Council hears hours of debate on Vision Whitefish 2045; public hearing held open for more comment
Loading...
Summary
City planners presented the Vision Whitefish 2045 community plan and defended population and housing projections while residents and advocacy groups debated mixed‑use, short‑term rentals and downtown strategy; the council voted to keep the public hearing open for additional public comment and a March 23 work session.
The Whitefish City Council spent most of its March 2 meeting on a public hearing for Resolution 26‑5, the proposed Vision Whitefish 2045 community plan, hearing a multi‑hour staff presentation and extensive public testimony before voting to keep the hearing open for more public comment and a council work session.
Alan Tiefenbach, the city’s long‑range planner, opened the presentation by describing the document as the city’s statutorily required land‑use plan under the Montana Land Use Plan Act and emphasized it is guidance rather than a regulation. He summarized a multi‑year outreach effort — postcards, utility‑bill flyers, visioning sessions, town halls and an Engage Whitefish portal — and laid out staff’s approach to population and housing projections. “We added 30% and that came up with…a range of 3,000 to 5,000 people,” Tiefenbach said, describing the inclusion of a seasonal population factor to make the projections conservative.
Why it matters: the community plan establishes the city’s vision and the framework for future zoning, subdivision rules and infrastructure investments. Several elements are closely tied to infrastructure and statutory compliance: population projections drive water and stormwater planning, housing targets determine how much capacity the city should accommodate, and the transportation and public‑facilities chapters indicate where capital upgrades will be necessary.
Key facts and figures - Staff presented a planning range of roughly 3,000–5,000 additional persons over 20 years when accounting for seasonal population (Tiefenbach). - A housing needs assessment incorporated into the plan identifies roughly 2,070 units over the next 20 years (staff presentation). - The planning commission recommended the draft to council by a 6–1 vote; staff recommended council find the elements meet MLUPA requirements and consider the commission’s edits.
Public testimony split largely along two fault lines: advocates for more permissive housing tools and those urging tighter protections for neighborhood character. Housing advocates and nonprofit groups presented polling and lived‑experience testimony in support of missing‑middle policies. Keegan (ShelterWF) cited a survey conducted for ShelterWF by Embold Research and said countywide results and a Whitefish subsample showed broad concern about affordability and majority support for infill and allowing multiple small homes on a lot; he summarized the findings as, in broad terms, “seven in 10 voters say the county does not have enough housing options.” Several speakers representing Livable Flathead, Housing Whitefish and younger residents urged the council to legalize triplexes, fourplexes and related incentives near downtown to increase supply.
Opponents and some neighborhood representatives urged caution. Don Arambula (Heart of Whitefish) suggested many of the downtown retail and mixed‑use proposals lack a market analysis and urged site‑specific strategies and city‑led projects rather than general upzoning that could erode neighborhood character. Long‑time residents and members of Citizens for Better Flathead raised concerns about short‑term rentals, septic and water‑quality protections, and the process by which some economic‑chapter language was altered in the planning commission draft.
Areas of technical dispute and council questions included which population baseline to use (Department of Commerce numbers, local growth rates or consultant modeling), the extent to which short‑term‑rental policy should remain permissive in the draft, and whether components of the economic development chapter reflected consultant findings or were more advocacy‑oriented language added at commission level.
Council action and next steps After more than two hours of public comment and presentations, Councilor Steve moved, and Councilor Caltabiano seconded, to keep the public hearing open to the March 23 meeting (and, if needed, continue to April 6). The motion carried unanimously. Staff scheduled a March 23 work session on the plan, with a written‑comments deadline for any substantial council edits ahead of an April 6 meeting packet deadline.
The council did not adopt Resolution 26‑5 on March 2; instead, the hearing remains active so council members can review additional testimony, proposed edits and implementation language before any final vote.
Quotes - Alan Tiefenbach: “It’s not a regulation… it’s our official policy meant to guide us and help us manage change for the benefit of the resident.” - Keegan (ShelterWF): “Seven in 10 voters say that the county does not have enough housing options.” - Mary Flowers (Citizens for Better Flathead): “We feel like the county has been not complying with the Lakeshore Protection Act, Public Participation Act.”
What’s next: The council will hold a work session March 23 (5:30 p.m. start), continue the public hearing in regular session that night, and may carry the hearing to April 6 for an extended work session and possible final action if directions are finalized.
