and so forth. I would suggest that for for Whitefish and I citizens will be suggesting that but I just got the uh Callispel version a couple days ago and I haven't submitted anything. So, um, there are several other things, but I think I've gotten an indication that I should relax. Thanks very much, John. Appreciate your comments tonight, Chris.

Still Chris Shustrom, still live at 504 Spokane Avenue, just like Richard lives, where he lives. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this. Uh, I was glad to hear this evening and in the past that David stated that the zoning needs to follow the adopted community plan and the land use portion of that plan and the place types in the adopted community plan. Um, so I in order to be consistent with the adopted community plan, um, I'd like to request that the zoning for the following areas that are in the heritage urban neighborhood place type um be changed from WR4 to WR2. Um these areas um has as has been stated have been um identified as miszoned um and have been identified as significant historic residential areas since well before 2007. Um for example, Spokane Avenue south of 4th Street through 6th Street was identified in the 1995 EIS as a significant historical as qualifying as a significant historical district. Um, also the area of, as Richard stated, um, O'Brien Avenue south of Third Street through to the Whitefish River. Um, Lupur Avenue south of Third Street to the Whitefish River and Central Avenue south of Fourth Street um through Sixth Street. Uh, would ask that they be changed to WR2. Um, it's appropriate. It's long overdue um to make this change. Um, and the WR4 is consistent with this place type and uh, it's an easy fix that you can do now. Um, by waiting until the fall of 2026, um, that would leave these areas in um, jeopardy of inappropriate development. Um, and there are so many questions. I mean, you don't know if someone's going

to propose a 60- foot building. You don't know if someone's going to propose uh a 19 plus unit 18 unit multifamily area in uh or development in one of these areas between now and the fall. So um I would ask you to move forward with this fix and um uh make the change. Thanks. Thank you, Chris.

Don't fall.

Good evening. Uh my name is Andrew Strong. I'm here with my wife Denise and we're homeowners at 435 Central Avenue. And uh we submitted a letter earlier today. So hopefully it's in your packet. Um I am worried about that gap in time between now and when the zoning regulations are updated. And in particular, I'm worried about WR4, uh, in particular, Central Avenue, which is really all residential with the exception of the daycare on the corner and I believe the barber shop at uh, by Sixth Street. And the reason why I'm concerned is that if you remember in 2023 when the new marijuana law came out, we had Mount Kush down on Baker Avenue and Fourth Street and we were dealing with the 500 foot rule at that point, which was this, you know, odd configuration of the door on the street is measured from 500 ft and and somehow that that was lost in the translation. Well, you fixed that afterwards, but now we have Mount Kush, which with its bright green lights at night, and thankfully, I remember council member Norton asked for the sign to be limited. But I don't want that situation to happen on Central Avenue. And I think we're particularly vulnerable now because there are three lots actually, the corner lot, the Baker House, uh the former Baker House at the corner of Central and Fifth, and then there's some other vacant lots. If we if we don't recognize that the place type designations control over the zoning regulations and I think it needs to be stated publicly and I mean I'm obviously I'm for going to WR2 that would be fantastic but I think that is going to be a tough feat to do in the time that you have to do it. I think that you do need to make a public announcement that this city council recognizes the

doctrine of consistency and the doctrine of der derivative authority which means that the place type destinations and in in particular the heritage urban neighborhood is single family duplex whereas the zoning regulations in WR4 are single family duplex triplex uh quadlex and and multifamily homes. So you have a you have a conflict between those two. Well, the doctrine of consistency would suggest that the higher level controls that we can't have decisions on building a building permit that comes in for a quadlex or forplex on Central Avenue or Lur or O'Brien should not be allowed. Um because I don't think until we get these truly fixed consistent with the desires of this council predecessors or of yours in 2007 and the growth policy. We need to we need to make sure that that doesn't happen. Um and I think it would be unfortunate to look back on that and wish we had not had done that. Um, the second issue I've asked for in our letter is that under the conditional uses, there's personal services, there's uh the art studio, um there's um professional services that are allowed um as conditional uses on Central Avenue south of Fourth Street, but it's put in the same context of Spokane Avenue, Baker Avenue between Fourth and Fifth, and Wisconsin Avenue south of Glenwood. Why is Central Avenue grouped with those other avenues? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Central Avenue south of fourth is all residential. That's very distinct from Spokane, Baker, and Wisconsin. So, we would ask

that you strike that from the conditional uses allowances. And in fact, uh, the chairman Beckham and Commissioner Bolan tried to have that done at the planning commission level. It was it was did not pass, but there was no discussion on why it didn't pass. And um, I think it's I think we are at risk and and I think it was identified earlier that you were at the pinnacle of your authority right now under Mal Lupa. This is where you have the most impact is in developing, adopting, and amending zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and the land use plan. So, this is the time to do it. It's not uh kick the can down the road um that's been happening, particularly a WR4 for the year. So, I do acknowledge and I appreciate all that you guys have done. It's not an easy task. No one's going to be happy at the end of the day or not everybody's going to be happy. Some people will be happy. But, uh, I appreciate what you've done. Uh, I know the growth policy and the community plan was a big effort and it's a step in the right direction, but now we have to close the gap. We've got to fix these zoning regulation. Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew Rhonda. And then we're going to take a quick break if council needs one.

Ronda Fitzgerald. Well, so I was going to say everything Andrew said, but not nearly as well. And um so I I just want to um second everything he said about that because it's extremely accurate that WR4 zoning has been um it was misplaced in the first place and was called out in the 2007 growth policy as a mistake and it said that the city shall correct that 2007 and it hasn't been corrected. So hopefully now's the time for that. And for sure, Central Avenue is between fourth and sixth almost entirely residential and becoming more so every day. So neighborhoods do change, but in this case of the Heritage Urban neighborhood, these neighborhoods are becoming more desirable to live in. Um, and so some of those uses that had been put in there originally were assuming a a sort of degrading neighborhood into commercial. and that's not what's going on. And so it's important to recognize that things go two ways, you know, and so just assuming that because they're small homes uh close to downtown that they should automatically uh transition to commercial is actually not accurate. So I hope that you will consider that. Um so I want to kind of focus most of my comment on the 60 foot buildings in downtown. Um, I I really hope that you're going to just take that off the table for now and try to come up with some fixes. But one thing that I might suggest is that um the idea that just because we've called it downtown means we're stuck, I think, is inaccurate. We do have a downtown business district master plan. But that encompasses several different zones. I mean, it's the B3, it's also this R4, it's R3. you know, a whole bunch of neighborhoods are in that the area that that addressed and

