Mayor & City Council

WHITEFISH CITY COUNCIL February 7, 2022 7:10 P.M. 1) CALL TO ORDER Mayor Muhlfeld called the meeting to order. Councilors present were Qunell, Feury, Caltabiano, Davis, Sweeney, and Norton. City Staff present were, City Clerk Howke, City Manager Smith, City Attorney Jacobs, Planning and Building Director Taylor, Public Works Director Workman, Parks and Recreation Director Butts, Interim Police Chief Kelch, Fire Chief Page, Senior Planner Compton-Ring, Planner I Nymark. Approximately 80 people were in the audience and 75 attended virtually. 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Muhlfeld asked Lisa Stack to lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3) COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC– (This time is set aside for the public to comment on items that are either on the agenda, but not a public hearing or on items not on the agenda. City officials do not respond during these comments but may respond or follow-up later on the agenda or at another time. The mayor has the option of limiting such communications to three minutes depending on the number of citizens who want to comment and the length of the meeting agenda) Ryan Hennen, 941 4th Street, is here because of the amount of people that have shared with him their disgust with the comments made by Mark Jones and his intent to withdraw support for Whitefish and will not participate financially in any project. Ryan stated his first son is due to be born any day. He thinks about the world, and he thinks about navigating these times that we all live in. You are in charge of this little person who has no idea how to act, how to behave. You get a little bit of time with them to try to lead them down the right path about how to be a good person, how to treat people, how to be a good neighbor. He looks forward very much to meeting his boy and using these statements from Mr. Jones as a cautionary tale. A lesson to be learned, if you don’t get your way, that is okay, you live and learn. You don’t attempt to hold a small community hostage financially. He applauds the Mayor and his response to Mr. Jones. He understands the Council is not swayed and they are not afraid. This town was here long before Mr. Jones arrived. It’ll be here long after he takes his money and runs. He encourages the rest of the citizens of Whitefish to join him in giving Mr. Jones a send-off message “Good Riddance”. Nancy Schuber, 110 Bay Point Drive, stated after listening to comments at Planning Board and Council meetings, the need for affordable housing comes front and foremost in importance. She would like to propose a partial solution to help fund housing. Why not redirect the Tourism Promotion Assessment (TPA) towards housing. This 1% equals about a million a year and it is growing. Perhaps build homes like Habitat for Humanity or start an apprentice program. We no longer need tourism promotion to this extent. Most of our community is happy to pay the 1% if it would go towards housing. The TPA has recently been rebranded by the Convention and Visitor Bureau as the Community Sustainability Fund (CSF). What better way to sustain our community than through housing. Velvet Phillips Sullivan, 1637 E. 2nd St, stated we are theoretically on the downhill slide of our third wave of a pandemic of a virus that our species have never seen before. She thanked the Council how they have handled it in these trying times. It has been a tight rope to walk, balancing the needs of the individual with the well-being of our whole community. Council is our defense for our community, housing is an issue. She knows the water in under the bridge right now for this pandemic, potentially. Potentially not, and there still may be planning that is necessary to get us through if there is a fourth wave. Whether it is this pandemic, or the next pandemic, or fires or other inclement climate stuff, she really asks Council to keep walking that fine line, between individual rights and the well-being of our community.  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 4) COMMUNICATIONS FROM VOLUNTEER BOARDS a) Whitefish Community Library – Consideration of a request to appoint Kelly Peppmeier and Terry Peterson as Trustee-in-Training to the Board of Trustees (p.18) Sara Ericson, Whitefish Community Library Board of Trustee Chair, presented her report that is provided in the packet on the website. Councilor Caltabiano made a motion, seconded by Councilor Sweeney to appoint Kelly Peppmeier and Terry Peterson as Trustee-in-Training to the Board of Trustees. The motion carried. John Phelps, Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Advisory Committee Chair. During their monthly meeting, an issue came up only the Council can resolve. At the November 1, 2021, meeting the board presented to the Council the Riverbend Trail path issue. Council adopted a motion involving three