[email protected]

FFRG MT logo
DONATE

DONATE

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

by | Oct 24, 2023 | Growth Policy 2045, Uncategorized

It would be helpful for the public to know how specifically the city and planning team will use/incorporate the public input into the Growth Policy draft.

It is very difficult for us to be “specific” about how the team will use and incorporate public feedback into the drafting of the growth policy this early in the process and only at the level of a general survey thus far.

The feedback of the public will absolutely be analyzed and considered during the process and the public can stay involved in this process step-by-step. All drafts and maps will be posted on the website and reviewed in work sessions and public hearings open to the public.

At present, we are looking at existing conditions and collecting and analyzing data. There will be community meetings held in different geographic locations throughout the City, particularly toward the second half of the project when we are focusing on land use and housing. This growth policy is a community plan for OUR community, and it is remiss for staff to bring a Plan to the decision makers, or the decision makers to adopt a plan that does not represent the values of the community.

The ways public feedback can be incorporated into the drafting of a growth policy are too numerous for us to list or even theorize on at this point. We can use it to determine what the community values, and what the community wants Whitefish to look like and not look like in the future. What is the “community character” of Whitefish and how does Whitefish change, grow and evolve over the next 20 years and retain that character? Public feedback can help us consider what is most and least important to protect, where the view corridors are, what streets are safest and least safe? Where are the constraints to emergency ingress and egress, and how can they be improved? Which areas can best handle growth, which lack the infrastructure or contain other physical constraints that inhibit growth? How should new growth and development be distributed throughout the community? How can each area accept its fair share of growth? How can development occur with the least amount of impact on the neighbors? Where are you seeing wildlife? Where are your favorite areas to walk and what do you like to see and not see? Where can goods and services be located and reduce the amount of driving necessary?

That said, the way the public can best help us is to stay involved and offer us tangible suggestions.   Recent state mandates require us to generate realistic population projections and plan for that growth. As we write the growth policy, it is our responsibility to consider the feedback of the residents, the future residents, the people who used to live here and no longer can, the housed and un-housed, the commuters, the out-of-staters, the service workers, the executives, the developers and the interest groups equally.

Vail Approves $165M Workforce Housing Project

Vail Approves $165M Workforce Housing Project

by | Jun 2, 2023 | Workforce housing

By Ali Longwell

The Vail Town Council finalized its agreement with Triumph Development earlier this month for the redevelopment of the Timber Ridge Village apartments in West Vail.

The project — with an estimated $165 million price tag — is the largest capital project that the town has ever undertaken, according to Vail Mayor Kim Langmaid. Additionally, through a unique private-public partnership model that will allow local businesses to buy into the project, it represents a new path forward for creating workforce housing.

George Ruther, the town’s housing director, said that the project and development agreement achieves the town’s goals and objectives around housing in numerous ways. First, it “seizes the housing opportunity that’s been afforded by more than doubling the number of deed-restricted homes on this property,” Ruther said.

Currently, Timber Ridge has 96 homes with approximately 196 bedrooms. As contemplated, the redevelopment would bring 288 new homes and 569 bedrooms. Within seven buildings, this would include 56 studios, 50 one-bedroom units, 102 two-bedroom units, 64 three-bedroom units and 16 four-bedroom units. The units will also be available both as for-sale and for-rent homes.

One of the project’s next successes is that 100% of these units will be deed-restricted with the town’s standard deed restriction, Ruther noted. This means that individuals must be employees in Eagle County, working a minimum of 30 hours a week and earning at least 75% of their annual income at a local business.

Additionally, with the seven buildings on site, the redevelopment really “optimizes the use of the site,” Ruther said, noting that it “prioritizes homes over parking.”

One of the ways the town is maximizing the housing opportunity on the site is through the acquisition of a parcel of land adjacent to Timber Ridge. On the southwest corner, the Colorado Department of Transportation owns an approximately half-acre parcel. In order to get a seventh building in the new development, the town is currently working with the state department to purchase the site.

The Colorado Transportation Commission has already granted CDOT approval to sell the site to the town, and now it is working on determining the fair market value to finalize the deal.

Last week, however, Ruther acknowledged that the financing model was the most important part of the development agreement with Triumph.

The model “ensures financial sustainability through the innovative approach of partnering with the business community and the town of Vail providing the seed money to make this project financially feasible,” Ruther said.

Based on current information — which is subject to change as the town and Triumph go through the entitlement process — the redevelopment is targeted to cost approximately $165 million. With the significant price tag, the town and Triumph sought a different way to approach financing.

According to the development agreement, the town will contribute around $49.5 million to purchase the CDOT site as well as seed money for the project to get started on site work, horizontal construction, wet and dry utilities, and the first level of the parking structure podium. Triumph will provide the additional funding amount — estimated at $114 million to complete the construction of the residential development.

However, the town and Triumph are expected to recoup these costs in the sale of the homes to the local business community as well as residents.

In March, the partners reached out to both local businesses and residents to gauge interest in purchasing homes on the site. As a result of the extreme demand, the town and Triumph went forward with allowing businesses to put down a $5,000 deposit for the homes. In just over a week, local businesses reserved 165 of the homes for purchase.

“We always hear the business community saying how much they’re struggling with housing and how, if they could, they would step up. And they truly did step up in a big way,” said Mayor Pro Tem Travis Coggin. “We don’t just have one business, it’s 165 units that are being taken down by nonprofits, for-profits, big, small, across the board and I think when we deliver this, it’s something that just is a big step forward.”

The town itself will acquire an additional 44 homes to provide rental opportunities and the remaining 80 or so will be sold to community members through a lottery process.

Vail is waiting to open up the lottery process to residents.

The lottery is expected to be hosted approximately 4 to 6 months ahead of construction completion and will take the form of other housing lotteries in the town.

