Citing the lack of a clear community benefit, the Whitefish Planning Board Thursday voted unanimously to recommend denial of a request for a neighborhood plan for 70 acres of property in the south area of the city.

Board member John Ellis said the plan, which would be an amendment to the city’s growth policy if approved, needs to meet certain requirements for approval.

“I can’t find that this provides a community benefit,” he said.

Other board members pointed to proposed multi-family designations called for on portions of the property as part of the plan as incompatible.

“I like this plan as a good beginning,” Board member Judy Hessellund said. “But I don’t like the area [for multi-family] housing.”

“Those areas don’t match being surrounded by a conservation easement,” Board Chair Steve Qunell added.

Whitefish 57 LLC, Eagle Enterprises and Marie Hedman have submitted a request to the city for a subarea or neighborhood plan for the properties that front Highway 93 South between Park Knoll Lane and JP Road. The neighborhood plan looks to change the existing suburban and rural growth policy designations to urban and multi-family designations, along with about 25 acres of the plan area being designated for open space. If approved, the plan would become an amendment to the city’s growth policy.

The proposed neighborhood plan looks to break the property into seven different sections with commercial and residential designations including single-family and multi-family residences. As part of the plan, the applicants note that they are committing to 10 percent of the project becoming affordable housing.

Bill VanCanagan, a Missoula attorney representing the developers, said the plan is a concept that will be fleshed out further and reviewed through the design process.

“The purpose of this plan is to begin the process of possible development of the area,” he said. “We have a long way to go before we break ground on a project.”

Neighbors of the area who have organized under the South Whitefish Neighborhood Association have raised a number of objections to the plan. They claim that it doesn’t match the city’s growth policy and note that potential development that could result because of the plan would have grave impacts to a wetland on the tract of land, be an end of the wildlife corridor and detrimental to the folks who live in the neighborhoods surrounding the area.

Mayre Flowers, representing the neighborhood association, said consideration of the neighborhood plan should wait while the city works to update its extension of services plan and create a Highway 93 South Corridor Plan, which a committee was just created to handle.

“There are numerous plans to be considered by the city that directly effect this are in the longterm,” she said. “We need to put this on hold until there is more comprehensive planning in place.”

City Council will hold a public hearing and vote on the plan on April 16.