things: 1) Enforce the city’s easement with the owners; 2) We would design a trail; 3) We would apply and obtain a FWP approval. At the recent meeting, there was a misunderstanding between city staff and the committee. The committee is looking for direction from the Council to either work on all three at the same time or one at a time. Mayor Muhlfeld asked, and Director Workman stated the only struggle from a staff level is that we don’t have a standard easement with meets and bounds that we can design a path. We have a piece of property somewhere within this 30-foot strip where we can build a six-foot path, and he thinks the direction we are going is to build something more significant than a six-foot path. Staff was hoping to have some harmony with the HOA before moving forward with that. Director Butts stated we probably can’t bring design and the completion of the FWP 124 permit to completion prior to the easement, but there is work behind the scenes that we probably could work on simultaneously while we are working on the first priority. Mayor Muhlfeld asked, and Chair Phelps stated that was enough clarification. 5) CONSENT AGENDA (The consent agenda is a means of expediting routine matters that require the Council’s action. Debate does not typically occur on consent agenda items. Any member of the Council may remove any item for debate. Such items will typically be debated and acted upon prior to proceeding to the rest of the agenda. Ordinances require 4 votes for passage – Section 1-6-2 (E)(3) WCC) a) Minutes from January 18, 2022, Special Session (p.23) b) Minutes from January 18, 2022, Regular Session (p.24) c) Ordinance No. 22-01; An Ordinance amending the Climate Action Plan Committee (Second Reading) (p.31) d) Consideration of a request for a Final Plat for Vanee Subdivision, a 2-lot subdivision located at 502 and 508 Dakota Avenue (WFP 22-01) (p.33) e) Consideration of a request for a Final Plat for Fulkerson Homestead, a four-lot subdivision located at the southwest corner of O’Brien Avenue and Sawtooth Drive (WFP 22-02) (p.59) Councilor Sweeney made a motion, seconded by Councilor Qunell to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried. 6) PUBLIC HEARINGS (Items will be considered for action after public hearings) (Resolution No. 07-33 establishes a 30-minute time limit for applicant’s land use presentations. Ordinances require 4 votes for passage – Section 1-6-2 (E)(3) WCC)) a) Ordinance No. 22-02; An Ordinance approving the Mountain Gateway Residential Planned Unit Development to overlay Tracts 1HA, 1H, 1CD, 1C, 1CB, 1, 5C, and 5 in Section 23, Township 31N, Range 22W, to develop a residential and commercial development on 32.7 acres at the intersection of East Lakeshore Drive and Big Mountain Road, Whitefish (WPUD 21-02) (First Reading) (p.83) CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 18, 2022 – PUBLIC HEARING OPEN b) Ordinance No. 22-03; An Ordinance rezoning approximately 3.966 acres of land located at 2015 East Lakeshore Drive, Whitefish, Montana, from WR-2 (Two-Family Residential District) to WR-2/WB-1-SC (Two-Family Residential District/Limited Business District 2  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 with a Statement of Conditions)(WZC 21-03) (First Reading) (p.1231) CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 18, 2022 – PUBLIC HEARING OPEN WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT RCVD AFTER 1/18/2022 (p.1220) Senior Planner Wendy Compton-Ring did not have anything new to add, therefor Mayor Muhlfeld re- opened the Public Hearing for both agenda item 6a and 6b. James Barnett, applicant, stated the people that mostly benefit from projects by these are always underrepresented. The types of people that would live here aren’t the kind that can hire lawyers to come and speak for them. We have also driven a lot of people out of Whitefish that would benefit from this type of project. A couple notes on traffic. This project seems to be the scapegoat for everything, even for conditions that have existed for some time. He read a lot of the comments and a lot of them are about how long it takes to get down at the end of the day from skiing. But then he thinks wouldn’t it be nice if some of those people pulled into Mountain Gateway. No matter where you build affordable housing in this town, those same people are going to drive up Wisconsin Avenue to go skiing. The same people are going to drive up and down that road to build houses and build condos and work there. No matter where they live. He is not convinced that Mountain Gateway adds to the traffic problem the way some people would say. They are offering a real solution that can have a major impact on affordable workforce housing in Whitefish. The Monegan Road project will have opposition too. The traffic will be an issue and will also need to be rezoned. He supports all of that. We are making a