“While historically the town has provided significant financial subsidies to invest in these homes to make the deed-restricted housing in the town of Vail possible,” Ruther said. “The best part about this opportunity is it ensures the town’s money comes back so we can roll it into future projects like this.”

“Two-hundred and eighty-eight homes sounds like a lot, and it is, but we have a long way to go when it comes to housing. We’re going to need a lot more money, so this money that’s coming back to the town of Vail through the sale of these homes is going to help us continue to achieve our housing goals going forward.”

One of the long-standing considerations of the town in developing this property is limiting the impact it will have on Timber Ridge’s current residents. Ruther noted that the town is “working to make arrangements to help that transition with some of the existing Timber Ridge residents.”

The development agreement also sets out a construction timeline for the Timber Ridge redevelopment.

Construction would begin in May 2024 and targeting first occupancy by November 2025.

View the original publication here. 
FFRG’s Position on Whitefish Corridor

FFRG’s Position on Whitefish Corridor

by | May 18, 2023 | Ruis Development

“FFRG is passionate about helping guide responsible growth that honors the safety, and our quality of resources, and retains our sense of community and character.

While we all need to be conscious of added congestion and egress issues north of the viaduct, Flathead Families for Responsible Growth supports this project as proposed, with the affordable housing commitment and a satisfactory plan to address the stormwater runoff concerns raised by the neighbors. We want to commend the Whitefish Corridor Project for including affordable and workforce housing that is so needed in our Whitefish Community.

At the same time, we encourage the City to maintain a long view and look carefully and critically at any developer’s requests for exceptions that result in additional density.  We strongly recommend that given the congestion already existing, the City must determine how much more development can take place north of the viaduct given the current and foreseeable status of our transportation system. This is one of the issues that will define our future.”

To learn more about this project or to reach out to the team behind it, please visit their website.

 

Control of Short-Term Rentals Must Remain Local

Control of Short-Term Rentals Must Remain Local

by | Mar 10, 2023 | Flathead Families for Responsible Growth, flathead sensible growth, short term rentals

Submitted to the Daily Inter Lake

By Flathead Families For Responsible Growth
| March 7, 2023 12:00 AM

The issues surrounding short-term rentals are not going away.

To the contrary, the problems are increasing as STR growth explodes across the country. Whitefish, Flathead County and the rest of Montana are not immune. Over the last year, Montana has witnessed a 32% increase in vacation rental business and is currently ranked No. 13 in the U.S. in STR occupancy, with over 10,000 listings and 2,846 in Flathead County alone.

But STRs have the potential to significantly alter our small-town feel and permanently change our way of life here. Our lawmakers must keep pace with evolving STR industry and give it thoughtful consideration, thinking beyond state-wide, one-size-fits-all solutions that remove local control. Unfortunately, that is exactly what proposed bills SB 268 and 467 are, and it’s not the answer.

These bills would exacerbate multiple issues surrounding STRs in our communities, not the least of which is affordable housing. We urge Senate members to vote against SB 268 and 467 and ask Montanans to contact their senators to request the same.

Senate Bills 268 and 467 propose to establish STRs as a residential use of a property.

This means that STRs would be allowed in every zoning district in Whitefish and in all towns and cities across the state that are zoned residential, even if currently prohibited by HOAs. Whitefish would no longer be limited to the 5-6 areas currently zoned for STRs, which is of primary concern to us.

As proposed, SB 268 and 467 benefits a minority of individual property owners and investors engaged in VRBOs/Airbnb’s. However, the rest of us will have to live with the consequences of fewer long-term rentals and affordable housing options, which will worsen the already critical shortage of worker housing.

Tourist demand fuels the conversion of existing housing stock into short-term rentals.

This will be especially true in communities like Whitefish where tourist demand fuels the conversion of existing housing stock into STRs.

Past arguments in favor of STR residential classification have focused on what is being done on premises, not how long. This interpretation concludes that STRs are being used for ordinary living purposes such as sleeping and eating, which is consistent with the definition of “residential purpose.” If so, hotel use could also be considered a residential purpose. A more reasonable interpretation would hold that STRs with a rental period of 30 days or less amount to hotel use, and thus are commercial in nature.

Further, how can STRs be considered residential and not commercial when they are required to be permitted, often inspected and must collect and pay hotel lodging taxes? Such an approach would be inconsistent and haphazard. STRs must be defined as lodging/commercial-use businesses, which would prohibit them from residential areas not zoned for STRs.

The impact of short-term-rentals effects housing prices and the cost of rent

Sen. Greg Hertz says that he has not seen any studies providing evidence that STRs negatively impact the availability and affordability of workforce housing. Clearly, he is not looking hard enough.

The state of Montana may not have commissioned such a study. But there are plenty of studies across the country that assess the impact of STRs on housing prices and rent. Several reputable organizations, such as the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Harvard Business Review, have conducted or published research showing definitively that as the number of a community’s STRs increase, the quantity of affordable housing units decreases.

Short-term rentals contribute to the Flathead housing availability crisis

Affordable housing impacts caused by the conversion of long-term housing to STR use are such a concern that in December 2021, Aspen, Colo. took the dramatic step of enacting a one-year STR moratorium. Aspen used that time to create a new framework of ordinances supported by management technology with the intent of lowering the negative effects of STRs (results of the city’s work have not yet been announced).

Senator Hertz also believes that SB 268 will give local workers the ability to purchase a home and perhaps use an accessory studio on the property as an STR to help them pay for the property. If so, (perhaps this should be part of a state-sponsored study) as long as that property owner can rent that accessory studio as an STR for a premium over long-term rent rates, it effectively reduces the availability of affordable housing.

Short-term rentals create a cycle of less affordable housing in the Flathead

SB 268 makes no effort to address the tourism/STR conundrum, but rather fuels a catch-22: The more STRs, the more dollars from the hotel tax collected from STRs can be spent on tourism, which attracts more STRs. However, at the same time, there is even less affordable housing needed to support the growth in tourism.

