Whitefish council hears neighborhood concerns as staff clarifies triplex confusion in Vision 2045 review
Loading...
Summary
At a March 23 public hearing on the draft Vision 2045 community plan, residents pushed the council to preserve heritage‑urban neighborhoods and demand a detailed implementation plan; staff and council agreed to return revised redlines on April 6 after several line‑by‑hands edits tonight.
The Whitefish City Council on March 23 kept its public hearing on the draft Vision 2045 community plan open and directed staff to return revised redlines at the April 6 meeting after hearing sustained public concern about neighborhood character and implementation details.
Mayor Malthod opened the session and immediately addressed what he called “misinformation” circulating about the draft: “triplexes, fourplexes were to be added to the heritage urban designation… that is not the case,” he said, adding that those uses are not designated or recommended in the updated growth policy the council was reviewing.
The clarification came before a steady stream of public comment. Mary Flowers of Citizens for Better Flathead told the council she had filed a suit against Flathead County alleging violations of the Lakeshore Protection Act at a site on Whitefish Lake and submitted a press release for the record. “We have filed a suit against Flathead County to address the violations of the Lakeshore Protection Act,” Flowers said, urging council follow‑up with county authorities. She also asked the council to insist on a clear, public implementation plan from staff before final adoption.
Alan Tiefenthal, the city’s long‑range planner, told the council staff and the planning commission had not added triplexes or quads to the heritage urban place type for the avenues neighborhood. “There was some misunderstanding that the planning commission or staff or someone had added the allowance for triplexes, quads, and or townhouses into that place type… That did not happen,” Tiefenthal said, noting a flyer circulated today sparked the email surge staff received.
Multiple residents urged protections for older, established neighborhoods. Richard Hilton presented a petition representing “41 respondents” urging that the avenues retain the heritage urban place type and recommended carve‑outs to preserve single‑family blocks near Riverside Park. Other speakers made similar appeals: John Heberling urged the council to avoid introducing mixed commercial uses into residential blocks and warned that the housing needs assessment shows roughly 2,000 units will be needed by 2045, while another longtime resident urged the council to prioritize quality of life over rapid, low‑quality growth.
Several commenters urged the council to focus housing growth in appropriate areas, use nonprofit partnerships to preserve affordability, and develop a concrete implementation plan. Concerns ranged from traffic and parking impacts near schools to compatibility of future development with historic Central Avenue properties.
Council deliberations moved into a line‑by‑line redline review. Councilor Ben led edits to the vision statement and multiple housing objectives; the council used hands votes to signal direction on several items tonight rather than adopting final text, with staff charged to carry agreed edits into a clean draft for April 6. In one recorded hands vote the council struck language that asked the city to commission “preapproved building plans” (4–1, Rebecca opposed). The council also voted to maintain current limits on the land area where short‑term rentals are allowed (the council signaled support for bolstering existing limits rather than expanding allowable districts).
On transportation, councilors removed a duplicated blanket objective to reduce vehicular speeds citywide and directed staff to keep corridor‑preservation language and to continue coordination with the Montana Department of Transportation on Highway 93 projects. In the economic/resource section councilors asked staff to preserve or annotate the underlying tourism data (members and several public commenters cited nonresident visitor spending estimates of about $1 billion to Flathead County from the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana) and asked staff to reconcile the planning‑commission and staff redline versions.
No final vote to adopt the plan occurred tonight; the public hearing remains open and the council asked staff to return a revised, annotated redline at the April 6 meeting. Mayor Malthod said the council intends to finish edits and consider adoption at that time. The meeting adjourned after councilors finished their comments.
Votes at a glance: consent agenda approved (unanimous); council struck the “preapproved building plans” language (4–1); council agreed to bolster existing limits on where short‑term rentals are permitted; multiple line‑by‑line editorial directions were taken by hands votes and will be reflected in the April 6 redline.
What happens next: Staff will prepare a clean redline incorporating tonight’s directions and return it for additional public comment and council consideration at the April 6 meeting, when the council expects to complete final edits and consider adoption of the Vision 2045 plan.