massive voluntary unprecedented generous effort to address housing in Whitefish as well as other community benefits that were identified in the Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Plan. This project is coming in under the densities, and only asking for a height variance. They are not asking anything in return for $8.5 million of community benefits, not counting 32 deed restricted affordable units. That is a ton of value the city receives for free, no strings attached. You don’t need to do anything; you don’t need to give land away. They are not looking for funding. There is nothing more that can be done for affordable housing in this location. He is proud of this project, and he still thinks it is a good solution. Donald Donahue, via Webex, senior hydrogeologist with HydroSolutions Inc. in Helena. He reviewed the memo he submitted through Kim Wilson at the October 21st Planning Board meeting. The memo is included in the packet on the website on page 642. He provided verbal comments outlining his review of water and stormwater information provided in the Mountain Gateway PUD on behalf of the Flathead Families for Responsible Growth (FFRG). The preliminary designs concerning water capacity and stormwater management have not been submitted or reviewed as required and need to be provided and analyzed by the city to verify the adequacy of this PUD to meeting city and state requirements. Amy Johannes, via Webex, 2126 Houston Drive, stated development is build it, lease it, sell it. We need an independent traffic study; all affordable units are not created equal and equal access to these units must be provided; is the eight acres a positive change? We don’t have a local track record on this developer. Roy & Esther Loman, via Webex, 2321 Alpine Court, oppose the proposed project, this is not the right location for density housing for traffic reasons: and concerns of bike and pedestrian crossing at the proposed roundabout. Sara Boylan, via Webex, 188 Moonridge Drive, supports the proposed project. Let’s the community who sees a problem, finds a solution, and moves forward with grace. Please approve and let’s get back to business. 3  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 Karl Moody, via Webex, 566 Elk Highlands Drive, opposes the project; infrastructure is over stressed, traffic is worse than it has ever been, the number of affordable housing units is not justifiable for approval of this project. Eric Kanter, via Webex, 1489 E. 2nd St., supports the project. The developer has proposed solutions to the concerns of many, fire, traffic, and affordable housing. The developer is donating land to develop a fire station; privately funding a roundabout; and providing affordable housing. Everyone deserves to live and be a part of the Whitefish community. Everyone deserves to be an active member of the community. Lisa Jones, via Webex, 314 Blanchard Hollow, supports the project. She is always concerned about traffic, development, and the bleed we are experiencing in Whitefish. She addressed the misinformation from the opposing side stating this development will be short-term rentals and second home buyers. She stated that is not true, it is apartments that rent. This will help with some of the bleed that is going on where there is no inventory for people to live. We need places for people to live right now. She doesn’t want more traffic, but she does want a community where people can live and work here. Steve Riter on behalf of Kristen Riter, via Webex, opposes the project. She is concerned with the recent modification of the project and feels it should go back to the Planning Board for initial analysis. Lauren Walker, via Webex, 155 Fonner Road, opposes the project; infrastructure is outdated. Katherine Holley, via Webex, 2448 Big Mountain Road, opposes the project, concerns of increased traffic. Brian Schott, via Webex, opposes the project. Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead, via Webex, reviewed written public comment that she provided that is appended to the packet on the website, page 1414. Erin Flaherty, 1060 Creekwood Drive, via Webex, opposes the project, concerns with traffic. Christina Treweiler Schmidt, 173 Hastings Trail, via Webex, is for affordable housing but doesn’t think anybody should have to give up reasonable access to life saving services. The following public comments are all in-person comments. Turner Askew, 3 Ridgecrest Court, opposes project, provided a letter that is appended to the packet on the website. Concerns with traffic. Velvet Phillips Sullivan, 1637 East Second Street, this is an opportunity for us to get something done. She asks the Council to protect the health and wellbeing of the community. Nikki Perisho, 2319 Alpine Court, opposes the project, her concern is a derailment or an explosion on the train tracks and an evacuation at that point. In an event of an