Perhaps the lawmakers should explore increasing the lodging facility use tax and/or changing the property tax to a commercial rate on STRs, as other resort communities across the country have done. Those funds could be redirected to support affordable housing and local STR enforcement, which is woefully inadequate in Flathead County.

SB 268 and 467 are an ineffective legislative approach that benefits only STR owners and does nothing to protect the property rights and character of our community.

We need to do better!

If you have concerns about SB268, please contact your state representative.

Flathead Families for Responsible Growth board members include Jeffry Allen, Carol Balliet Atkinson, Brad Bulkley, John Collins, Murray Craven, Richard Hildner, Carolyn Pitman, Cameron Blake and Connie Cermak.

Vail Approves $165M Workforce Housing Project

My Stance on The Governor’s Housing Task Force

by | Dec 17, 2022 | Governor's Housing Task Force

My name is Brad Bulkley. I have been a property owner in Whitefish for more than 30 years.

I represent Flathead Families for Responsible Growth, which was formed earlier this year for the purpose of opposing what our community felt was a poorly conceived development at a critical intersection in town. Among other issues, the project was out of scale to the site and presented enormous egress issues in the event of a wildfire. We organized the community in defeating that project and have now turned our focus to helping the city revise its long-term growth plan, while keeping the community abreast of their progress and potential new development projects in the area.

Our strong feeling is that communities such as ours should maintain the ability to plan their growth according to its residents’ long-term vision. We clearly understand the desperate need for workforce and lower-income housing. However, we believe even that urgent need should be met through a long-term lens that helps maintain the vital character of our community and not the whim of eager developers. 

These are not mutually exclusive goals. A pendulum swing in the direction of solving the workforce housing problem will not produce satisfactory results. While we understand the urgency, we don’t believe it would be wise to take a short-term view. We believe doing so has the potential for creating long-term damage that cannot be reversed.

Thank you.

Read the Report
Update on Ruis Development, Whitefish

Update on Ruis Development, Whitefish

by | Aug 29, 2022 | Ruis Development, Uncategorized

Ruis Development, Whitefish

The developer has officially brought on civil and geotechnical to evaluate the site. Once the surveying and geotechnical is done, the civil team will work in conjunction with the architectural team to develop the site plan. The geotechnical is done to evaluate soil and the water table. The Ruis team has been continuing community outreach and has been having conversations with residents in the neighborhood to hear their thoughts and concerns. If anyone has questions or comments, please email [email protected]. The City of Whitefish has begun improvements on Texas Ave. This is not a Ruis project but Ruis is allowing the city’s contractor to do some staging on the property to help alleviate congestion in the neighborhood. A Ruis team member will be doing continuous site visits to ensure that it is being well kept. They have also created a website to keep the community updated – www.whitefishcorridorcommunity.com

 

Will this gravel fill resolve the drainage issue

Will this gravel fill resolve the drainage issue

by | Jul 26, 2022 | Ruis Development

 

 “Does this look like it’s spacious enough for 160 units?”

 

Our mission at FFRG MT is to help guide responsible growth and development in the Flathead Valley in an effort to honor safety, quality of resources, and retention of community and character.

While some developers are committed to growing responsibly, it’s up to us to voice our opinions and concerns when we see something that looks like it might be irresponsible.

The congestion at the intersection of Edgewood and Wisconsin has increased dramatically in recent years. An additional 160 units funneling onto Edgewood to cross over the viaduct will further increase congestion.

Addressing the low water table 

These pictures reflect what they have done to address the low water table issue. A tremendous amount of gravel has been dropped on the site.  This will resolve the water issues for the structures they intend to build, but the runoff will go to the neighbors without proper drainage. We’ve reached out to our contact at Ruis who is consistently very responsive. We’ll be sure to share the response with you. 

 

How you can help

Get Involved!

Help Revise the City of Whitefish Growth Policy

The City of Whitefish Growth Policy was last updated in 2007.  A Growth Policy is required by Montana law for any local government to manage growth and development through zoning and subdivision regulations.

Email the City

Write a letter to city planning

Never Underestimate the Power of  Our Voice!

Let’s continue to write letters to the city! As we know from our past effort with ARIM Mountain Gateway, writing letters to the City of Whitefish makes a difference!

Email the City

Spring Creek Park Development

Spring Creek Park Development

by | Jun 13, 2022 | Flathead Families for Responsible Growth

An Impassioned Stance by a Concerned Citizen Garners Our Response

Brenda Roskos wrote an impassioned letter to the Montana Daily Gazette regarding the proposed Spring Creek Park development in Kalispell. Her letter also tells a tale of concerning development trends we now face throughout the Flathead Valley. One might take issue with Brenda’s blunt and direct comments, but her message is clear and emotions sincere. They echo the sentiments of many Flathead residents. Where are we taking our special place?

People who moved here to get away from “Anywhere USA” and the density of city life to enjoy the outdoors and privacy are now saddened to see aggressive development that tosses aside existing zoning designations in the name of what the developers deem progress. We see city councils blessing developments that are incompatible with current zoning and inconsistent with the character of our neighborhoods, potentially changing them forever.

Can you imagine what Whitefish would look like today if we had allowed high-rise condos or billboards downtown? Other projects being proposed present serious fire egress issues for residents at a time when experts tell us fire risk has never been greater. All of this leads one to question the priorities of those approving these developments.

A new and increasingly successful strategy of developers is to obtain a re-zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) designation by wrapping the proposed project in an affordable housing ribbon, knowing it’s a hot button. And these pitches resonate even if the proposal amounts to minuscule number of deed restricted units, which were added solely as a means of gaining approval.

Cities are finding this an easy avenue to say they are addressing the important and real need for affordable housing. Indeed, one Whitefish city councilor recently said he would approve any project that included any number of affordable housing units.

