Planning Commission

WHITEFISH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD January 16, 2025 6:00 PM A) CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Qunell called the regular meeting of the Whitefish Community Development Board to order. Board members present were, Whitney Beckham, Phil Boland, Jon Heberling, Toby Scott, Mallory Phillips, Scott Wurster and Steve Qunell. City staff present were Planning Director David Taylor, Planner I Lauren Macdonald, City Attorney Angela Jacobs, and Legal Assistant Bree James. There were approximately 16 people attending in addition to the board members and staff. B) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD APPOINTMENTS: 1. Selection of Whitefish Community Development Board Chair Scott made a motion to nominate Steve Qunell as Board Chair, seconded by Phillips. Wurster made a motion to nominated Whitney Beckham, seconded by Boland. The nomination for Steve Qunell passed on a 4 to 3 vote with Scott, Boland, Phillips, and Qunell voting for and Heberling, Beckham, and Wurster voting against the motion. Steve Qunell accepted the nomination. 2. Selection of Whitefish Community Development Board Vice Chair Boland made a motion to nominate Whitney Beckham as Vice Chair, seconded by Qunell. The motion passed unanimously, and Whitney Beckham accepted the nomination. 3. Appointment of Whitefish Community Development Board member to the Lake and Lakeshore Committee. Wurster made a motion to appoint Toby Scott to the Lake and Lakeshore Committee, seconded by Beckham. The nomination passed unanimously, and Scott accepted the nomination. C) AGENDA CHANGES Qunell made a motion to move WZV 25-01, a request by Brett Wrathall for a variance from the side yard setback in order to reconstruct a single-family home, to the first agenda item. The motion passed unanimously. D) APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 19, 2024, MINUTES Boland made a motion, seconded by Beckham to approve the minutes. The motion passed unanimously. E) COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC (Items not on the agenda) None. Whitefish Community Development Board January 16, 2025 pg. 1  F) UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. G) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. WZV 25-01 A request by Brett Wrathall for a variance from the side yard setback in order to reconstruct a single-family home. The property is currently developed with a single-family home and guest house. The property is located at 430 Parkway Drive and can be legally described at Tract 7X in Section 25, Township 31N, Range 22W, Flathead County. Planning Director Taylor reviewed the staff report and findings. As of the writing of WZV 25-01 nine public comments had been received in support of the request. Staff recommended adoption of the findings of fact within staff report WZV 25-01 for approval of the side yard setback in order to construct a single-family home. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE BOARD Wurster asked for clarification on Finding 1. Scott questioned Taylor about the current foundation. Qunell asked for clarification on the difference between a remodel and a rebuild and if there was anything in the plans to prevent them from building another story, which Taylor explained a remodel would keep the existing framing versus a rebuild where they tear down all the framing, and they could add a condition for another story. COMMUNICATION FROM APPLICANT/AGENCIES Brian Joos, who is representing the applicant Brett Wrathall, addressed the criteria about limiting the reasonable use of the property. The homeowner is trying to work as unobtrusively as possible, but the construction and framing are 60 years old and may have mold or other issues. He agrees that adding a condition about limiting a second story is reasonable. Brett Wrathall, 430 Parkway, the applicant did confirm this is the intention. Wurster questioned if this limits the reasonable use of the property. PUBLIC COMMENT Judy Pettinato, 440 Parkway, worries about the house sinking due to white clay and water problems in the area. She does ask that people not speed down the road or block her garage, but she is in favor of this. Whitefish Community Development Board January 16, 2025 pg. 2 Richard Hildner, 104 5th Street, is concerned about the 3 feet setbacks and fire trucks having access. MOTION AND VOTE (WZV 25-01) Scott made a motion, seconded by Wurster to approve WZV 25-01. BOARD DISCUSSION Wurster made a motion to add a friendly amendment, seconded by Beckham that finds the reasonable condition in Finding 1 does apply and is satisfied by the testimony the homeowner provided. Wurster explained you don’t really need to rebuild an entire foundation to move it a few inches and Finding 1 would limit the property homeowners from moving the entire foundation which is not reasonable. Qunell is not going to support Wurster’s motion because he doesn’t feel this would limit the use of the property by denying the original motion and doesn’t want to change the definition of what’s reasonable. Qunell would rather find this inapplicable due to other circumstances. The friendly amendment passes on a 5 to 2 vote, with Heberling, Phillips, Beckham, Wurster and Boland voting for and Qunell and Scott voting against. Heberling made a motion to add an additional friendly amendment to eliminate the last part of Finding 1 which states the motion finds this reasonable use not applicable. Instead, this should include reasonable rehab of construction after 65 years on the original footprint. This motion fails for lack of a second. Qunell confirmed with Planning Director David Taylor to strike the last sentence of Finding 1. Beckham questioned if they could put a condition on a variance that deals with height restrictions and the number of stories in a house. Currently she doesn’t feel