emergency, there is no way out. Kate Berry, 1489 E. 2nd Street, supports the project; it offers solutions for fire safety, attainable housing, and eases traffic flow. 4  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 Rhonda Fitzgerald, 412 Lupfer Avenue, opposes the project, does not believe this is a solution to the affordable housing need. These are massive buildings with a huge parking lot and is out of character with any part of Whitefish. Elizabeth Pitman, 384 Sawtooth Dr, opposes the project, affordable housing should not be through development. Sharon Morrison, 400 Morrison Road, opposes this project, concerns with traffic, recommends creating a moratorium to new build north of the viaduct until the infrastructure is improved. Dave Blair, 435 Park Avenue, opposes the project, traffic conditions, displacement of wildlife habitat. Whitefish needs affordable housing full stop. Not a hollow unenforceable pledge to include a few affordable units in an otherwise well centered complex. Tony Patterson, 3804 Big Sky St, opposes the project, does not provide clear community benefit, uncertain who will develop the affordable housing on the donated land; unknown cost to build and staff fire station. Antonia Malchik, 528 W. 9th St, opposes the project, immovable barrier to development on one side of town. Mina Elm, Rest Haven Drive, opposes the project, does not encompass any of the community values stated in the Growth Policy. Ben Johnson, 813 Trailview Way, supports the project, higher density housing is a tool to employ if we don’t want to join the list of ski resort and mountain towns that have lost their community as the workforce priced out and forced to move to more affordable locales. Ed Doctor, 2279 Cedar Lane, supports the project, infrastructure is a statewide issue, the traffic has been bad for a while, this development will not contribute to it. It will get worse without this development. He wants to see apartments. He is worried about employees. Let regular people live in a cool part of town. Richard Hildner, 104 5th St., opposes the project, concerns with potential hazards and risks of wildfire. He provided a letter that is appended to the packet on the website. Whitney Geiger, Houston Drive, co-founder of FFRG, opposes the project, annexations must be zoned in accordance to the Growth Policy; she provided a handout that is appended to the packet on the website that Fire Chief Page shared with the members of the community who attended the Fire Master Plan public meeting, the master plan does not list a fire station as a top priority; the densities allowed under the current zoning are significantly less than what they are proposing with the PUD overlay; making affordable housing dependent on development and growth is inherently flawed. Heather Welch, 501 Park Avenue, supports the project, rental units are needed for the working class of Whitefish. Marijke Stob, 500 Bootjack Lake Road, supports the project, rental units are needed, whether affordable or not. The traffic issue can be worked out, we need to think big. 5  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 Nathan Dugan, 937 Kalispell Avenue, supports the project. He requests the Council to vote in favor to both items to provide vital housing and affordable housing to the community members. There being no further public comment, Mayor Muhlfeld closed the Public Hearing and turned the matters over to the Council for their consideration. Mayor Muhlfeld called for a recess at 9:57 pm and reconvened at 10:09 pm. Councilor Qunell made a motion, to approve Ord No. 22-02, adopt the original findings of fact in the packet based on the staff recommendation. The motion failed for a lack of a second. Councilor Caltabiano made a motion, seconded by Councilor Norton to deny the proposed PUD and accept the Findings of Fact of the Planning Board. Councilor Caltabiano stated this PUD has become an issue about affordability of housing. The Planning Board addressed every Finding of Fact and accepting Findings 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9; and not accepting Findings #2, 4, 7 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. He believes this city needs to keep moving long-term planning in zoning legislating to make sure there is room for workforce housing. He believes the issue should be separated from the PUD. With that reason he is going with the recommendation of the Planning Board. Councilor Norton stated she would love to approve this to get this amount of housing, but the overwhelming opposition is telling her that we are not moving in the right direction for a number of people. She has concerns with the water risks in the area. Councilor Sweeney made a motion, seconded by Councilor Feury made amendment to: Finding #2: The development is and may not be sensitive to and respectful of wildlife habitat or seasonal migration corridors that