Four of the seven items on the Whitefish Planning Board’s agenda last month regarded the same property, approximately 66 acres south of East Edgewood Drive and east of East Second Street. The board voted to recommend all four requests to the City Council who will hear the items at their August 15 meeting.

A zoning change was initiated by the city of Whitefish because the parcels had been annexed into the city in June so the county zoning designation needed to be changed to the closest city zoning designation.

Although this item only addressed the city rezoning, five residents of the neighborhood spoke during public comment against development and mentioned the dangerous nature of East Edgewood Drive and the high water table in that area.

“That road is probably the most dangerous road. They took it from 45 to 35 and now it’s really about 25 because of the bike riders… all the traffic on that road,” said Wade Atchison. “I don’t know what their proposal is to make the transportation in that area better.”

Board member Toby Scott made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning change, although saying he would like to see higher density zoning, and the motion passed unanimously.

Whitefish Senior Planner Wendy Compton-Ring presented the next three issues — a growth policy map amendment, a rezoning request and a preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) overlay — that were all interrelated but they would require separate motions from the board.

Sean Averill owns a parcel of land across the street and purchased the property in question with two other residents of Edgewood Drive last year. He spoke on behalf of the applicant, 1291 Edgewood LLC and Will MacDonald.

“Together we’re doing this because of the worry of what could happen out there, essentially. It’s the edge of dense city to very rural farms,” Averill said. “There are some developers looking at 40 homes out there, for instance, so we didn’t like that. We wanted to make it kind of a rural feel.”

They are proposing a 14-lot subdivision, including eight single-family, large lots on the eastern portion of the property, one multi-family lot and five industrial lots on the western side. The multi-family lot is proposed to have 30 rental units, six of which will be deed restricted for affordable housing.

Included in the proposal is a 100-foot treed buffer to screen the higher density residential development from Edgewood Drive and to maintain compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The overall project will provide an affordable housing benefit and there is a benefit to maintaining the majority of the property for industrial uses for employment potential, according to the staff report.

“Within the development itself, there’s 4.6 acres of open space with a proposed ten-foot wide shared-use path,” Compton-Ring said. “The applicant has also identified a developed park within that open space area that would be privately owned and maintained but open to the public.”

On the east side of the development, the applicant is proposing 8 rural residential lots, on lot sizes ranging from 5 to 15 acres, with a new private road ending in a cul-du-sac. The developer has included 8.4 acres of open space that wrap around the south and west sides of the large residential lots.

The public works department made a condition for approval that East Second Street from the railroad tracks to the intersection with East Edgewood Drive be upgraded and improved to match the street on the south side where they have curbs, gutters, street lights and street trees. No changes are planned for East Edgewood Drive, a county road.

Other conditions include management and thinning of the trees in the buffer to ensure long-term survivability and the buffer must have a permanent easement.

Board Chairman John Ellis found the existence of any industrial property to be cause for concern.

“Why should we not make them make it all urban? Why do we want to (give) them the opportunity to open an asphalt plant right there next to (the multi-family lot)?” Ellis asked.

Compton-Rice said the industrial lots are small and it would be unlikely that an enormous industry could exist there. She added that there is not a lot of industrial land in Whitefish.

“The loss of the industrial zone is a loss of potential job diversification,” said Compton-Rice.

“I think it’s a good combination to maintain some industrial area along with increased housing.”

Property owner Averill showed the board old plans of a cramped-looking industrial area.

“This is what was approved in 2007; this is 30 industrial lots.” Averill said. “This is what we’re trying to not have next to us. Even though there is some need for that. We think four is enough.”

After hearing about the proposed development few more residents of East Edgewood voiced their support as well as their misgivings.

“We do have a concern about 30 units of rental apartments versus maybe a 30-unit condo just because all of East Edgewood has been mainly people that are owners not renters so it might change the landscape somewhat,” said neighbor Tom Wambeke. “So that’s a concern, you might say that’s a selfish concern but it’s a legit concern.”

All applications associated with this project are slated for public hearing with the Whitefish City Council on August 15.

TWO APPLICATIONS for zone changes for land west of Highway 93 were also on the planning board’s agenda. The first was initiated by the city to rezone about 31 acres of newly annexed land from county zoning designation to the closest equivalent city zoning.

The second request was from Carter Unger on behalf of Uppercut 57 LLC/Eagle Enterprises to rezone two parcels. The land is located west of Highway 93, south of Park Knoll Lane and north of JP Road.

The first lot is about 19 acres that changed zoning to WER, or estate residential, to provide for single-family, large tract or estate development and WR-2 which is intended for one or two family homes. The second lot of about 11 acres, currently split between WER and WB-2 zoning, changed to WR-2 and WB-2, or secondary business.

Staff reported the rezone request met the legal criteria for approval and the board voted to recommend approval to the council who will hear the item on August 15.