this needs to be added. Qunell is unlikely to vote for this without the friendly, not because of this homeowner, but possible future owners that push the limits and future variances that come in. Qunell made a motion to add a friendly amendment stating the condition of approval requires that the applicant plans to build the plans submitted, seconded by Heberling. Wurster questioned if this plan changes the height. The vote passes on a 6 to 1 vote, with Heberling, Beckham, Qunell, Boland, Wurster, and Scott voting for and Phillips voting against. The motion passes unanimously. Whitefish Community Development Board January 16, 2025 pg. 3  2. WZA 24-01 Robert Horne, Jr., Kate McMahon, and Phillis and Jack Quatman have filed an appeal of a zoning administrator decision per §11-7-6, WCC, regarding whether a 300’ setback is required for an accessory building to an airport in relation to WCUP 24-05 for an airplane hangar at the Whitefish Airport approved by City Council on July 1, 2024. POSTPONED FROM THE DECEMBER MEETING. Planning Director David Taylor reviewed his staff reports, findings and conditions of this request. As of the writing of this report one public comment has been received which staff provided to the board. Staff recommended adoption of the findings of fact within staff report WZA 24-01 for approval of the zoning administrators’ interpretation. COMMUNICATION FROM BOARD Wurster questioned the interpretation of the wording used. Taylor explained the wording should have said landing strip or runway, not airport. This was the intent of what was written. Discussion followed regarding 300’ setback and what boundary to measure from. Qunell confirmed they need to meet both appeals, one, that they erred in their interpretation, and two that all people, not just 1, who are appealing are specifically aggrieved in order to approve this. Qunell asked if there was any definition of a hanger in the 2014 Code which Taylor explained doesn’t specifically state a hangar, but where an aircraft specifically lands. They agreed the Code will need to be updated. Quenell questioned how far the proposed hangar would be from the runway. Qunell questioned City Attorney Angela Jacobs whether it is appropriate under state law for zoning administrators to interpret code when it’s ambiguous, which she confirmed Dave does have discretion and was specifically asked to make an interpretation. Qunell is concerned about the consequences of approving this appeal and what would happen next. Jacobs explained that if the board upholds Dave’s interpretation, then it doesn’t go any further, but if they approve the appeal it would go back up to City Council because their decision would have been based on a violation of our code. Wurster asked Jacobs to clarify if the first time this set back came to light was after the city council approved the CUP, which Jacobs responded the first time she heard about it was after the city council decision. He questioned whether or not staff should have raised this to the Boards attention before City Council meeting. COMMUNICATION FROM APPLICANT/APPEALANTS Robert Horne, 151 Wedgewood, explained a zoning code is a law, not a policy or objective that can mean different things at different times, and the interpretation cannot be used to amend a code. He asked for clarification at the May 13th WCDB meeting regarding the 300’ setbacks and runways. In his letter he asked if a variance request as well as an additional CUP was needed. He was never given clarification. Whitefish Community Development Board January 16, 2025 pg. 4 Beckham asked Horne to explain specifically how he is aggrieved, which he answered that Kate McMahon would speak to that. Kate McMahon, 151 Wedgewood, is a resident who has claims to be aggrieved by this zoning request. She spoke about the hangar not meeting the 300’ setback requirement, and how the CUP does not comply with the section on expanding a non-conforming use. The homeowners had to appeal this decision because they felt their questions were not being addressed. She presented a petition signed by 52 people in support of this appeal. McMahon said on October 22nd they submitted a letter of appeal with 5 points explaining why they are specifically aggrieved with 70 pages of supporting documentation. She went on to explain the distances and impacts the airport hangar would have on them, as well as their safety concerns. McMahon feels they are also aggrieved by not having their questions answered and this is why they had to file an appeal. McMahon feels an error was made in the interpretation of the 300’ setback which only applies to the runway or the building and facilities next to the airport. There are safety concerns with as well as all operations and areas associated with an airport. She asked for clarification if this would go to City Council. William McKinney, 1201 Carole Avenue, confirmed he is only proposing to build a hanger and nothing else at the City Airport. Beckham questioned McKinney regarding the application turned into the planning director, and if he answered how the proposal meets the specific development criteria. McKinney stated he didn’t believe that applied to an accessory building at an existing airport. Qunell and McKinney discussed if a hangar would increase traffic. Wurster brought up concerns setting a precedent in the future which McKinney agreed a plan is the safest way to go. BOARD DISCUSSION Steve Qunell and City Attorney Jacobs discussed the definition of aggrieved. Jacobs stated that in 2004 the State had safety standards for airports, which have all been repealed, so it doesn’t trump Planning Director Taylor’s interpretation. Anything else would need to have a study done. There was further discussion between Beckham and Qunell about being aggrieved or having standing. Boland brought up the fact that property owners within 300’ received