Marriott proposal met with opposition from Council

The fate of a proposed Marriott hotel in Whitefish hangs in the balance while Whitefish City Council explores options for denying the project.

After hearing from lodging owners who say another hotel will be detrimental to the community, Council unanimously voted July 5 to postpone a decision on a request for a conditional use permit for a Marriott TownePlace Suites on Highway 93 South. Some councilors asked city staff to prepare findings that would allow for denial of the project likely based on its status as a chain hotel when it reconsiders the permit request at its July 18 meeting.

Jordan Scott of Whitefish TP LLC, is looking to construct the 81-room three-story hotel that would be located on 2.66 acres of undeveloped land north of the Les Schwab tire center.

“We were selective in the site and the selection of the hotel,” Scott said. “We want to respect Whitefish. This will not have a full restaurant, a bar or a gift shop. We want guests to use the downtown amenities.”

A few hotel owners said they disagree that another lodging establishment is a good idea for Whitefish, saying it will actually have a negative impact on the community.

“Whitefish is losing its charm and character,” said Kent Taylor, owner of the Hidden Moose Lodge. “Applebee’s and Chili’s, they’re are going to be knocking on our front door and that’s going to be the entrance to Whitefish. We’re diluting the shoulder season — more people aren’t coming — this is going to take away from lodging already here.”

“There’s just no more business to be shared,” said Rhonda Fitzgerald, owner of the Garden Wall Inn. “When people ask if we are losing our town — I actually think maybe we are. I think we’re at a tipping point ­— if we’re going to be a town of just hotels, restaurants, art galleries and T-shirt shops, most of us don’t want to live here.”

Michael Morton, owner of the property for the planned hotel, acknowledged he has a vested interest in the project moving forward, but said he wouldn’t speak in support of the hotel. Instead, he posed some questions to Council.

“Do you really want to get into the business of deciding when we have enough rooms in Whitefish?” he asked. “Did you have that discussion when you approved the Hampton Inn? Did you have that discussion when you approved the Firebrand Hotel? I don’t think it’s the business of the council to decide when we have enough rooms in Whitefish. The market will decide that.”

Earlier in the meeting, Council turned down a motion to approve the project, by a vote of 2-4. Councilors Frank Sweeney and Jen Frandsen were in favor of approval, while Councilors Andy Feury, Pam Barberis, Katie Williams and Richard Hildner voted against.

Frandsen asked her fellow councilors to reconsider denying the project. She noted the project only requires a conditional use permit because the footprint of the building exceeds 15,000-square-feet in the WB-2 zoning district.

“This could quite easily come back as a use-by-right at 15,000-square-feet with whatever they want as long as they follow code,” Frandsen said. “If you don’t like what they’re proposing, I would hope you let them know what you don’t like. We can’t govern competition. We can’t tell somebody, who has a financial stake in the game, what we think is the right way for them to do business. We can say how they can fit into our community and I think they’ve done that.”

Feury voted against the motion of approval, but then moved to reconsider the vote. Council unanimously approved a motion to reconsider and then tabled the issue, directing city staff to return with findings of fact that could support denial of the project.

“We’re not the economic police,” Feury said. “I would like to have us move to table this and see if there is a set of conditions that would allow us to deny, because I don’t think we fully vetted that. I’d like to see it come back to us and then make that decision.”

City Manager Chuck Stearns cautioned Council that a decision to deny the conditional use permit needs to be backed up with findings of fact that would have to be created by city staff.

“Land-use issues are based on land-use issues as outlined in the code — not on economics,” he said. “The one main criteria that you have for addressing some of the comments that were made is community character.”

Sweeney said concerns that more chain-type businesses may try to open in Whitefish aren’t unfounded, but added the city should work on its regulations rather than deny the hotel request to deal with the issue.

“What we all don’t want is this city to become Anytown, U.S.A.,” he said. “By allowing these formula developments, we invite that. We can require those kinds of uses to at least be landscaped and screened appropriately so it doesn’t look like every town or the commercial strip in Kalispell. But that’s all we can do at this point. We can address later whether we want to continue to allow any formula [businesses].”

Hildner said the size of the hotel isn’t his concern.

“I’m not concerned about the number of rooms, but I’m concerned about how we provide those rooms,” he said.

Plans for the Marriott were withdrawn in March after the planning board recommended denial of the project amid concerns over the size and height of the hotel. The plans originally called for 111 rooms and a zoning deviation to build up to 42 feet in height. The developer returned with the new design for less rooms and also moved the project from the original location south of the pond at the Mountain Mall. The new plan calls for a footprint of 17,565 square feet, down from the 22,619 square feet that was initially proposed.

A 90-space parking lot would be accessible through a new city street connecting Highway 93 to Whitefish Avenue, which will also provide access to the River’s Edge neighborhood.

Plans show an outdoor pool/spa area to the south and outdoor seating areas on the north and west sides of the building.

The proposal is in compliance with the city’s growth policy and zoning regulations, according to city planning staff, which had recommended approval of the project.

“The project is compatible with the neighborhood and community because design features are being implemented including, articulating the walls and roof forms making the building more interesting and reducing its mass, installing landscaping throughout the site and retaining existing trees within the site plan,” the staff report states.