Citizen Portal
Sign In

Council narrows growth‑plan language after hearing, strikes several prescriptive items and delays final adoption

Whitefish City Council · April 7, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a lengthy public hearing and staff presentations, the City Council reviewed public comments and a late letter from a state senator, voted to remove specific form‑and‑massing downtown provisions and other prescriptive sentences, added wildfire and fire‑station objectives and moved the final adoption of the Vision Whitefish 2025–2045 community plan to April 20, 2026 for a clean packet and mayoral presence.

The Whitefish City Council on April 6 held the last public hearing on the Vision Whitefish 2025–2045 community plan, heard more than a dozen public commentators on topics from wildfire mapping to septic regulations and housing, and then spent several hours debating and editing the draft plan.

Alan Tiefenbach, the city’s long‑range planner, opened clerk‑filed clarifications to the draft and explained that much of the red text in the packet marked sections staff judged controversial. He said the draft integrated a separate land‑use element into the full plan and that most changes since the last meeting were editorial or responsive to council red lines; staff flagged a few policy‑sensitive items as recommended for discussion.

Public commenters raised a range of issues. Richard Hilter urged clearer wildfire and evacuation mapping for the Wildland‑Urban Interface and noted missing evacuation routes from several hillside neighborhoods. Mary Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead urged the council to comment publicly to the county’s health board about rolled‑back septic regulations and asked that the city preserve processes for meaningful public participation. Housing advocates said the plan contains important housing language but urged more concrete implementation steps so the city treats housing like a crisis. ShelterWF’s executive director urged council to ensure the land‑use element would accommodate actual housing capacity without producing sprawl.

Council then addressed a late letter from state Senator Ellie Boldman, who cautioned that certain draft provisions might conflict with the 60‑foot entitlements in Senate Bill 243. Staff, the city attorney, and the planning consultant agreed they could remove several form‑and‑massing and subdistricting provisions to reduce legal risk while retaining the plan’s intent to allow multifamily and mixed‑use housing up to 60 feet where MLUPA requires it.

On motions from councilors, the council:

• voted to remove specific subsections in the downtown section tied to form‑based massing and to strike downtown subdistricting (identified as sections 5.1 and 5.3 in packet notation);

• voted to strike a planning‑commission‑added sentence tying fireworks use near Whitefish Lake to a post‑show toxicology sampling requirement (council retained broader environmental objectives but removed the prescriptive sentence);

• added an objective encouraging stakeholder efforts to support satellite or expanded fire stations where operationally and fiscally feasible;

• struck objectives A and B dealing with a feasibility study and prescriptive secondary‑egress commitments for Big Mountain after concerns about cost, annexation leverage and feasibility; and

• removed a proposed study that would have directed staff to prepare an annual report on the quantity of water pumped from Whitefish Lake, after Public Works and other speakers recommended it be struck.

Council also removed a paragraph and supporting criteria that would have provided a mechanism to consider limited expansion of short‑term rental zones, after staff explained annexation and resort‑expansion scenarios and councilors said the criteria risked creating a patchwork of overlay zones.

After completing the edits, councilors asked staff to produce a clean packet reflecting tonight’s changes and to return for final review and adoption at the April 20 meeting, when the mayor’s presence was requested. Staff confirmed zoning and public‑engagement work will continue in parallel; zoning changes will follow separate legal notice and hearing procedures required under state law.

The record of motions and votes is on file with the city clerk. Councilors emphasized the growth policy is a non‑regulatory, high‑level document that will drive a later zoning implementation process, and they instructed staff to align future zoning work with the plan’s revised language and to clarify where regulatory action will be required at the zoning stage.