are there. Finding #4: The development will not preserve and protect the character and qualities of the existing neighborhoods. The existing neighborhoods are suburban density homes on large, wooded lots. The scale, quality, and density of the development cannot be integrated in the existing, surrounding neighborhoods nor can it be effectively buffered. Finding #10: The development does not substantially comply with the 2007 City-County Growth Policy or the Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Plan. The 2007 Growth Policy designates the property as Suburban Residential, as described as predominantly single-family homes with low densities. The development will not further the future land use goal of preserving and enhancing the character, qualities, and small town feel and ambience of the Whitefish community. It likewise will not further the goal of protecting and preserving the special character, scale, and qualities of the existing neighborhoods. The development will not further the transportation policy of encouraging sustainability in all aspects of the transportation system so that the needs of the present are met, while ensuring the future generations have some better opportunities. While the Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Plan designates the property as key development areas, it also provides that it should be developed in a manner to preserve most of its suburban character. A 270-unit apartment buildings are not consistent with the suburban character. The development does not further the goals and policies of the Corridor Plan and it does not: • Provide diverse housing in the corridor while protecting community character and existing neighborhoods. 6  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 • Support cohesive, distinctive, and diverse residential neighborhoods that are compatible with existing neighborhoods. • Encourage unified development that mitigates the potential impacts on adjacent neighborhoods and reflects neighborhood scale and character that contributes to a vibrant corridor. • It is not in accordance with the growth policy. • It is not designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers due its density and probable traffic impacts • It is not designed to promote public heath, public safety, and general welfare due to its density and probable traffic impacts • It is not designed to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation due to its density and probable traffic impacts. Finding #13: The development does not provide adequate community benefits. Councilor Qunell asked and Councilor Sweeney listed: 1) The development is only providing 32 build deed restricted apartments out of 270, while the applicant is offering 8.8 acres to be developed with 48 affordable units, it is not proposing to build those units. The additional property is not located in an area suitable for affordable housing give the traffic challenges on Wisconsin Avenue and it’s distance from services. 2) The applicant is offering 1.5 acres for a fire station but is not proposing to build the fire station or contribute to its construction and the fire station is not within the city’s budget. 3) The applicant is offering to install a roundabout, but we have no approval for that and nor has he given us any approval from MDT that that could and will be an actual roundabout or that it will in fact benefit. Councilor Qunell states the roundabout was identified as a way that would mitigate the traffic at that intersection. It is not approved by MDT yet but according to the packet it had to be constructed before anything could be built on that property. He honestly doesn’t see how anybody would ever give more than this on a PUD and us say that is not a clear community benefit. Only getting 32 units, they don’t have to give us any. He doesn’t understand what defines a clear community benefit if even that is not enough? The motion to amend the Findings of Fact carried on a 5 to 1 vote, Councilor Qunell voting in opposition. Councilor Qunell stated we can’t decide based on the will of the people. We have to decide based on the facts. There is a disagreement on the facts. He thinks there is a clear community benefit; we are getting 32 units, some traffic mitigation, and land for a fire station. We have been faced with project after project to included affordable housing in our community and every time we deny it. We are at a crisis, and we have to address this. The only place building apartments is Kalispell and Columbia Falls. Where is that traffic going? A lot of it is going over the viaduct and up the mountain. Anytime somebody moves to this place is going to impact traffic on Wisconsin Avenue. We say we want affordable housing; we say we support affordable housing, but we are just not willing to have it any where near us unless we can find some city donated land that is out of the