But is this the answer? Is this leadership?

Relying upon developers dodges the responsibility of cities to create sensible master plans, etc. and is simply not a sustainable solution. This path also results in projects that many legacy residents—who represent the heart of our communities’ character—simply don’t want. City officials lured by increased tax revenue and an easy answer to affordable housing units leave the appearance they are more focused on satisfying developers than the people who elected them.

As citizens of the Flathead Valley who love it here and wish to preserve what makes this area special, we cannot bend to every profit-driven developer who will be here one day and gone the next. Like Brenda, we need to speak up loudly and be heard.

Read Brenda Roskos’ impassioned letter here.

Preparing for Montana’s Wildfire Season

Preparing for Montana’s Wildfire Season

by | May 16, 2022 | Fire hazards, Tips to keep your homes safe from wildfire

Montana’s Wildfire season is just around the corner.

Don’t let the June rainfall fool you. Now is the time to harden the exterior of your home against flames and embers. To protect your home from wildfire, complete these three high priority actions first:

  1. Clean your roof and gutters of leaves and needles. Can’t do this yourself? Ask a neighbor or hire someone to do the work.
  2. Keep wood decks clear of leaf and needle debris above and below the deck surface.
  3. Relocate woodpiles at least 30 feet from buildings, place them inside an inside enclosed structure, or store them as far away from all structures as possible and cover them with a fireproof tarp that can resist embers.

Fire is affecting communities nationwide. Join FFRG MT and Firesafe Flathead on June 28th at 6:30apm at O’Shaughnessy Center, 1 Central Ave, in downtown Whitefish. We’ll watch a captivating film about fire followed by an engaging discussion. Let’s learn how we can protect our local community this fire season.

Download the Wildfire Evacuation Checklist here.

Large fires becoming even larger, more widespread

Large fires becoming even larger, more widespread

by | Mar 17, 2022 | Fire hazards, Media

By ERIN BLAKEMORE, for the Washington Post,

Their frequency has tripled in some parts of the U.S., a team of environmental scientists found.

Each year, thousands of wildfires burn millions of acres in the United States.

Fire season may be a reality in many places around the country. But the threat is spreading to areas once relatively unscathed by wildfires, a new study suggests.

10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint

In the journal Science Advances, a team of environmental scientists found that fire frequency has tripled in some parts of the United States — and that in the 2000s, wildfires grew up to four times the size of fires in previous decades.

The scientists studied data from Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity, a federal interagency program that tracks burn severity over time in the United States. The data spans from 1984 to 2018 and covers more than 28,000 fires over 1,000 acres in size in the West and 500 acres in size in the East.

How escalating climate change fuels California’s infernos

Since 2005, the analysis shows, fire frequency grew nationwide. In the East and West, fires became twice as frequent, and they became four times as frequent in the Great Plains. As frequency grew, so did acreage, with the average size ballooning. In 2018, 2½ times more acreage was destroyed in the West each year compared with the previous two decades. The number rose 178 percent in the East.

The threat of wildfires is growing due to climate change: How to protect your home from wildfires

The team attributes the change to drought, but humans are also to blame: Human-caused climate change has dried out many areas, and 84 percent of the fires were started by humans and not other factors such as lightning strikes.

Americans need to “rethink our priorities,” the researchers write, participating in a challenging and ongoing conversation about how to address the changing fire outlook.

But for now, the outlook is grim, says William Travis, deputy director of the University of Colorado Boulder’s Earth Lab and a co-author of the paper. “More large fires plus intensifying development mean that the worst fire disasters are still to come,” he says in a news release.

Read the original article here.

 

We defeated Mountain Gateway! Now what?

We defeated Mountain Gateway! Now what?

by | Feb 22, 2022 | Flathead Families for Responsible Growth

 Written By the Board Members of Flathead Families for Responsible Growth.

We did it!  And against some significant odds. So now what?

The people of Whitefish—residents, business owners, service industry employees, skiers, hikers and others from all walks of Whitefish life—joined together to help defeat the proposed Mountain Gateway development.

We can be proud of our City Council for making the right decision on a highly complex issue, which included multiple rezoning and zoning variance requests, city annexation and others. They listened closely to the citizens they represent, who responded en masse—in-person and online—to express their heartfelt views.

But there’s no cause for celebration. There is no basking in the satisfaction of a hard-fought victory. There is harder work to be done to address Whitefish’s affordable and workforce housing challenge, which cannot be solved by developers sprinkling a few units into their projects resulting in an ill-conceived, patchwork solution.

Flathead Families for Responsible Growth (FFRG), the group that formed to mobilize the community in opposition to Mountain Gateway, stands ready to help with ideas and resources, and say ‘yes’ to viable alternatives that will provide long-term solutions.

Why Not Mountain Gateway?

Mountain Gateway was simply not an affordable workforce housing project. It was a massive, high-density residential and commercial development proposed for the worst possible location. The project clearly overwhelmed existing infrastructure and provided a minimal number of deed-restricted units as a quick fix to meet a community benefit requirement. It would not have scratched the surface of addressing the real workforce housing need.

It also presented very serious emergency egress and ongoing traffic issues that would have crippled our community. And, while property owners have a clear right to develop their land, they must do as permitted by their current zoning classification or responsible rezoning applications. Mountain Gateway did neither.

What Mountain Gateway did do was to focus another bright spotlight on affordable workforce housing in Whitefish and identify it as a community issue. We need to address the issue as a community, as we have done with so many other initiatives. The Whitefish Community Foundation stands as our shining example of how we can join together to create positive, meaningful change.

FFRG’s Work Will Continue

FFRG carries on. Our community’s strong support has inspired FFRG and reinforced our commitment to ensure responsible development and address the needs of our entire community, which includes affordable workforce housing. Safety and traffic also are important issues, and we need to find a way to contribute and work with city leadership to create solutions.