so we're not really stuck with that definition for that area and maybe we should call it our historic community core or something like that and really acknowledge that it is historic. Most of the buildings on Central Avenue from third north are one and twostory. I mean they are below 35 feet and the only ones that got that 45 foot bonus are the new block between third and fourth and I want to talk about that because right now B3 says that you can go to 45 ft but it's got all these caveats. You have to have a 20 foot setback and 15 feet this way and everything and it was to prevent that canyon effect so that we would maintain our facades and now that's out the window and you can't require that. So I think you should go back to 35 ft for Central Avenue and then if you get stuck with 60footers obviously anything above 35 ft would have to be residential but the 45 ft was a gift um to have these little pen houses but now you don't have that restriction anymore and no other zone allows 45 feet and the buildings that have been there are not 45 feet they're 35 feet. The only ones that go to 45 are in that new block. the two new multi-unit buildings. So, I think that that would be a real positive. Um, the B2 is 35 feet or up to 60. Every the B1 the W the and not even B1, everything in town is 35 ft. So, I think you should restore the 35 foot rule for the B3 as well. and then, you know, work on how to address our uh historic core to not destroy it because it is the economic engine of the community. And uh I'm very grateful that you guys recognize that. And uh I hope that we can come up with some creative solutions because um this this Malupa

might have been well-intentioned, but it's a very destructive uh and probably not just for our town, probably a lot of other places, too. So, thank you for the hard work. It's really complicated, I know, and uh we're all very unhappy about it, but uh we appreciate you. Thank you. Thanks, Ronda. Mary, do you guys want a break? Yes, Mary.

Please. Yep. And then we'll take a break. Rebecca,

that's all right. Um, thank you. Uh, I do have, uh, a set of comments that basically just support the comments that we've already submitted to you from individuals. There's about I'll just those are individuals that aren't here tonight that wanted you to know that they really are asking that you give serious consideration to the comments that John already presented to you here um earlier. And if it means postponing this to another night, I hope you take that time because there are a lot of important considerations there, including the changes to make sure that public participation is upheld and um amendments are adopted to the current uh zoning proposals as we've recommended. I did bring and I appreciate that Michelle attempted to copy off for you everything from the comments we had. So, do you have the copy of the Callispel um public participation and how they're changing it? I can enter that for the record, but I would I didn't have print out enough copies because I thought you might have gotten those printed out if you haven't seen it. Um these come before the city council. They were moved forward unanimously in Callisbell. They come up for a final vote um June 1st. And again, it's a way that you can implement a number of the points that we

made in our zoning comments saying that we want to recognize and enable public participation by making this information available as soon as possible. So, I'll enter this for the record and Michelle can or I can pass it out if you want me to. I'll I'll take it, Mary.

Um, finally, just one thought on the uh issue of standing. I'm wondering if in the ordinance and the resolution that you passed tonight if you could add a whereas that recognizes that this council um recognizes the rights of individuals in the community to have standing to reasonably um appeal a decision that is made. Um maybe that will at least give a way to uh kind of have a placeholder there to suggest that you recognize the standing issue is an important one. Thank you.

And I do want Thanks, Mary. Second everything that's been said about uh the changing the R4 to the R2 for the historic neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. We're going to go ahead and take a quick break and we'll reconvene at about 9:25.

I'll call this meeting back to order. Uh, is there further public comment from the audience? Scott. Um, Scott Worster, 222 Montana Avenue. Um, real quickly, that standing thing, I just don't see how that uh that statute is constitutional. Um, I think probably will fall. I know it doesn't do much good to say that here now. You know, we go through that whole process, but um it just doesn't mimic any kind of known standard I've ever seen in the law. So for what it's worth, you know, I would uh proceed as others have suggested in that regard, you know, um uh another hill to kind of hold.

Thank you, Scott.

Paul McCann, 340 Summers Avenue. Um, I just had a thought on the on this WR4 to WR2 in the downtown Heritage neighborhood over by the uh park is um it's it's and I know you're you're concerned about the values decrease in values. If you take it the lower lower the density, but I I I I'm a real estate investor. That's kind of what I do. And uh my opinion it would be it wouldn't affect the values of the property because the values are so high as this is so desirable. It's a single family neighborhood and I've seen in my neighborhood at Summers Avenue and Columbia and so forth that the uh the land values are so high for the purpose of single family if you if you have it where you can put a forplex in I don't think it's going to drive a higher value. I don't think it'd be a higher value. I know it'd be a my opinion, you know, it'd be a lower value for the surrounding areas. It affect the other neighbors, but I so that that concern I just my opinion on that one. Um, in that uh downtown Heritage neighborhood, I I don't know how it came out, but the uh the height restriction, I heard it was 35 tonight, and I thought it was lowered to 30 30 foot height restriction. They lowered it. And that's what I' I'd like to see that happen. But that gives you a full Well, Ben would have better feel than I would, but it give you a full two and a half story house. I'm afraid of this 30foot you can get up to a three-story house and then you got and then a flat roof and it just it just does not fit the character of the neighborhood which we all value. And uh thank you. Bye.

Thanks, Paul. Michelle, anyone online this evening? Anybody online who would like to speak towards the zoning text amendment? Please raise your hand. We're good. Thank you, Michelle. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back to the council for preferably a motion. Steve. Uh, I move to approve ordinance 26-06, an ordinance amending title 11 zoning regulations of the White Fish City Code. Thank you, Steve. Is there a second? I say it. Seconded by Councelor Kalabiano.

Steve, would you like to speak to your motion? I would. I'd like to make a couple changes um to uh maybe Well, I'm not sure the process here. My brain's a little foggy today. Um I don't since I have a motion to approve the whole thing, can I motion to amend uh part of it as well? Okay, we'll take those as individual

individual. Yep. So, um I would I would move to amend the building height section. And the two that I could find in this 10und and something page document um uh on packet page 80 under 11-2-4 development standards and then uh table 11-2.1- A3. I think the it was kind of blurry. Uh those were two places where it was called out. the the 60 foot building height was called out and I think um we should just remove the red text there and leave what was there in the in the first part so it would read I couldn't find the third. Do you have it?