way that nobody really sees because it is off of a dirt road. It seems that is where we are today. We have to build affordable housing; we have to look at it wherever it is. It is designated in our growth policy to be sprinkled throughout the community, unfortunately given the price of building it has to be created in denser areas. Sometimes we have to give a little to get a little. Councilor Davis stated he finds this to be one of the most difficult decisions he has had on the dais. The reality is we need housing. What we have in front of us is one proposal that may help with that. 7  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 On the other hand, there are a lot of legitimate concerns that we have heard from a lot of people. The Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Plan has several pages devoted to this exact parcel. It summarizes in basically a sentence “It is recommended that the application for development be for a Planned Unit Development that will retain most of the suburban character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood”. In the context of growth planning suburban generally means something pretty close to single family homes. There are multiple zoning districts underlying here, but that is generally speaking what the long-term planning says. The underlying zoning doesn’t provide for multi-family dwellings. Here we have a project that is the largest residential development in the history of the community. It feels out of place. He doesn’t mind the development, he thinks it would be good to have somewhere, not this location. All the problems that have been brought up, the traffic, the pedestrian access, fire safety, health safety, and community character. Those are extension of this problem. The town does not seem like it is designed for this size and scale of a development in this exact location. He knows we are arguing about some details and findings of facts, but ultimately, he does believe all of that rolls up to the simple fact that this is not what we intended to be here. Councilor Norton stated she personally thinks the community benefits were wonderful on this and she appreciates the applicant working with the planning staff for that purpose. We also have a lot of public investment in how this area grows. She feels as a city, even though it doesn’t seem like we are basing it on facts because we are listening to over nearly 4,000 people, we have had a long process to get us to this moment. That is one of the reasons why it makes Whitefish so beautiful. If we really work together as a community, we usually end up with a functional charming town. When we get a really strong NO it is important to listen to it. She doesn’t think it is our only opportunity for housing but this particular location it was very important to listen to the community. Councilor Feury stated he agrees with Councilor Qunell on many accounts, but he does no see only housing. There are other challenges this piece of property has for this kind of development. He was on the Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Plan Committee, he was one of the people that opposed anything that proposed any commercial on this piece of property. He knew what that piece of property was, and the challenges that it had. He fully agrees that no we cannot try everything in the court of public opinion, but there were 3,853 people that signed the petition. That is an overwhelming community outpouring. It is a very difficult decision, but we are looking at 24 net units here and we have no guarantee on what those other units will ultimately end up renting for. It will be housing but we don’t know who that housing will be for. All the dense housing in this community is north of the viaduct. We have clustered all of that housing that all ultimately feeds out on Wisconsin Avenue. Housing is super important, but it needs to be integrated throughout the community. We can’t just keep throwing it over north of the tracks and hope that someday the infrastructure works itself out. He will support the motion. The motion to deny WCUP 21-02 as amended carried on a 5-1 vote, Councilor Qunell voting in opposition. Councilor Norton made a motion, seconded by Councilor Caltabiano to deny WZC 21-03. The motion carried on a 5-1 vote, Councilor Qunell voting in the opposition. Councilor Sweeney made a motion, seconded by Councilor Caltabiano to postpone agenda item 6d) to the February 22, 2022, City Council meeting. The motion carried. c) Consideration of a request from Richard Lewis for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an accessory apartment over a new garage, located at 800 West 7th Street, zoned WR-1 (One-Family Residential District) (WCUP 21-28) (p.1321) 8  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 Planner I Jessica Nymark presented her staff report that is provided in the packet on the website. Mayor