In fact, FFRG has already taken steps to address the workforce housing need.

The group will also be focused on other developments in our town to ensure they are not putting undo strain on our limited existing infrastructure.

It’s undeniable. Growth is necessary. Entities that stop growing—whether they’re individuals, companies or municipalities—languish and wither away. On the other hand, growth cannot be reckless and irresponsible. It must be thoughtful, well-conceived and organized.

As a community, we should be proactive in ensuring that our growth has these qualities and work together to identify solutions that strengthen our well-being and focus on preserving what keeps Whitefish special.

Wildfire escape model in Colorado Springs denied by city staff

Wildfire escape model in Colorado Springs denied by city staff

by | Oct 18, 2021 | Media

By MARY SHINN, The Gazette, 

If another wildfire should spark in the western parts of Colorado Springs, some residents are asking how long it might take them to get out in an evacuation.

“We have built so deep into the (wildland urban interface) we have to ask: Have we made it inescapable?” said Walter Lawson, a Broadmoor area resident.

Residents are calling for a computer simulation of the city’s evacuation plans similar to those done in other communities, in part, because the city may allow 400 new apartments along Garden of the Gods Road.

Residents are also generally concerned that more people have moved west of Interstate 25 since the Waldo Canyon fire in 2012 and that could make evacuation times longer.

During the Waldo Canyon fire some residents fleeing from Mountain Shadows and other neighborhoods feared the fire would kill them in their cars, as they have told City Council on several occasions during hearings over the Garden of the Gods apartments.

Colorado Springs City Council directed city staff in June to re-evaluate a traffic study and address safety concerns about evacuation raised by the neighbors. When asked how the staff planned to evaluate safety concerns as directed by council, the city staff told The Gazette it couldn’t be done.

Read the rest of the story

 

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 15

by | Oct 15, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Whitefish Planning Board and City Council Members and the Mayor,

This letter to oppose any changes to the zoning at East Lakeshore Drive from residential to commercial. I would hope that is a semi-sacred promise to the residents when they buy and build into a neighborhood that they can expect that it remain the same zoning as when it was established.

We faced a similar threat to our neighborhood two or three years ago when Joe Gregory was trying to create a high-density development on this property, which was comprised of seven lots on the Whitefish Lake in addition to the 30 acres that is on both sides of Big Mountain Rd starting at East Lakeshore Drive. That high-density proposal would have adversely affected our neighborhood, the lake, and the beautiful nature corridor that East Lakeshore Drive passes through. So will the new developments being proposed on these same parcels.

As I understand it, new groups of investors are targeting the same properties (currently owned by
Joe Gregory) to fundamentally change this same neighborhood, with one group hoping to place a
hotel on the lake property while another unrelated group hopes to build a high-density development
on the 30 acres straddling Big Mountain Road. It appears that both groups would look for a change
to the zoning.

I oppose both efforts for the following reasons:

    • The residential zoning that affects the current owners should be respected.
    • High-density housing (potentially 340 units!) will change the low-density neighborhood
      significantly
    • The potential 5-star hotel that is being considered for the seven lots on Whitefish Lake
      (adjacent to the 30 acres), although a different development from the housing development, should be part of the discussion of long-term planning for this East Lakeshore / Big Mountain Road area.
    • The lake prevents parallel paths to handle the traffic. This is compounded by the railroad. The Wisconsin Ave/East Lakeshore Drive route (which feeds into the viaduct and downtown and Highway 93) is the only way to and from the development, creating a funnel. It is already a crowded route with the destination ski resort on Big Mountain Road, in addition to the existing residential properties on the lake, on the mountain, and in-between. Missoula and Kalispell have seeming unsurmountable traffic problems that could be foreseen. This route is already suffering from consistent and predictable traffic problems because there are no parallel paths out. There comes a point when it has to be addressed. It is a matter of time before a medical emergency will be fatal because of choked traffic, in the most dramatic case 
    • The desirability of the area between Whitefish Lake and the Whitefish range will drive a demand for further development of this beautiful corridor, but the land can house more people than the road can serve. The one-way-in and one-way-out reality of the area between is the limiting factor for this area.
    • Additionally, accommodating the increasing demand for development in this area fundamentally change what currently makes it so desirable to the Whitefish community and its visitors (lake, trees, mountains, streams, wildlife, small town, and of course, NATURE)
    • Although it must be acknowledged that the zoning for the 30-acre parcel does allow a fairly
      high density, the traffic and other issues should require a rethinking of what should be permitted on this currently-undeveloped property.

Sometimes the best vision for the future is preserving the nature and natural beauty. National parks are the best example of that. Whitefish isn’t a national park, but I hope the town of Whitefish and its community leaders see the merits of protecting what makes Whitefish so special. It can never be turned back once the vision to protect the natural beauty is forfeited.

I appreciate the efforts of those who have created a web presence to make this discussion available
to the public: https://ffrgmt.org/

Thank you for
considering the opinions I have offered.

Sincerely,
(name redacted)
Whitefish resident since 1993
Fourth-generation Montanan

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 14

by | Oct 14, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Whitefish Planning Board and City Council Members,

I’m writing to provide public comment on the Mountain Gateway Project’s PUD and Zoning Map Amendment applications. This proposed project involves changing the zoning for multiple properties at the intersection of Big Mountain Road and East Lakeshore Drive to allow for commercial development and the development of 318 residential units, including 270 high-density units. As proposed, the project is inconsistent with the existing land use of the properties and does not represent the community’s vision for the area as referenced below.