I I'm only talking about the I'm only talking about the B2 zoning district by the way. Um or I'm sorry B3 don B3 zoning district which encompasses downtown. That's the only one that I think is at great risk of becoming a problem for us in terms of uh that's the one I that's the one that I'm worried about the most. It's just the B2 zoning B3 zoning district, excuse me. So, there are two places where that's called out and that's on page and if somebody wants to make another motion after that, that's fine. Um page 80 of the packet, there's a table that has maximum height. Uh there's some red text that uh that we can that I move to strike. And then there's a there's another table and I can't find what page that's on. There's a big table. Uh it's a it's an exhibit basically. And I'm not sure what page that's on, but there's the same text is there in that table as well that that I would like us to strike. Let's see. That's on page Uh, I think it's on page 52 of the packet.

Thanks, Steve. I'll take that as if you're That's my motion is to change those two areas. Okay. I will take that as an amendment to the consideration this evening to strike in the WB3 the 60 foot building height um sections referencing section 112-L-4 as well as exhibit/t1 11-2-1 A3 and removing the red text and referencing pages 80 and 52 of the package packet excuse me is there a second to the motion second

seconded by councelor Sweeney friendly amendment to that if it's okay with the the maker and the second that that would expire as of October 1st. Uh yes, that would well yes that would expire October 1st. That's okay with the second. That's Yeah, that works just as well. Further discussion on the friendly amendment. Ma'am, so just so I understand, you're you're only changing this for downtown. You're not changing this for other areas of town. That's what the motion is. Yes.

It feels to me like, you know, we had a lot of language in our growth policy that had has to do with how to thoughtfully integrate 60-foot buildings in our town. And it's not just downtown. It talks about how to integrate them in the B2 as an example. And I think we need to follow that. And none of that's in here, right? So this is this is a band-aid thing. And so to me it feels like we should just pull the 60 foot thing completely in my opinion for the time being and then put the thoughtful implementations in in a few months. Um rather than doing it in some areas and not others. So, I think for me, uh, I'm probably not going to support motion, not because I'm against 60 foot buildings, but because I think we should actually pull it from all those districts until we can figure it out.

May I offer a comment if I might, Frank? Um,

thank you, ma'am. Ben, I I like your thinking um as a general proposition because I don't think we have thoughtfully approached this given the band-aid situation that we're dealing with. I also kind of like the idea that we have that Annie proposed that we strike it unless we replace it with something by October 1st. So that at least if the default happens here, at least we've got something in place. And so what I would offer or or suggest is that we apply the October 1st caveat to all references in all zones to the 60oot buildings with the idea that we can then thoughtfully approach this thing over the next month or so to put in place or two months to put in place by October one what we really think is appropriate um and consistent with the law and what it again given what we've had happen with the LER neighborhood and we decided we're going to do something in 2007 that we just finally never got around to doing um I think I'd rather have us in a position where there's at least some default um should the worst happen and we not be able to get back to this. So my proposal that we amend it so that we remove all references to the 60 60 foot buildings subject to October 1, which in which case if we haven't replaced it with something then we that goes back in. Does that make sense or do you care? I I don't care if if you're changing my amendment to just applying to the WB2, I will accept that as a as an amendment. I I think that the other

Frank was alluding to both the WB3 and B2, right? Yes, that's fine. If if uh if that's uh I will accept that as a change to my friendly amendment. Is that okay with the second? Oh, yeah. Okay. It's his idea. I my personal view I'm only worried about the B2 and B3 but I mean I'm

if I can if we can get this pass subject to that I'm happy to deal with that microphone. Excuse me. I'm not close enough. I'm I why don't we just make it clean and just remove all references to 60 foot building heights throughout the all the zoning districts for now until we replace it with something in October with the o with o with with October one being the if we haven't done that these kick back in we haven't done it we don't have any choice what we won't have a choice no that's what I mean yes ma'am that's what we get

could I suggest that you just instead of striking it and then having some language that this goes in. I think it'd be easiest just to say like this is effective October 1st and then if something's not changed, it just goes into effect October 1st by striking it and then having an October 1 date reference. I think it'd be kind of confusing in the text. Um, also I think we just need to put into perspective the work that we can get done by October 1st uh to for and Dave you can speak to this but the timeline to get the stuff to the planning commission to have it come through them through council. You have two weeks to get that done to meet an October one deadline today. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, the the applications are due for the July planning board meeting on June 4th. So, that means if any someone to submit an application, they have to submit it by June 4th for us to get it on the agenda for the July 16th planning board. So, literally, we have two weeks to pull together whatever we're going to do and start the advertising and all that stuff, which is why we propose this fix now. And I agree with Dana just saying effective October 1st, 2026 on those sections on the 60 foot building that delays that implementation till then and that achieves what you guys are trying to do because I don't I don't know we're going to have a long-term fix before before that. We know when we do our update, we're going to have an opportunity to really look at the different districts. There's a whole bunch of stuff that's in the growth policy that we just adopted that's going to give us some tools to figure out how to do that, but there's no easy fix. Thanks Dave Jeppe. Yep.

Then this is my concern is that to me the critical place that where we definitely do not want 60 foot buildings is the downtown core, the WB3. That's why my initial motion was just about the WB3 because it seems like if we put our energy into fixing that by October 1st, which I think we need to do um because it's critical to our to our town. Um that if we focus on that that maybe we can get at least that part accomplished by October 1st and the rest of it hopefully I don't know if it's going to make sense to do it all at once. I don't know. But that that is the critical piece is that we want that want to make sure that that's not at risk is the downtown. So there there was a friendly amendment made and seconded which only included the WB3. Is the first and the second comfortable with adding the WB2 into the motion and setting the effective date as October 1, 2026?

Yes, I am. That's fine. That's fine. the council comfortable with that? Rebecca, so I just am curious why we're not following the staff recommendation since it seems to be a lot simpler than what you guys are proposing. I just um if we just put a deadline on it. I mean well

well here's what happens Rebecca is that the reason we are following staff's recommendation to simply put uh not for all the 660 foot buildings we are not going to be effective until October 1. So we're going to make that okay now I think I agree with Steve that I would really like to get to the permanent fix with respect to the B2 uh downtown between now and October one

or the B excuse me the B3 between now and October one. And I think if we focus that attention to that specific area, we can probably get that done. Uh we may not be able to get it done for the other areas given the nuances that are involved. But I think what we are doing or the motion does in fact incorporate staff's recommendation that we simply say with respect to the 60oot buildings none of this is effective no matter what it is until October one. Y okay. So we are taking their staff's recommendation.

