Whitefish — At a Dec. 17 Planning Commission meeting on the Vision Whitefish 2045 housing element, city staff presented population projections, a housing inventory and the findings of a contracted housing-needs assessment, and the meeting drew more than two hours of public comment urging denser, more affordable housing and clearer implementation steps.

Alan Teperbach, a member of city planning staff who led the presentation, told the commission the draft housing element was prepared to meet the Montana Land Use Planning Act requirement to inventory existing housing, project future need and analyze constraints. "This housing element is based on two major things: our housing needs assessment and our population projections," Teperbach said during the presentation.

The staff presentation described several projection scenarios and a planning assumption that 30% of Whitefish’s total population is seasonal; using that assumption, staff said the city could need roughly 3,000–5,000 more people worth of housing over 20 years. Teperbach summarized the housing-needs outputs as a range of about 930 to 1,500 new units under differing growth scenarios and a separate target of about 500 rehabilitation units by 2035. He also said roughly 700 units are currently entitled or in the construction pipeline but not yet occupied.

The draft maps and analysis discussed zoning constraints. Teperbach said most residentially zoned lots allow only single-family or duplexes and that only limited districts allow triplexes and fourplexes "by right," while many commercial zones now allow multifamily development by right after recent state statute changes. He also told the commission the housing-needs assessment used a mix of the American Community Survey, Department of Commerce projections, a consultant market survey and a local tenant survey.

Public comment emphasized the urgency of increasing attainable housing, especially workforce and ownership opportunities. "I urge this commission to do everything possible to not just enable, but actually to incentivize dense housing and mixed-use development," said Kirsten, a Whitefish resident. Annika Egan, identified as chair of the Whitefish Housing Committee, urged the commission to "embrace housing diversity" and be "bold" in pursuing solutions.

Service-industry workers, recent graduates and students told the commission they fear never being able to return to live in Whitefish. "It's the universal opinion of students here that how they need to be built no matter what," said a student speaker. Local business owners and nonprofit housing providers also urged removing regulatory barriers and creating financing tools so smaller local builders can produce affordable units.

Speakers representing housing organizations and regional groups urged practical, implementable measures — deed-restricted units, land-trust approaches and incentives used elsewhere in Montana — rather than relying on the market alone. Cameron Dexter of Citizens for a Better Flathead, testifying online, endorsed the housing chapter and cited examples from Bozeman and Missoula where incentive programs were used to encourage affordability.

Commissioners asked staff to clarify several technical points, including how the draft calculated that a large share of renters are cost-burdened. Teperbach said the 61 percent figure cited in the chapter was derived from the housing needs assessment (which included a tenant survey), supplemented by market listing data and census-based metrics; he noted that federal guidance typically defines cost-burden as paying more than 30 percent of income for housing.

On next steps, staff said they will post a red-line (red-mark) version of the housing element that organizes goals and objectives and provides a short narrative for each goal. Teperbach said staff will not pre-incorporate public comments into the draft but will present the red-line version for commission review, and commissioners agreed the public comment period on the element will continue at the next Planning Commission meeting on Jan. 7; the full, compiled growth-policy package is expected to reach City Council in late January.

The meeting closed after additional brief remarks and a motion to adjourn.

What’s next: the Planning Commission will review a posted red-line draft before Jan. 7 and accept further public comment then; staff and commissioners indicated zoning changes, financing tools and implementation steps will be central in subsequent sessions.