As such, I urge the Planning Board to recommend denial of the applications as submitted. The character and density of this proposed development is not consistent with the community vision embodied in the City’s growth plans. In particular, it is a high-density development, with potential commercial buildings, in an area that is currently low-density single-family residences and townhomes. This will have a negative impact on traffic, water quality, the environment, and the quiet enjoyment of this unique area, and these issues have not been adequately studied or addressed. The Wisconsin Avenue corridor is already congested and in many cases difficult to access, even with current levels of traffic.

In addition, there is no guaranteed provision for emergency services, which could put additional pressure on the Wisconsin corridor and downtown fire station. The land grant does not provide capital or ongoing funding for the potential additional fire station, making its actual opening highly uncertain. Please consider the potential short- and long-term impacts of this decision on this beautiful area, and Whitefish in general, and deny these applications.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this issue.

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 13

by | Oct 13, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

 

To whom it may concern,

I do not agree with the dramatic change in density and proposed development. This seems to be a 180 redirect from what

Whitefish is all about.

I agree some additions to the town are potentially needed but this is a huge project. I am a developer. 

I couldn’t fathom getting something like this approved in a city that is attractive because it keeps a

small town feel with housing and amenities.

This is a major shift to what I love about Whitefish and why I have a home here.  Please do not approve this development. 

Thank you

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 12

by | Oct 12, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear City Council and Planning Board:

The summer news is filled with the reality of massive wildfires. We endure them every

summer here in Whitefish in the form of smoke, but they have not hit here, yet. When one hits

Town, or nearby, and begins ripping eastward towards Big Mountain, how will citizens

escape?

There is only one road out in the event the fire spreads north of town and the Lake…East

Lakeshore Drive and Wisconsin Avenue.

Did you notice the traffic this summer on Wisconsin Avenue, absent any Canadians? It is a

horror show, as two lanes can not possibly accommodate the summer crowds, much less a

Zoning change to allow hundreds more to access safety via Wisconsin Avenue.

All the other arguments against this large a development pale by comparison to the

dysfunction we have NOW on Wisconsin Avenue, and it makes zero sense to pretend

otherwise. Is the City going to build a new viaduct and 4 lanes in and out of town….and if so,

how will Baker Avenue absorb such growth?

The answer to this application is obvious: Do not change the zoning, and pray that an

alternate escape to Wisconsin Avenue can be envisioned first in the future.

Thank you,

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 11

by | Oct 11, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Whitefish Planning Board & City Council Members:

We are writing to share our concerns about the proposed Mountain Gateway

project. As we grow, it’s critical that we do so in a manner that protects and

preserves the character of our community and follows the rules and

regulations for development. The Mountain Gateway PUD and Zoning

Amendment raises several concerns for our family including zoning changes,

variances, traffic and public safety, and responsible development. We

respectfully request that you deny the Zoning and PUD applications as

submitted.

Zoning Changes and Variances– A project including more than 300 high

density units and 500 parking spaces is inconsistent with the existing City of

Whitefish zoning of adjacent properties. This project does not complement

adjacent developments whatsoever. There are zero community benefits to

the project which are undeniably outweighed by the negative impacts this

development will bring to our neighborhood. Please mirror the surrounding

WLR WER and WSR zoning and deny all requests for variances from existing

rules.

Traffic– Wisconsin Ave is at max capacity. In the event of a fire or other

emergency, I’m not sure we’d be able to safely evacuate or receive

emergency services in a timely manner. At points in time during the ski

season it can take an hour to reach Wisconsin Ave from the Base Lodge. My

children are resistant to ride the school bus due to the amount of time it

takes them to get to/ from school. Finally, I’m hesitant to let my children ride

their bikes to school on the bike path as a result of the increased vehicle

traffic and lack of staffed crosswalks. Please require the developer to

perform a legitimate traffic study. The developer provided study took place

during the pandemic and shoulder months in Whitefish.

Responsible Growth/ Infrastructure– The real issue is that current

infrastructure is inadequate to support a project of this magnitude in this

location. We don’t want to see another single wide trailer hanging over

Wisconsin Ave as a solution to pedestrian traffic. A roundabout will take

away the ability to staff the intersection of Wisconsin and Big Mountain

Roads to expedite traffic. The City has a responsibility to confirm that the

developer has the ability to provide adequate infrastructure before any

development is allowed. We simply do not have any meaningful traffic,

water quality and wildlife impact studies from the developer to understand

the true impact of this project.

We respectfully request that after an objective assessment of the proposed

PUD and Zoning Map Amendment, you deny the applications as submitted.

Respectfully, 

(name redacted)

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 08

by | Oct 8, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Planning Board and City Council Members,

I am writing today in opposition of the Mountain Gate Development.I have many concerns but
I will stick to two primary reasons.

1- Road infrastructure

* Our town is divided by the railroad North and South and the only true
access is the viaduct. Normally it is only during the winter months, on a powder
day ,that we experience a major traffic jam. But this year it has
been an ongoing problem. Until there is at least one other ,continual
access over the tracks, I feel that it is imprudent to allow any more high
density north of the tracks.

* The two major roads thru Whitefish are Federal (93) and state Baker Ave –
East Lakeshore Dr (MT).We have only advisory say in development. We
must work with the state and federal government to try and come up with
positive input that will help to maintain the Whitefish we are striving for.
But we also need to address our own streets and help to deflect the
negative impact on our neighborhoods , with traffic using them as a
by-pass to the major roads.

2- Water/Sewer Development

* Strain on our water/sewer plants will be felt and the substations, Viking
Station, will need to be reevaluated with a development of this size. We
as a community are already being charged the highest water and sewer
rates and do not feel that all this development is helping this issue.
In closing we and the country as a whole have experienced a total change. The move to rural
spaces and the Covid Pandemic have brought about changes much faster than normal. We still
have developments that are not totally built out and are going to impact our resources. I think
we need to STOP, LOOK, AND LISTEN, before any more projects are approved.