Is is our motion clear enough in that direction? No. Okay. I believe I understand the motion as to in WB2 all sections that reference the 60 foot building height will be effective October one correct which includes the industrial zones as all zone all zones where that new um law applies industrial commercial downtown the one thing I would suggest and you I think if we want to work on the downtown zone for example

I can find 45 minutes at the next work session. Staff's not going to have much time to prepare for that, but you could we could use 45 minutes of the next work session if we want to. Other than that, you are booked through August on work sessions and you have backtoback weekly meetings with the budget work sessions for the next four weeks. So, awesome. Just a heads up, I think you take that 45 minutes is my suggestion and we can hear your thoughts more and maybe discuss it a little bit. But I that's why I think the I want to just make it clear and be transparent that October 1st deadline might come without any changes yet.

Well, and I I concur with Steve and I think that this particular issue is of such importance to our town and its uh economic viability, its character and everything that I just think we got to make it happen. And if it takes 45 minutes next meeting and it takes us a couple of extra minutes or add 30 minutes to another meeting, I personally am way okay with that. This is that important an issue. I just don't think we can say, "Oh, we'll get to that later." I I I really believe that this is a bet your town, bet your community issue that we just have to get right. That's my view.

Further comments on the motion? All those in favor please raise your hand as amended. Those opposed like sign. Is that I'm against against just this amendment not the original. This is for the amendment. Correct. So the vote passes with five to one with Jeppi Kalabiano voting in opposition which brings us back to the original motion on ordinance 26-6. All those in favor please raise your hand. The original motion. The original A motion as amended. To approve. But now to approve. As amended. As amended. Yes. So we just voted on the amendment. Now we're voting on right

the ordinance with the amendment. Okay. Is there an opportunity to make another amendment to the ordinance before we vote on the whole? Yep. Um apologies.

Okay. I would before we take the vote on that, I would like to make a motion that we change um and that we reszone the O'Brien Avenue from third uh from O'Brien Avenue from Third Street uh south to Whitefish River, Lur Avenue from Third Street South to Riverside Park, Central Avenue from 4th Street to 6th Street, including the two parcels south of the Mountain View Manor addressed as 102 2 and 104 Fifth Street from WR4 to WR2 consistent with the place type that's been assigned to those areas and consistent with the obl or the obligation that this or that a prior council took in 2007 to change the zoning for that area from WR4 to WR2.

Is there a second to the motion? Rebecca, is it legal to down zone? Um, and if we proceeded with this tonight without noticing all affected parties, how would that um impair us as a city? Yes, it is legal to down zone. Um, my concern is that you have not um noticed

the parties. You know, that's why when we do zoning changes to a zone, it requires 15 days notice to the parties. And you know, although the majority of the neighborhood may want that zone change, there might be people that don't. So, I think at this point you guys are kind of lacking in the notice department, you know, and not saying that going forward we can't do that, but we need to make sure that we're doing it in a way that's procedurally correct. And I have a second question for Dave or Angie. There is another mechanism for doing this which is not I don't know if it's called a neighborhood plan but it be involves a citizens initiative um which Callispel Avenue has done and city beach area has done and um do we have a formal way of for people to do that? Yeah, according to the code, uh, you have to have a petition with 65% of the land area to be included in the application has to agree to do it and then that neighborhood can bring in. That's what Callispell Avenue did and was able to successfully change their neighborhood from R4 to R2. So that's mediated way to do it. Although we are going to look at that and try to do it when we do all these other major amendments.

Okay. And we can look at this in the future though, right? One last call. Is there a second to the amendment? That motion does fail on lack of a second, which brings us back to the original motion to adopt ordinance 26-6 as amended. Further discussion. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And those opposed like sign. And that motion does carry unanimously. Which brings us on to item 6B

which will be ordinance 26-7 amend 7 amending title 12 subdivision regulations of whitefish city co wb 26-01 and this will be on a first reading. Dave

um good evening again. So this is part two um of the M loopa requirements. This is the subdivision chapter um that were passed by the Montana State Legislature and signed by the governor in 2023 and 2025. Um so overview of the major changes in the ordinance. Um in the past we had multiple different platypes. Um we had administrative minor preliminary plat, we had a minor preliminary plat, an expedited preliminary plat and a major preliminary plat. Now we just have preliminary plat. all those subtypes go away. Um, and it just M loopa only allows a preliminary plat and a final plat process. So, that's being changed. Um, the variance, appeals, violation, and penalties section um used to have their own section and now we're referencing the zoning chapters on those things because um rather than being repetitive. Um, in the past there was a five working day element review. It's now it's a 15-day review for sufficiency. Um, and then under Mlupa, there's a 20 business day review of the complete application to make sure it's complete. Um, similar to the zoning for like a conditional use permit. Um, there's a public process that's going to go into effect until June 30th, 2027, which is an initial review by the planning administrator subject to public comment and then a 15 business day notification to the neighbors. And then after that initial um review, the planning administrator makes a final decision which is then appealable to the planning commission which is appealable to the council and on to district court. Um, similar to the other zoning reviews, we put a sign on the property. Um, we also have a city um, current land use website that we use for all of our things, but we'll be using those for our conditional

use permits, variances, and any other thing that's going before the city. Um, all you have to do is go to that current land use page. Um, and you can see the projects that are we're working on. We'll continue to do that. But we did not put that in the in the codification um just because you know some it's one of those things that we're doing as part of our public participation plan and we'll continue to do but it's not codified. Um currently preliminary plats are valid for three years under M loopa. They're valid for up to five years. Um final plats are the same. Again, this is Rebecca I think brought this up that that's when they go to council for signature on the myar. At that point, all the infrastructure has been installed um on that project and that's as long as it meets that criteria. It's really just a checklist. Um it's a reminder that city council will see planned unit developments that include subdivisions. Um so if it's a plan unit development with a subdivision, that's something that will become before the planning commission and the council. Um, we amended some stuff in the design standards, mostly updating references and code sections. There's some clarifying language about parkland dedication. Um, we added a section on street and roads about traffic impact study evaluation and mitigation measures. Um, there's a bunch of stuff on subdivision exemptions that we um changed and simplified. Then we had to add definitions in the subdivision regulations for community plan, planning administrator, planning commission, um, and deleted references to the community development board, growth policy, major, minor subdivisions, subdivision administrator. Um, then we just did some housekeeping things where we removed reference to the Montana subdivision planning act, change that to the Montana Land Use Planning Act. Um, and then just some other minor things, housekeeping matters. Um, in general,