letters. Jon Heberling explained standing is often litigated, and it would apply to users of the dog park. Wurster is concerned about setting a precedent that severely restricts the type of person who can object to the zoning standard. Whitefish Community Development Board January 16, 2025 pg. 5 Heberling commented on Whitefish having just 1 zoning regulation regarding airports, 11-3-38, which talks about a 300’ setback, but not how to measure it. It would be up to the City Council to change the ordinance and zoning regulations. The zoning administrator has used MC 67 7 211 3 which is a statue that allows a choice between a state regulation versus a city regulation and the more stringent one can be applied by the city. The more stringent one would include airport hangars but was not used in this situation. Attorney Jacobs reminded everyone this statute applies to airport affected areas which we are not. Qunell asked Jacobs to clarify when the State did away with its airport ordinances, and if they are left intact the definition of an airport, which she confirmed. MOTION AND VOTE (WZA 24-01) Wurster made a motion to allow the appellants appeal to be granted, seconded by Heberling. The motion passed on a 5 to 2 vote with Heberling, Beckham, Boland, Wurster and Scott voting for, and Phillips and Qunell voting against. BOARD DISCUSSION Wurster feels this interpretation isn’t reasonable, but erroneous, and that they should focus on the track of land and where they should measure the 300’ setback from. He questions why the applicant submitted information including a 300’ setback being met, and why the appellants questions regarding it were not answered. Wurster feels they should be able to rely on the information they are given, and being deliberate or inadvertent, the interpretation wasn’t reasonable. Beckham feels the Code written in 2014 isn’t relevant and they shouldn’t have to look at a State Code instead of a City Code for a definition. Her thought is they should be more restrictive of the applicant to protect public safety. She believes anyone who uses the public space could be aggrieved. Qunell and Beckham agreed they are only deciding on the merits of this, and she feels there was an error. Qunell followed up explaining there are two things to decide. One, that our zoning administrator erred in his interpretation. He feels it’s inappropriate and unfair to say this was concocted behind the scenes to either our zoning administrator Dave Taylor and/or Mr. McKinney. Qunell reminded the Board Mr. McKinney only wants to build a hangar, so they looked at the Ordinance in place which does not apply because its only showing a 20’ setback in an agricultural area, and since the State feels like this is appropriate use of the land Taylor made a reasonable determination of the zoning ordinance. Qunell’s second point is that not all the aggrievances the appellants listed are not valid. They are not impacted by an expansion of the airport, future development, or improvement. The regular users of Armory and the Dog park could say their enjoyment of the park is aggrieved, but not being listened to is not grounds for a grievance. Since this motion does need to meet both of these, he is not supporting it. Whitefish Community Development Board January 16, 2025 pg. 6 Jacobs did follow up with an answer to one of Kate McMahon’s questions. One of the conditions of approval for the CUP was the applicant must maintain and demonstrate continued compliance with all adopted city codes. Since the board determined they are not complying with the setback rules due to David Taylor’s possible error in interpretation of the setbacks the Ordinance will be aired for a public hearing before City Council to decide if they are going to revoke the CUP. H) GOOD AND WELFARE • Matters from Board Heberling & Qunell discussed needing a rational or not for their decision at City Council. Qunell said he is more than welcome to write a letter to city council. Taylor reminded him they will receive the minutes from this meeting. Wurster wonders how they can present the rational at the time of city council. Any board members wish to be heard can be put into the record. Jacobs explained they will have the minutes and that should be sufficient. Qunell also said anyone could submit a letter to City Council. Wurster isn’t sure it’s their place to provide a rational since that will be City Council’s job. Qunell commented that it’s not their job to provide rationales, but Heberling can go to the meeting himself and speak. Wurster said it could be brought up during the reports from other boards during City Council meetings. Heberling made a motion, seconded Wurster to vote on placing economic development, goals and objectives as the first item on the agenda at the February work session. The motion passed on a 5 to 2 vote with Heberling, Beckham, Boland, Wurster and Scott voting for and Phillips and Qunell voting against. Qunell is going to defer to staff on this decision. Beckham asked if they could see the goals and objective as a draft so when they are presented with something they would have the option to change it. Taylor explained where the goals and objectives are derived from. Qunell reminded everyone they need to very careful what they ask of staff because it does affect what they do. • Matters from Staff Taylor and Qunell decided to wait on making a decision regarding changing dates or times for the work sessions until March. They decided to finish the environmental work session chapter at the next meeting. • Poll of Board Members available for next meeting All Board Members indicated they would be at the February 20, 2025, regular meeting. I) ADJOURNMENT Whitefish Community Development Board January 16, 2025 pg. 7 Qunell adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Whitefish Community Development Board January 16, 2025 pg. 8