CAO 'steep slopes' could be amended
The “steep slopes” criterion of the
Critical Area Ordinance could be on the chopping block as Whitefish
looks to make the regulation more user-friendly.
Possible amendments to the CAO were
discussed at an Aug. 1 Whitefish City Council work session
regarding the 2010 Interlocal Agreement. Council asked the Planning
Department to look at ways to streamline the ordinance as
“doughnut” planning talks between the city and Flathead County
loom.
Flathead County Commissioner Jim Dupont
told the Pilot last week that changes to the CAO, including steep
slopes and set backs, will be a point of discussion as the two
sides work toward a revised or potentially new interlocal
agreement. The county moved in June to terminate the 2010
agreement, citing the ballot referendum that seeks to repeal the
agreement as their reason for pulling out.
At the work session, city planner Wendy
Compton-Ring gave a full timeline of the CAO starting from 2004
when the city first looked at developing a master stormwater plan.
Mayor Mike Jenson noted that the CAO was a major catalyst for the
county withdrawing from the 2005 Interlocal Agreement.
Councilor Turner Askew asked
Compton-Ring and Planning Director David Taylor which parts of the
CAO could be amended to make it more user-friendly.
Taylor told the council steep slopes
was the area that is most faulty.
“The slope is the most confusing
thing,” he said. “It isn’t serving the purpose intended.”
The steep slope requirement is geared
toward any development site with a 40 percent or greater slope.
“Outside of city limits, it’s not
really preventing anyone from developing, but it’s adding an extra
layer of red tape.”
Eliminating the steep slope requirement
likely wouldn’t weaken the ordinance’s intent because the ordinance
includes other tools to control erosion, Taylor said.
“The most important thing is water
quality,” he said.
Set backs and buffers, he said, protect
water from unwanted erosion.
Compton-Ring noted that parts of the
CAO can be cumbersome for builders, too.
“They have to get a permit for
everything,” she said. “Administrative aspects could be worked
on.”
Councilor Phil Mitchell said he hopes
the county is involved as the city goes through the process of
amending the CAO.
“Whatever comes out of this should be
acceptable by both parties,” Mitchell said.
During public comment, Joan Vetter
Ehrenberg said she thought the CAO had already been through
review.
“I don’t understand why we are opening
it up again,” she said.
Councilor John Muhlfeld said that the
council isn’t trying to “water down the CAO” or to compromise its
purpose.
“It has gone through several amendments
that are positive,” Muhlfeld said. “The purpose moving forward is
to deal with some hot-button topics. It’s a living document.”
He trusts the council will make it
better.
A planning board work session is set
for Aug. 18.