um, all the findings support those changes. We did bring that to the planning commission. Um, on both April 29th and May 5th. Um, no one from the public spoke specifically on the subdivision ordinance. Um, there was a couple minor changes that the planning commission did. Uh, there was a typo on one page. Um, we assigned some stuff in a sentence and then we removed a an old reference to Lost Lake and changed that to Lost Lon Lake. Um, other than that, the plan commission unanimously recommended approval and staff does too. Thanks, Dave. Any questions for our planning director on the staff report? Not. Frank,

is is this where we need to be talking about um our uh notice to uh the public about land use applications? And I mean and the idea that we talked about earlier of who's an interested party or who's um is this one

interested parties has to do with appeals. I mean we you know we're we're not changing what we've been doing in the past with regard to subdivisions as far as the notification method. Um you know M Lupa does outline when we notify and again it's a process um for the next year that we you know on initial application um we notify everybody um within 150 ft. Um after um June 30th of next year um we only notify if there's impacts on that subdivision that we didn't anticipate or we think that there's going to be an issue on. Um, that's the whole point of M Lupa was, you know, if the zoning, you know, allows oneacre lots and it's they want to, you know, they have 10 acres and they want to put 10 1acre lots in there and they can meet all of our other requirements. Um, in general, you know, we're supposed to approve it or put conditions on it or figure out, you know, whether or not it's appropriate or not. But,

I mean, I hear what you're saying, Dave, and I and I appreciate that. I mean, we've got a little bit of a pro. We got a problem now, but then after June of next year, we got a real problem in terms of the public's ability to even know what's going on. And what I'm my question to us tonight is at what point and where do we take the opportunity to explain this city's position on who an interested party is, who an affected party's going to be, and where do we put that and when do we need to be um getting that articulated? I mean I notice has been an issue for me going back to my days on the planning board where we expanded where we were sending notices and who we were sending notices to this this is an important issue. So what I'm asking you is

yeah I mean when and where as far as notifying the neighbors you know I mean we are limited by state law of how when we do it and how we do it. Um, but you know, we now we put a notice in the paper. We put a a sign on the property and then we have our current land use website that's available for anybody to look at to see any project on. Um, but we are right now we're only noticing people within 150 ft. That's how we've been doing it since 1982. I got it.

When we could expand that, if you guys wanted to go to 300 like the conditional use permits, you certainly have that option. There's nothing that limits us from noticing more. However, we after a certain point, we can only notice under certain criteria. And when it comes to appeals, that's state law dictates that. While we can have a broad interpretation of what that means, um, you know, legally, we're kind of bound with how what state law determines an interested party is or someone that has standing. Um, but, you know, we'll try to air on a broad interpretation of that. But it is what it is. when it comes to the portal and noticing and how are we doing that? That's our public participation plan that the council adopts. So, it's not within the subdivision regulations. My understanding that it's the public participation plan, which is what Callispel just updated, and we did update ours as well,

but okay. Yeah. What I'm getting at, Dana, and I I I think you know where I'm going. The appeal is limited to people uh that have a standing undefined, that have a legal interest, undefined. Um we're in operations that

harmed people. I mean, what I'm trying to get to is where and when do we want to at least express this community's interest in what we think an affected party is and an interest party and who has standing. So, where do we do that? Just trying to figure out where that goes. Okay. Yeah, I would think and it could be meaning it could be in definitions as well. We could we could define I think what an agreement need to add to the

what I'm asking is and I I understand what we're with the time constraint we're under now and we're going to be visiting this in the next month or two again. I get all of that. What I'm asking for is tell me when and where we need to do that and I'll shut up and vote on this thing. But that's what I really want to know. I think when the probably the appropriate time is is when we go through I guess the big overhaul. But Frank, I think what you're asking is where do we define what an in agreved party is in our definitions. Okay. And we do that when as we go through this in the next couple as we work as we muddle our way through. Yes. Okay.

No. And and I think that's probably where it's, you know, it should land because it's referred to in both the subdivision and the zoning. So I think just in the general definitions is priority would include that. I I got I got my I got my task. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize. Thanks, Angie. Thanks, Frank. Further questions for staff. We did advertise for a public hearing on what will be ordinance 26-7 and we'll hold that public hearing now. any public comment this evening and I am going to limit comment to three minutes because it's getting late and we need to get through our business.

Just a quick point of order and I know this is backtracking but when you guys adopted the zoning regulations, no one brought up these changes to the parking that I said suggested on the table. So we might need to address that to meet stay bring it up when we're done.

Thanks Dave Mary. Merry Flower Citizens for a Better Flathead. I do have to say that um it's pretty frustrating to have given you guys some very specific um comments that have not been discussed um here publicly. And again, uh, you should have our subdivision comments which were very specific. Um, and I think part of meaningful public participation is to know that you have uh gone through those and considered them and there's no indication here that that has been done. M Mary, with all due respect, we're under some very tight time frames that were imposed on us by the state and to receive this information the day of the meeting is very difficult for us to digest.

Um it was emailed to you earlier. It was in your pack packet. We made a couple of changes to the zoning five days ago. Y um I just state that with all due respect. Yeah.

Yeah. And all due respect public is struggling too and I don't think it Yeah. Anyway, um we have made some very specific suggestions in here uh to address Frank what you were just raising about uh how to insert into here uh under number two. Do you need me to pass this out again or do you guys have it? Okay. Um, I've got copies if you want them. So under this 15day, we're suggesting that if you go to title 12, section 1223, that you amend it to say the planning department shall maintain an online publicly accessessible subdivision tracking portal. It would be similar for zoning, but you didn't discuss that. uh within two business days of an application being deemed complete, all maps, infrastructure plan, and layout designs be uploaded to the portal. The strict 15 b business day appeal window under title 1117 shall not com commence until the date of the official publication on this portal. That's a way to protect the public's right. Um a specific section that you can't amend. Um, we're also proposing that you uh cross reference title 12 to include the following requirement. In addition to standard newspaper publication notice, any pending administrative subdivision decision or layout must be explicitly posted physically on the project site, published in the city's main landing web page, and transmitted

electronically to all residents and neighborhood groups registered within an automatic 300 foot notification. Uh again, there are specific things that you can do. If you can't do them tonight, I agree it's late. Let's postpone this, table it, and move it to your next uh hearing. Um I am concerned that um that the subdivision evaluations are being weakened to require compliance only with general abstract goals and not the whole whatever you're going to call it community plan growth policy. Um and again I think you need to amend section 12 section two 4C5 and strike the goals and objections and in place it with the following language proposed subdivision layout must strictly conform to the explicit geographic boundaries maximum drilling unit caps and specific dimensional parameters as set forth in the place type descriptions of the adopted white fish growth policy. Again, I know you're thinking you're going to do this later on when you do your zoning. We've got 6 months or a lot longer before that gets done. Let's make these amendments tonight and uh protect the public's right and notice. and also an infrastructure. Infrastructure should be and we provide you a specific um amendment there. Uh that all requirements for infrastructure is not a phased decision. It's always been to have your concurrency to have your infrastructure in place and we

would like to see that clarified here. It's been changed under these new regulations and we don't think it supports the will and the intent of the public. Thank you. Thanks very much, Mary. Further public comment this evening? Michelle, anyone online? I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back to the council for a motion. Preferably, one way or the other. Ben,

