'Doughnut' reverts to 1996 Master Plan

County planning board votes to drop Whitefish growth policy

By RICHARD HANNERS / Whitefish Pilot

The Flathead County Planning Board's meeting in the Whitefish Armory on July 16 started out on a light note, but many supporters of Whitefish's jurisdiction over the two-mile planning and zoning "doughnut" area went home frustrated and dismayed.

When board chairman Gordon Cross said they would skip the Pledge of Allegiance because he couldn't see an American flag in the building, dozens of people pointed to the miniature flag sticking out of Dave Skinner's hat.

"If that's good enough for you," Cross agreed, as more than 100 people stood to attention.

Thirty-six people addressed the board, which was looking at amendments to the county's growth policy that would remove references to the 2005 interlocal agreement that created the "doughnut" area.

After some debate, the board approved the amendments 6-2, and the county took one more step toward re-taking jurisdiction over the area.

The most controversial amendment deleted references to the 2007 Whitefish Growth Policy, meaning planning for the "doughnut" area would revert back to the 1996 Master Plan, the last plan approved by the city and county.

Whitefish city councilor Nancy Woodruff addressed the planning board first.

"There's an assumption we're at war with each other," she said, "but I see each party trying to do what's best for their constituents."

Woodruff said she participated in the public process that created the 1996 master plan and the 2007 growth policy. The former is 12 years old and out of date, she said, and the board should not fall back on it.

She also defended the city growth policy's infill policy, which calls for delaying development in certain areas surrounding Whitefish and focusing development instead on platted or vacant lots inside or close to the city limits.

Woodruff said she expected those mostly-agricultural lands would eventually be developed, "but if that happens too quickly, it will lead to sprawl."

City councilor Turner Askew spoke next, supporting Woodruff's position.

Several members of the Whitefish Growth Policy Steering Committee urged the planning board not to abandon their work. Chairwoman Dru Jackson cited the committee's 17 visioning sessions and its prolonged effort to elicit public participation. But a lot of people just didn't choose to participate, she said, noting the small number of people present in the Armory.

"Is the county ready to take over everything in the 'doughnut'?" she asked, adding that Whitefish is the state's fastest growing city. "Do you want to wipe out all that work over a difference in perspective?"

Whitefish resident Rebecca Norton said the city spent two years and about $100,000 creating its new growth policy. She said it would be "disrespectful" to just throw it away.

Norton blamed opposition to the city's new critical areas ordinance for the county's action, but she said the city had been considering such a measure for a decade or more. Rather than abandon the city's growth policy, she said, the city and the county should focus on finding a way to provide representation to the "doughnut" residents.

That point was taken up by the next speaker, Larry Campbell, a "doughnut" resident who supports the county's action.

"Government should not control people — it should be the other way around," he said.

Whitefish developer Tim Grattan said the city's growth policy and critical areas ordinance were "Siamese twins." The same group of people drafted both controversial documents, he said, leaving "a wet, smelly, heavy blanket" over the area. If the two ordinances weren't so heavy-handed, he said, "we wouldn't be here today."

Several supporters of the county's action criticized the public process that went into creating the city's growth policy. Ole Netteberg, a member of the Whitefish City-County Planning Board, claimed "a vocal minority" dominated many growth policy meetings.

Whitefish Realtor Tom Thomas, representing a grassroots group called People Of The Doughnut, said the problem was not a critical areas ordinance issue — it was a growth policy issue. He claimed the city didn't take input from "doughnut" residents.

"They never told us they were going to annex the lake and then put a two-mile zone around it," he said. "The city can't manage itself — how can they manage the doughnut?"

Several people urged the board to delay their decision, including Ben Cavin, a civil engineer who lives on Whitefish Lake.

"Any action taken now will only muddy the waters," he said, referring to the city's lawsuit against the county. "Why not wait until the litigation comes to a closure?"

Cross kicked off the board's discussion by following up on Flathead County planning director Jeff Harris' comment that he was unfamiliar with the city's 2007 growth policy document, so the county should not adopt it.

"I've read it through once," Cross said. "My opinion is individual property owners are getting jerked around while the city and county play tennis."

Cross asked what would happen if the county took jurisdiction over the "doughnut" only to have the Montana Supreme Court rule in the city's favor. He also noted all the unanswered questions about the county's action.

"We're being asked to give the green light to a plan that doesn't yet exist," he said.

Harris explained that existing zoning would remain in effect in the "doughnut" area until the county could review it. That included Whitefish zoning the city placed on unzoned county land shortly after the interlocal agreement went into effect.

"There's often a lag between plans and zoning," he said, citing the board's approval of the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan.

Moving forward, the board unanimously deleted all amendment language calling for special cooperation between the city and county when reviewing planning in the "doughnut." All neighborhood plans should be treated the same by the county, they agreed, including Whitefish's.