City planner outlines Whitefish 2045 growth-policy draft, planning board debate over edits

Alan Siebenbach, the city of Whitefish’s long-range planner, told the City Council on June 2 that the Whitefish 2045 update is a policy document — required under the Montana Land Use Planning Act — that sets vision, values and goals to guide future land-use regulations and programs.

"This is the growth policy or the community plan update," Siebenbach said, explaining the document’s role and the review steps taken so far, including stakeholder interviews, agency review and public outreach.

The draft, Siebenbach said, is organized into required plan elements — environment and natural resources, housing, transportation, public facilities, economic development and hazards — and includes chapters on history, demographics and a vision statement derived from community visioning sessions. He told the council the planning team has posted chapter drafts and red-lined community-development-board comments on the project website so the public can follow revisions.

Why it matters: the Montana Land Use Planning Act now requires cities above specified population thresholds to adopt growth policies and to include population projections and the statutory elements the state prescribes. Those policy choices will drive future zoning, permitting and capital programs, city staff said.

Siebenbach summarized technical issues the draft addresses: population projection options recommended by the state, demographic analysis of seasonal versus year-round residents, an economic-development analysis that found a heavy tourism concentration in local employment, water-quality and septic-leachate mapping, and a proposed approach to a future land-use map that relies on place-type (transect/form-based) concepts instead of solely use-based (Euclidean) zoning.

Contested chapter and process: a red-lined chapter produced by an outside group known as Heart of Whitefish was brought to the Community Development Board (CDB). At its May 21 work session the CDB voted 4–2 to accept the Heart of Whitefish draft chapter with a single revision; that decision drew an influx of public letters and comments asking for greater transparency and review before the version is forwarded to council.

Councilors and residents at Tuesday’s meeting debated whether the CDB’s adoption of the alternate chapter followed standard practice and whether the public had adequate notice that a substantially rewritten chapter would be considered. Multiple council members asked that any future packet sent to the council include both a "clean" assembled draft and a red-line showing all edits so councilors and the public can see what changed.

Next steps and funding: Siebenbach said the city received a state implementation grant to help complete the growth policy and associated zoning work; during the meeting staff referred to grant amounts of $390,000 and $309,000 in separate remarks. Siebenbach said that the grant is intended primarily to fund consultant assistance for preparing zoning text amendments and implementing the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA). He warned that some zoning work may not be completed by the state’s compliance deadline without outside assistance.

Council direction and consultant RFP: Several councilors said the city should issue a request for proposals for a land-use/zoning consultant to help facilitate outreach, prepare zoning language (including consideration of form-based or transect approaches), and build consensus on the future land-use map. Staff said they would draft a scope of work and that consultant expense is expected to be drawn from the state grant if allowable.

Public reaction: dozens of residents and stakeholders attended and spoke during the council’s work session and the meeting about specific language in the economic-development chapter, concerns about commercial uses in residential neighborhoods, parking, the role of short-term rentals and how the plan characterizes tourism’s benefits and costs. Speakers urged clearer documentation of public comments and cautioned against wholesale red-lining without additional public review.

Timing: Siebenbach outlined an anticipated review schedule that includes further CDB work sessions through the summer and fall, posting of revised chapters for public review, and continued agency reviews. He said some required technical inputs (water and sewer master plans) are still pending and may affect timing for the public facilities chapter.

What’s next: staff will prepare a draft scope for consultant assistance on the land-use element and return with a proposed RFP; council members requested both a clean assembled draft and a red-line version when chapters are forwarded for council review so changes are easier to evaluate.