I would move to approve ordinance 26-07, an ordinance amending title 12 sub division regulations of the Whitefish City Code um as presented. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Fury. Further discussion?

Rebecca. Um, just to reassure the public, just because we don't speak to something that's been submitted to us doesn't mean that we haven't read it and integrated it. Um, and confirm things with staff while we prepare for these meetings. So, um, we do appreciate the feedback, but sometimes because of the timeliness of things, we just don't address all the, uh, con customer concerns. Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca. Further comments? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign. And that motion carries unanimously for ordinance 26-7, which does bring us on to our final public hearing of the evening, which will be resolution 26-12 denying an application for a tax exemp exemption and tax rate reduction for the remodeling, reconstruction, or expansion of existing buildings or structures with respect to 1550 W West Lake Shore Drive.

Good. Good evening, mayor and council. Um, so this is a first for me at the city. Um, the 12 years I've been here, uh, we received a, uh, request, an application for a tax exemption and tax rate reduction for 1550 West Lakeshore Drive. Um, the Montana law provides an opportunity for property tax benefits during the construction period in the um, four years uh, following construction for a total of five years. uh that could apply should the local governing body approve those uh tax rates. Montana law estimates or or provides a recommendation of 0% during the construction period, 20% for the first year following construction, 40% 60% 80% and then 100% by the fifth year. Um any local governing body can modify those percentages for the first year following construction through the fourth year following construction, but cannot modify the fifth year. So they're saying 0% construction period um and then 100% by the fifth year following construction. That's required by state law. Whatever changes you do make, you have to apply them consistently. Um so one of the the important points of this is the Montana Department of Revenue has to determine that the taxable value of this project will increase by at least 2 and a half%. for this property specifically. The Department of Revenue um as you can tell by the application, they they completed the section um that says yes, it will increase 2.5% but then the comments said unsure due to possible tax rate changes will not be for 2026. So I emailed them and and confirmed does can you definitively tell me that this taxable value will increase at least 2 and a half%. They said no they cannot. So because of that, staff is recommending denial. We wanted to make sure to take this through the full process that you take action on it one way or the other as required by state law. And so you have the resolution in

the packet. Um, interesting enough, this is just on the additional taxable value, not the full taxable value of the property. So just the the amount that it increases, but it would affect only the city's mills and the school district mills. So, uh, if the property was in the county, it would only affect the county mills that they approve. So, it is specific to each jurisdiction. So, um, if the property is in the county, it would have been a county decision. So, with that, um, based on the 2 and a half% not being met, uh, staff is recommending denial of the request, um, and the city council approving the resolution in the packet. I'm happy to answer questions. This was a new area for us. and all of your faces. That's kind of what I look like, too.

Yeah. Just adopt it. No, any questions for Dana on her staff report? What is the purpose of this statute?

So, I think the purpose of this statute is an economic development tool and I think it could be utilized for affordable housing projects in the future potentially. My thought is um for commercial and residential this can apply. Commercial has to have at least a 5% taxable value growth or when the project is fully complete whereas residential is only two and a half percent. But I imagine this is a way to encourage redevelopment of existing buildings that are maybe dilapitated or not the highest and best use and so that you can actually provide a tax reduction for a short period of time uh while the taxable value has increased. So it it delays that share that they take on of property taxes to the fifth year essentially. I believe that's why this is in place.

So the soie I'm sorry. So the thought is that um you're going to get some added benefit later on by redeveloping a property. Correct. I think it's an encourage it encourages redevelopment and say hey you don't have to pay the full tax rate on the first five years during construction and the following four years. So that you know we want to see this project go. So, that's a way that you can maybe save that tax issue that's going to come with redeveloping a project, uh, remodeling or or rebuilding to a a higher, better use. And this was a remodel, right? This is a remodel and reconstruction. It's it's a combination. Um, and so it's not they were under construction in for part of it in December of 25, but there's also a building permit that we've also,

but it's a $2.75 million. It is. And the problem with the tax rate changes and why the Department of Revenue could not make a positive determination is because of the new homestead tax rate. So they didn't they couldn't prove that this person was a full-time resident who would then all of a sudden have a reduced tax rate. Um they also didn't know how it would affect um the 2027 reappraisal cycle that will occur. Uh how that could impact the values in the future years. So they're they they felt they could not make a determination with the tax law changes. Okay. I still don't quite So it benefits them in some way to if

if this is approved, they just So we're recommending denial, but if you instead approved it, it would benefit the property owner that they would not have to pay the full rate of tax that uh we apply. it would be like 0% during the year construction, 20% the next year and it slowly escalates to 100% of the taxes. Um, essentially what you're doing is taking, you know, way we do taxes, we have like we need X dollars spread around everybody instead of them taking on the additional burden of that growth and their value, it's paid for by other residents still and then by the fifth year they're paying the the fair share. So in this situation, uh, this is a single family home. This is it's a single family.

That's all I need to know. Thanks, Dan. That's all I need to know. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May I make a motion? Uh, we have a public hearing first. Oh, pending. No further questions, I will open the public hearing for resolution 26-12. Any comments this evening? Michelle, anyone online? Those of you who are online, if you'd like to please raise your hand if you would like to speak towards this resolution to deny. We're good. Go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back to Jeppi for a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve resolution number 26-12. I think a resolution of the city council of the city of W fish, Montana denying an application for tax exemptions and tax rate reduction for the remodeling, reconstructions or expansion of existing buildings or structures with respect to 1550 Westlake Shore Driveish. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Seconded by councelor Sweeney. Further discussion.

