A flood of last-minute comments about Flathead County’s proposed zone changes in the “doughnut” area around Whitefish has prompted the county Planning Board to call a special meeting Sept. 23 to further consider the changes.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing Wednesday to consider establishing a Rural Whitefish Zoning District on nearly 13,000 acres around Whitefish that previously was under the planning oversight of the city of Whitefish.

The county is in the throes of converting the zoning in the area around Whitefish from city to county classifications, following a July 2014 state Supreme Court ruling that ceded planning control to the county. Interim county zoning currently is in place in the doughnut.

For the most part, the county’s zoning will mirror what Whitefish had in place, with a couple of exceptions. Within the county’s proposal are zone changes that will create smaller lot sizes in the Houston Drive and East Lakeshore Drive areas and the Karrow Avenue corridor.

The county Planning Office received 75 to 100 pages of written comments after the Planning Board’s packets were sent to board members, according to Planning Director Mark Mussman. The board wants time to consider the additional comments and will do so prior to the special meeting.

The public comment period is now closed and no further comment will be taken at the Sept. 23 meeting, when the board is expected to deliberate and make a recommendation about the zoning changes. The county commissioners will make the final decision about the zoning plan.

“No doubt we’ll receive more comments,” Mussman said. “Those comments will be forwarded to the county commissioners.”

Many residents of both the Houston Drive and Karrow Avenue neighborhoods oppose the zone changes that will reduce lot sizes.

On Houston Drive and some parcels along East Lakeshore Drive, zoning on the Whitefish Lake side of the road would change from R-1 residential with a 1-acre minimum lot size to R-2 residential with a 20,000-square-foot lot size.

In the Karrow Avenue area, zoning north of Blanchard Lake Road would become R-2.5 residential with a 2.5-acre minimum lot size. SAG-10 (suburban-agricultural zoning with a 10-acre minimum lot size) in that area will be eliminated. Some SAG-5 zoning is proposed in that area.

Mary Person, a Blanchard Lake Drive resident, noted in a letter to the Planning Board that a future land-use map in Whitefish’s 2007 growth policy calls for a rural future land use with a 10-acre minimum.

“Your proposed changes in zoning is totally inconsistent with this and a significant density change for the region,” Person said. “I hope that the county reconsiders this density change ... By increasing the density in these agricultural areas now, it goes against the growth policy and encourages more wells and septics in a large area, where future land use might make city utilities and services more appropriate.”

Protecting water quality in the Blanchard and Lost Coon lake areas also is important, Person stressed.

She suggested a neighborhood workshop before the county zoning is finalized.

Don Robb, who owns property on Houston Drive, said he is opposed to the R-2 zoning for that area because the current R-1 zoning “preserves a very specific mountain residential acreage structure.

“It is our belief that if R-2 zoning is put in place, that the density will inevitably increase,” Robb wrote.

Ben Cavin, chairman of the Houston Lakeshore Owners Association, said he attended earlier commissioner meetings during which the commissioners agreed the county zoning in the doughnut should be as similar as possible to previous city zoning.

“[Then] Planning Director BJ Grieve decided most similar for Houston Lakeshore Tract was R-1,” Cavin said in an email to the board. “I also attended the April 8, 2015, Planning Board meeting and I was the only Houston Lakeshore Tract speaker and I spoke in favor of retaining the R-1 interim zoning. So who exactly from Houston Lakeshore Tract has wanted to change our zoning from R-1 to R-2?”

Another concern involved the potential for commercial sprawl along the U.S. 93 and Montana 40 highway corridors in the area around Whitefish.

Several residents also want the county to adopt sign standards that are consistent with Whitefish’s sign ordinance that doesn’t allow internally lighted or neon signs and dictates how big signs can be and how much space they can take up.

The county also has proposed five new county zoning classifications to mirror zoning classifications Whitefish used in certain outlying areas. The new county zoning would include Big Mountain resort residential, Big Mountain village, business service district, secondary business and low density resort residential.

The Planning Board will meet in special session at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 23, in the second-floor conference room of the Earl Bennett Building, 1035 First Ave. W. in Kalispell.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.