Thank you

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 07

by | Oct 7, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Whitefish Planning Board and City Council Members,

I’m sending this letter as public comment on the Mountain Gateway project, and the proposed
zoning changes to allow commercial development at the intersection of Big Mountain Road
and East Lakeshore Dr.

My husband and myself are strongly opposed to this proposed development. A zoning
change in this area would forever change the nature and character of the gateway to our
mountain and neighborhoods. We have lived at the head of Whitefish Lake for 35 years, and
have watched in alarm as traffic congestion on Wisconsin Ave has dramatically increased in
the past few years. It is absolutely preposterous to think that a development of this size is
feasible with the one and only artery connecting Big Mountain and downtown Whitefish, with
the only access across the viaduct. It is not uncommon in the winter to have the traffic backed
up at the turn to Big Mountain all the way down Wisconsin Ave into downtown. It has been
made even more frustrating with the Quarry and other developments adding many more cars
on this limited roadway.

We sincerely urge you to honor the Growth Policy vision statement and preserve the values of
open space and maintaining a small town feel, which is what makes this town so special. It’s
why we all chose to live in Whitefish, and those values feel increasingly threatened on a daily
basis.

Whitefish and the entire Valley deserves thoughtful development, and we strongly urge you
to deny setting this dangerous precedent for commercial and high density residential
development in this area.

Letter No. 06

by | Oct 6, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Planning Board Members and City Council:

Cutting to the chase, I respectfully request that you deny the Mountain Gateway PUD and Zoning Map Application submitted by Arim Mountain Gateway.

As always, the devil is in the details and the details tell me that this proposed PUD and Zone Map Amendment is ill conceived. Simply put, it is not ripe for prime time.

The proposed PUD and Zone Change does not appear to adequately address traffic and a variety of environmental issues such as storm water, water quality, and air quality. It also fails to examine the social and community impact of creating what I see as a satellite development separate from Whitefish proper.

The “gift” of 1.5 acres for a potential fire station as a community benefit is a red herring. There is no provision to build, staff, or maintain a station other than to saddle all taxpayers, Citywide, with the cost of providing fire protection for this development.

As the proposal receives greater community visibility and scrutiny it is vital that it be evaluated in a way that honors the community vision outlined in the Growth Policy Vision statement. Don’t be rushed in your decision-making; a decision of this magnitude is a forever decision that will define our community beyond our lifetimes.

As always, thank you for your dedication to our City.

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 05

by | Oct 5, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Whitefish Planning Board & City Council Members,

I am writing as a whitefish citizen to provide public comment on the Mountain Gateway
Project’s PUD and Zoning Map Amendment applications and request that the current
applications be denied.

This project is not only out of step with the character and charm of our town but will also
exacerbate existing infrastructure problems.

Furthermore, after attending the gatherings put on by the developers and reading the
application I do not believe they are operating in good faith with the community.

I believe the city should move slowly and deliberately to deliver responsible growth.
The planning board and city council should not approve any project in conflict with our growth policy and confidently deny the Mountain Gateway Project as submitted.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. Please remember you represent the people of whitefish and know you will be supported in protecting our community.

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 04

by | Oct 4, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Wendy,

I’m writing to comment on Mountain Gateway’s PUD and Zoning Map Amendment applications. I am asking the planning board to deny both applications.

The proposed density of this project is far greater than that of neighboring properties which are zoned single-family residential. The developers of Mountain Gateway are requesting multi-family zoning with unacceptably high density and a commercial component that is entirely out of place in
this residential area.

Second, even the existing WR-2 and WR-3 zoning designations on portions of the properties involved
in the application are inconsistent with adjacent properties along Houston Drive and East Lakeshore Drive that are zoned WER and WLR. The WER or WLR zone designations would be much more appropriate for the Mountain Gateway property. The proposed PUD Overlay and the Zoning Map
Amendment would make the existing inconsistent zoning situation even more out of balance by introducing extensive multi-family and commercial development.

The scale of the proposed development would create a very significant population increase in the Wisconsin Corridor which already suffers from an insufficient road system resulting in frequent traffic congestion. Any further development along the Wisconsin Corridor should be tabled until the City addresses the serious infrastructure issues facing this area.

I feel the proposed development is the wrong project, in the wrong place, and fails to meet the vision for Whitefish outlined in its Growth Policy.

Letter No. 03

by | Oct 3, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Whitefish Planning Board & City Council Members:

We are writing in connection with the proposed Mountain Gateway project. We are second-generation property owners in Whitefish.

We came here because Whitefish and the surrounding area is special. It has remained that way, in large part, due to the conscientious efforts of city planners preventing the area from being overwhelmed by commercial development, and preserving the unique character of the town. That mission should be viewed by city leaders as a continuing responsibility.

Without its unique charm, wonderful multigenerational neighborhoods, access to affordable housing in the valley, wildlife, and water quality of the lake and streams, Whitefish would not be Whitefish. Growth of our community is inevitable, but we
have a duty to ensure it is both sensible and responsible.

Congestion is already a serious concern in the area being discussed. Making our way down Wisconsin Ave and Lakeshore drive during the summer, or on any ski day, is now taking twice the time it once did. Traffic is often backed up for more than a mile.

Our neighbors tell us it takes their children 45 minutes to be bused to school. Of great importance, access in and out has become a safety hazard on this two lane road. In the event of a family medical or fire emergency, traffic congestion and gridlock along Wisconsin Avenue could realistically result in a life-threatening situation.

The Mountain Gateway development as proposed is not responsible by any measure. It requires zoning changes that currently protect our residential neighborhoods and includes allowing commercial development at the corner of East Lakeshore Drive and
Big Mountain Road. No round-about will resolve traffic congestion. In fact, it would make crossing this intersection for pedestrians and bicyclists treacherous. And, the congestion referenced already exists before adding another ~500 cars on a regular basis coupled with the additional traffic that will result from the Landmark project on
Big Mountain.