Yeah, I'd like to address this. I actually went and studied this. So, it's two of us at least. Um, and uh, this is one time that we are compliant to MCA and MCA cannot figure out the input to give us. So, I'm very pleased to be able to say if someone wants to appeal, they can go to the state and say, state, why don't you tell the city that our value is going to be more than 2.5%. So, I'm very comfortable uh voting for this denial.

Thank you, Jeppi. Further comments? All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign. And that motion carries. Thanks very much, Dana. It's a new one for you. Uh we'll move on to item seven, communications from our finance director, and we will consider item 7A, resolution 26-13 related to a 7,297,000 water system revenue bond through the DNRC state revolving loan program consisting of $1 million subordinate lean taxable series 2026A bond and 6,297,000 series 2020 26 bond and authorizing the issuance and fixing the terms and conditions thereof. Laney,

good evening, mayor and council. Um just um a little history on the project. We've been planning for the Southwater Storage Project um since two 2017 after contracting with consultants AE2s who provided a comprehensive review and analysis of the daily demands placed on our distribution system. They also did a preliminary analysis on storage tank sizing and site location. And their work was completed in 2025 with a plan that called for a 1 million gallon tank that would be placed at the city shop and a water line that ran along West 18th Street. This is a four-phase project as outlined in the staff memo on page 385. And phase one was as advertised for bid on January of in January of 2026. Uh, city council awarded that bid to Landmark Structures 1L LP on March 2nd, 2026, and the work is now in progress. In tonight's packet, you can see some terrific pictures of this project and the progress being made in the city's man city manager report. And the project will utilize water fund cash reserves and water impact fees as appropriate for the growth related portion of this project, but will also require a loan to complete phase one. and this project of this project to build the platform in storage tank. In 2025, staff began working with AE2s, DEEQ, DNRC, and bond council Dorsy and Whitney to prepare a water revenue bond application for the state revolving loan fund. Um, in your packet is a copy of the supplemental bond resolution authorizing the issuance of the water system revenue bond series 2026A and 2026B from the DNRC drinking water state revolving loan program. And um as um Mayor Mfeld mentioned earlier, the

series 2026A in the amount of 1 million is a loan that can be forgiven upon the timely completion of payments on the 2026b bond for $6,297,000. Phase one of the project to build the water storage tank will use $1.16 million in water impact fees and in addition to the series 2026 A&B bonds totaling $7,297,000 for a total phase 1 project cost of 8,457 million um as shown in the table on page 387 of your packet. So, there's two tables in there with um the breakdown of both phase one and phase two of this project. Phase two of this project is to install the water line along 18th Street. It will require a total of $3 million. And as um the breakout indicates, no fund no loan funds are necessary to complete this part of the project. And the cost breakout is on page 388. The supplemental bond resolution document is shown on pages 323 through 384 of your packet and describes the details of the bond such as a 20-year term and an interest rate of 2%. An administrative expense search charges and loan loss reserve charges of 0.25% each for a total of 2.5%. The series 2026A bond will have 0% interest in search charges so long as the city has proceeded diligently to completion of the 2026 project. The anticipated completion of the platform and water storage tank is June of 2027 and the completion of the water line along 18th Street is expected to be the fall of 2026. staff respectfully requests that the

city council approve the series 2026 A and B water system revenue bond resolution to fund the completion of phase one of the project. Thanks Laney very much. Any questions for Laney and her staff report Jeppi?

Yes, Laney, we haven't met on the impact feed committee for some few months. So refresh me here. Say this is finished. We have the $1 million mushroom up on top of the shop and a new development happens and some piece of land towards White Fish Marine. That development will create a differential an additional demand in services that wasn't there before and for that reason that development will be charged impact fees on the additional demand. Now say we have this that tank up there which obviously has surplus supply from what we'll need the moment it's the the ribbon is cut. Are we and just help me here. Are we planning to allocate impact fees to the future development to pay back this bond as additional demand is asked for. Do I make sense? Thank you.

I think so. Yeah, I think I would say that um the impact fees that we've already collected are um being used today. So, in this capacity, tell me if I'm wrong. Um and so the impact fees of tomorrow will be um put towards future growth related impact. So, you can use impact fees to uh pay for debt that was issued for growth that was more than what was needed. Um, we'll probably want to do we'll do an update to our water and wastewater impact fees. We're actually doing that soon and so we'll make sure that this is reviewed. Um, but I think that that did contemplate the repayment of this bond uh to support that use of the excess um availability of that ser excess supply available.

I'm happy with that, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Jeppi. Further questions on the staff report? I would entertain a motion, please. Mr. Mr. Mayor, I move to approve um that the city uh that the series 2026 water system revenue bond resolution to proceed with the completion of phase one of this project. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Norton. Further discussion?

Just a comment. I know that there are only two people in the public but hopefully someone watches this videos later and it is as our finance director rem reminded us this project started in 2016 in in terms of visioning. So this is a 10 years old project and I'm receiving letters right now about what's what's this thing that is being built at the end of 18th and I know we all have been through this but I I really would invite the public to either being involved constantly from the get-go or uh be subjected to be surprised. Thank you.

All those in favor please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign and that motion does carry unanimously. And we'll move on to item eight of our agenda, communications from our city attorney, which will be ordinance 26-8, an ordinance amending Whitefish City Code, title 2, chapter 15 of the Whitefish Planning Commission. And this will be on a first reading. Angie, please.

Good evening. Um so this is more of a housekeeping um amendment than anything and under Malupa and Lupa uh the planning commission no longer hears variances as are decided administratively. So this ordinance basically is just taking out the language in the ordinance that referred um to them making the planning commission proposing policies and making recommendations for subdivision plats. the development of uh public ways, public places, public structures and public private utilities. Um the issue of improvement location permits on platted and unplatted lands or the laying out of development of public ways and services to be plotted. I don't know that this is something that the former planning board or the planning commission has ever really done. So it also deletes um their authority to grant or deny an application for variance because again that is now administrative. One error that was caught, thank you Chris Shrom for calling this to my attention. Um is if you look down below, let's see what section is it? It is section C on the second page. that paragraph does refer to variances that should be removed and D also rever refers to variances. So again, I appreciate Chris catching that for me and calling me today. So there's really no financial impact. Um again, it's just kind of house cleaning as we're working through the Mlupa process. So staff does request that you approve the changes.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Angie. Any questions for our city attorney or can I have a motion, please? Well, just a quick question. Would the motion include removal of all of C and D? Uh, no, it would not it would just re remove the part that refers to variances. Okay, I think I can handle that. Okay, sounds good. But if I can have an amendment to that order, I would appreciate it. Can I make it all in one motion or can we? Uh, I move to approve ordinance number 26-8, uh, with the appropriate changes to items C and D. I second it. Thank you, Steve. Further discussion.