Muhlfeld opened the Public Hearing. Nathan Dugan, 937 Kalispell Avenue, stated the Conditional Use Permits for Accessory Dwelling Units should be Administrative Conditional Use Permits. There being no further public comment, Mayor Muhlfeld closed the Public Hearing and turned the matters over to the Council for their consideration. Councilor Caltabiano made a motion, seconded by Councilor Sweeney to approve WCUP 21-28, the Findings of Fact in the staff report and the seven conditions of approval as recommended by the Whitefish Planning Board on January 20, 2022. The motion carried. Councilor Qunell made a motion, seconded by Councilor Caltabiano to postpone agenda item 8c) to the February 22, 2022, Council meeting. The motion carried. d) Ordinance No. 22-__; An Ordinance amending the Whitefish City Code to add Article Y, Chapter 2, Title 11 to establish the WB-T zoning district (Business Transitional District), as an implementation of the Highway 93 South Corridor Plan (WZTA 22-01) (First Reading) (p.1355) This agenda item was postponed to the February 22, 2022, Council meeting. e) Ordinance No. 22-__; An Ordinance amending the Conditions of Approval of the Trail View Planned Unit Development MOVED TO FEBRUARY 22, 2022, PUBLIC HEARING 7) COMMUNICATIONS FROM FIRE CHIEF a) Consideration of a request to annex four properties to the Whitefish Fire Service Area (p.1382) Fire Chief Joe Page presented his staff report that is provided in the packet on the website. Councilor Sweeney made a motion, seconded by Councilor Caltabiano to annex four properties into the Whitefish Fire Service Area. The motion carried. 8) COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITY MANAGER a) Written report enclosed with the packet. Questions from Mayor and Council? (p.1396) None b) Other items arising between February 2nd through February 7th City Manager Smith reported she, Chief Page and Interim Chief Kelch met with the organizer of Under the Big Sky. They discussed the impacts from last year and preparing for this next year. They are reducing their ticket sales by about 8,000. That still means that there is going to be about 20,000 people in the valley for that weekend. 9  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 7, 2022 Manager Smith report Linda Broscheit in the Building Department has retired, so the Building Department will be a little short staffed; after 19.9 years, Brian Wood retired as a Firefighter. Staff is working on hiring our next Police Chief, the Police Commission has been notified to review our applicant. The Finance Department Director has been pushed out further, the city has received a couple applications that might be good candidates to interview. c) Review and consideration of the annual 2021 Impact Fee Report (p.1401) This agenda item has been postponed to February 22, 2022, City Council meeting. 9) COMMUNICATIONS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILORS Council Comments Councilor Caltabiano stated he is honored to be working with staff and this Council, and he admires Councilor Qunell’s heart. We all are trying to do our job. He congratulated the Whitefish Police Department for raising close to $2,000 for the Special Olympics. Councilor Qunell reminded citizens, if you are out walking your dogs, please pick it up after it. He stands with the service workers in this community, and he appreciates everybody that came and commented. He hopes we can come up with a solution, it needed to happen yesterday. Councilor Sweeney provided a number of Findings that he thought were appropriate for denial this evening. It gave him no pleasure to deny the project. We need housing of all kinds, not just affordable housing in this town. That is something we all need to grapple with. We need to evaluate these things based on our Growth Policy. Councilor Feury reported the LLAC met, one of the topics is events organized use and commercial use rules and regulations for the Reservoir and Haskill Trailheads. Parking is very limited, and the demand is very high. He will email the draft to the Council to review the changes. Councilor Feury agreed we do need housing of all types, but we also need to come to the grips with the fact that anytime we add any housing unit of any kind it puts a huge strain onto everything. We are short staffed in the Police Department, Fire Department, Building Department, everywhere; and approval of units impacts all of us in this community. Mayor Muhlfeld met with Manager Smith this afternoon and the idea of a Council retreat was discussed. Council agreed to a retreat. 10) ADJOURNMENT (Resolution 08-10 establishes 11:00 p.m. as end of meeting unless extended to 11:30 by majority) Mayor Muhlfeld adjourned the meeting at 11:01 p.m. /s/John Muhlfeld _______________________________ Mayor Muhlfeld Attest: /s/Michelle Howke ______________________________ Michelle Howke, Whitefish City Clerk 10