The real issue at hand is the fact that the current infrastructure is inadequate to support a project of this magnitude. The city has a responsibility to see there is adequate infrastructure before any development is allowed. Given the magnitude of the problem we face, perhaps an annual growth moratorium should be considered until we can catch up as Golden, Colorado wisely enacted. There have not been adequate traffic, water quality and wildlife impact studies so that we know the true impact of this development. A project that includes over 300 high density units and over 500 parking spaces is inconsistent with the existing land use of the properties and is misaligned with the neighborhood’s character. It does not offer true affordable
housing and will not benefit the community, which is one of the developer’s primary justifications for rezoning. In fact, the view that this project will benefit the community seems to be an opinion only the developer holds. There is an
overwhelming objection to this project as evidenced by public comment, the displeasure of countless respected community leaders, and well over 3,000 signatures on a petition.

Many of us came to Whitefish because it was special – not an Aspen or Vail. If we are not careful, that is what we will become. Of course, we can grow, but we should do so in a responsible manner.

We deserve better than allowing such a grandiose project as proposed. We respectfully request that after an objective assessment of the proposed PUD and Zoning Map Amendment, you make the decision to deny the applications as submitted.

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 02

by | Oct 2, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Whitefish Planning Board and City Council Members,

We are both strongly opposed to the overall scope of Mountain Gateway Project PUD and the Zoning Map Amendment Applications. We feel that due diligence has not been done for a development of this magnitude and that it will have drastic ramifications on the heart and soul of our community for decades to come.

 

This sheer number of parking spaces — over 500 — is enough to make your head spin. Our infrastructure cannot handle that kind of capacity. Anyone who lives on the north side of the viaduct as we do can attest to the daily traffic clog going north and south, even into October. Safety is an issue as well, as our community is very outdoor-oriented and I fear for children walking to school and older adults trying to cross Wisconsin Avenue. In addition, as far as we can see, there are no actual plans for any of the properties to be affordable housing. That is what our community needs, not units that will house over 600 additional people who are not part of our significant work-force.

 

The development itself is downright scary, but the zone map amendment to commercial is even scarier. We may be wrong, but we think that the zone change could happen even if the development is not approved. A commercial zone change at that intersection will forever change the character of the area and it sets a dangerous precedent for neighboring properties. This area is quite rural with hundreds of trees and lots of wildlife. (Just how many trees would be cut down to develop this project?) We need to preserve this now more than ever.

 

Part of Whitefish’s growth policy states “The citizens of Whitefish value the scale, character and small-town feel of the community and will preserve those values as the community grows.” If there is any part of the Mountain Gateway Project PUD and Zoning Map Amendment Applications that agrees with that statement, we’d like to know.

How Will the City Use Public Input Into Drafting the Growth Policy?

Letter No. 01

by | Oct 1, 2021 | Letters to Whitefish Planning Board & City Council

Dear Whitefish Planning Board & City Council Members,

October 8th, 2021

We bought property in Whitefish over 20 years ago and built our home just off E. Lakeshore in 2008. We fell in love with Whitefish, like most people we know, at first sight.

We love the community and its values and have regularly donated to entities like the Whitefish Foundation, Whitefish Lake Institute, Whitefish Legacy Partners, Glacier Park, etc. In fact, when the town couldn’t afford to put on the 4th of July Fireworks back in 2009, we assembled a group that has filled that gap for the past decade. Point is, we love this place, we are invested in it, we live here 6 months a year and will retire here eventually.

We have all seen a lot of growth in the past two decades, and that is to be expected. We support growth and in fact over the summer began looking at ways to support low-cost affordable housing, especially for our younger, front-line workers.

That said, we understand that this proposed project involves changing the zoning for multiple properties at the intersection of Big Mountain Road and East Lakeshore Drive to allow for commercial development and the development of 318 residential units, including 270 high-density units. As proposed, the project is inconsistent with the existing land use of the properties and does not represent the community’s vision for the area which we have researched the public records (see below)

We request that the planning board recommend denial of the Mountain Gateway PUD and Zoning Map Amendment applications as submitted. The due diligence has not been done for a development of this magnitude in regards to traffic implications, water quality, stormwater, and environmental impact. It is paramount that traffic implications be considered all the way to the viaduct as this is the only grade-separated route for emergency evacuation. And traffic jams we have on the big ski days now will be commonplace ALL YEAR ROUND at that intersection no matter what traffic control methods are imposed.

There are thoughtful ways to grow and develop our community and for the entire Flathead County…this isn’t one of those ways. There is a reason high-density housing and
commercial businesses haven’t been proposed for this neighborhood and intersection – it flies in the face of the city ‘charter’ on growth policy, and given structural constraints, no improvement in road, stoplight, circle, etc infrastructure can remotely accommodate the ensuing traffic levels.

We all want a Whitefish that responds to growth needs, yet never, never loses its fundamental character. This isn’t Big Sky, this isn’t Aspen or Telluride, this is Whitefish. We owe it to future generations to do the right thing, and grow thoughtfully and not burden them with permanent mistakes.

Whitefish Came Through

by | Nov 20, 2019 | Blog

Whitefish Came Through

Letter No. 14

Letter No. 14

Oct 14, 2021 |

Dear Whitefish Planning Board and City Council Members, I’m writing to provide public comment on the Mountain Gateway Project’s PUD and Zoning Map Amendment applications. This proposed project involves changing the zoning for multiple properties at the intersection of...

read more
Letter No. 07

Letter No. 07

Oct 7, 2021 |

Dear Whitefish Planning Board and City Council Members, I'm sending this letter as public comment on the Mountain Gateway project, and the proposedzoning changes to allow commercial development at the intersection of Big Mountain Roadand East Lakeshore Dr. My husband...

read more

Subscribe To Stay Up To Date!

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Whitefish Development

Thank you for subscribing!