Just a comment. Since now you have less work to do, we're going to reduce your salary. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like sign, and the motion carries unanimously. You have Dana's report and closed with the packet. Any questions for our city manager? Dana, anything to report on?

I'll just report on one thing. Um, as you notice, Maria Buts, our parks and recreation director, is not here, but um, she has had an opportunity to be in Washington DC attending the National Recreation and Park Association's Hill Day. So, she's meeting with our Montana Senate state representatives and senators um, advocating for parks and funding as such. So, um, we're excited that she has the opportunity to to expand her knowledge and and look to see what DC can at least help in our our parks and recreation area. So, that is all I have.

Congrats to Maria. That's awesome. Uh, we'll move on to item 10, communications. You have two letters enclosed in your packet along with our long range planners response to one of the letters. Any comments on these correspondences? Otherwise, we'll start with councelor comments and why don't we start with Andy tonight on the left.

Um, first thing because we failed to do and I think I can do this because it's an ordinance without bringing it back to the tables a resolution. We'd have to do that, but I would make a motion that we um add to 26-06 ordinance that we just passed earlier about zoning. The staff suggested revised zoning text regarding parking in section 11-6-2. Again, that would be a motion just to include that um in the second reading. I second it. Does that require a formal motion? It would. Yeah,

it would. Okay. So, that was a motion. It was seconded by councelor Kalabiano. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign. Thanks, Andy. Dave, thanks for bringing that to our attention. Anything further, Andy? Nope. Thank you very much, Rebecca.

Yes. Um, could the the letter from the White Fish uh fire service area be attached to these minutes? Did you guys get a copy of it by chance? Would would it be possible to request it and attach it to these minutes since it came from the public? We can get a copy of that letter and um we can append it to the packet

or or in the minutes. Oh yeah, I would be in the packet. Yeah, we can hard even though it was public comment. Okay. I just thought

since we had a request for that it might be good. Um, and then, um, I I would like to bring up the issue of Pride Month. I think it's I know John brought up that we do have an NDO, but I do think it's okay to also celebrate Pride Month. Am I but I might be the only one up here that feels like we need to formally do that. So, I just wanted to bring it up to you guys whether or not you'd be open to a proclamation. I just think a lot of our LGBTQ community members have been targeted and I just love the people in my life that um are part of that community and I like them to feel supported. So if you guys don't feel that way, that's fine. But

you wouldn't be a Okay. Okay. So then do I need to make a motion to um have the I think just a showing of hands. Okay. Do you want to do that or No, it's your it's your motion. Could I have a showing of hands to show who would be in support of um declaring June as Pride Month for Whitefish Montana? Okay. How many is that? One, two. Can I make a comment? That's five, I believe. No. Can I make Yeah, normally we speak to the motion.

I find that very discriminatory towards the people who are not in those alphabet letters. As an example, I am Italian. I'm not fully white. I'm Caucasian. And I feel discriminated against if we make a proclamation that even the people who forge this acronym cannot make it comprehensive enough. proves is the fact that the number of letters to this acronym keeps increasing. So for that reason I find criminally discriminatory to the ones who not included in that acronym. For that reason I vote against it.

Okay. Thanks Jeppi for a very interesting perspective. Um moving on. Um I uh I did I was over by the Piccolo um property that burned down and there is water in there's a like a it's a divot and there's water there and I'm wondering if there is a safety issue. It's fully fenced but is it something that could breed germs or drowning or anything? Is that our responsibility now that it's been taken down? No. Okay. All right, that's all I have. Thank you so much.

Just a clarifying point, mayor. Um, I know you had a showing of five hands. Is that for a mayor proclamation or a city council proclamation? City council proclamation with Jeppi not in favor. Just for the record. So, we'll draft it as a city council proclamation. Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Ben. Andrew or excuse me, Frank

Esquire. Esquire. Yes. Um, nothing this evening. Thank you, Frank. Steve,

uh, I just want to I I think we made it clear that, um, I think it was clear from the council that addressing the WB3 zoning district first is the priority in in the in this next round. and ideally have something I mean we have to have something for October 1st for that um area. I also do want to address just this idea of our deer management plan. I'm just going to state my opinion. We can talk about it later as a council, but I think we need to move fast and aggressively for the the the population of deer that are in that live in our town now and don't ever leave our town because there is a certain population that does that. And I think those are the ones that um that we need to take care of first. And I think we need to move fast and aggressively on that. And then lastly, Jeppe, I appreciate your comments. I I also think that um Italian-Americans or people from Italy have never been marginalized like people from the LGBTQ community. And if we were sitting here 50 years ago um and we and we were declaring uh June Black History Month, um people, white people would have made the same comments and saying, and in fact, our country is even moving towards resuming that kind of discrimination uh against people because for some reason people who have been in power feel like they are now being marginalized, which they're not. And I and so I appreciate your perspective. I just hope that you can also have a perspective about what it means to be from a marginalized population like our LGBTQ community members. And I think that's why they deserve special recognition and just a special mention from our city council because it doesn't cost us or do anything to us to make that to make that acknowledgement.

Thank you, Steve Joeppi. Yes. I just wanted to put a note of uh personal um happiness I know you probably are not watching anymore, but I want to wish my wife Roxy happy birthday on Wednesday and uh this is her birthday week, so I am not forgotten and we have plans. Thank you guys.

Every night except tonight, right? Yeah. Congratulations, Roxy. Happy birthday. I have nothing further, Dana. Anything additional? I'll just say on the deer management plan, I think what we'll do is we can kind of regroup and talk about it during the budget session because I any added staff is a tax increase at this point. And so I think it's a good topic to discuss like what the budgetary impacts would be of implementing a more serious uh uh program than just the aggressive and uh damaging deer, property damaging deer. So anyways, um we'll bring that up. I think at the budget work session with PD it might be a good time to to talk about just the cost of that kind of program also. Great. Thank you.

Thanks very much Dana. Thank you council. Thank you directors. On that note have a great few weeks and we are adjourned. I do not we'll see you Tuesday for a budget work session. So yeah not a couple weeks.