Council mulls plan for future street connection over river

Whitefish is examining whether it wants to retain longheld plans to create a bridge over the Whitefish River at 13th Street.

The city’s 2009 transportation plan calls for a connector road with a bridge constructed to connect 13th across the river and Cow Creek to Voerman Road. Plans call for a road to be constructed through property owned by North Valley Hospital.

The hospital, which has for several years asked the city to abandon its plans for a street through the property, has returned with the same request as it looks to sell the property.

City Public Works Director Craig Workman said the city has looked at the connector for years.

“The project has been discussed, but the cost inhibits it,” Workman said. “The cost in the plan was estimated at $8 million, but it’s gone up since then.”

The cost today would likely be doubled to about $16 million and construction of the bridge would be paid for with city funds, he noted.

City Council during a work session last week weighed whether or not to remove the connector road from its transportation plan. Council appeared to be split on the issue, with some councilors saying the city should not give up the connector plan without a viable alternative.

Workman said the hospital is interested in selling the property to the new owners of the Duck Inn, which is located north adjacent to the hospital property.

“The Duck Inn owners are interested in expanding onto that lot for an event venue,” Workman said.

In a letter to the city, North Valley CEO Chris Thomas says the hospital has been in discussions with the Duck Inn owners and the city on the matter, and feels the plans for the property could be of benefit to the city.

“You know well how important it is to the Hospital to effect the sale of this tract,” Thomas wrote in the letter.

Mark Pascoli, with the Duck Inn, confirmed with the Pilot that he and the other owner, Tyler Noland, have been examining the hospital property for purchase. He said they are still in the preliminary phases of their plans and aren’t yet ready to discuss specifics.

Representatives for the hospital in the past have said it’s been unable to sell the tract of land because buyers don’t want the piece of property because a potential easement would designate about 60 feet of right-of-way on the property for the road.

“That would render about half the property useless,” Workman explained.

However, Workman said, the Duck Inn owners have shown interest in granting the city an easement for its bike path along the river in exchange for removing the connector road and bridge from the city transportation plan.

City Attorney Angela Jacobs said the city currently has no easement on the property that would prevent construction of a building there.

“We can’t require them to dedicate streets if they’re applying for a building permit,” she said. “If in the future we decided it was absolutely necessary, we could use eminent domain to take it.”

The city would have to pay fair market value for the property even under eminent domain, she noted.

Councilor Richard Hildner said the city has long been interested in connecting its bike and pedestrian pathway in that area.

“If we had assurance from the new buyers to dedicate that right of way for the bike path — that’s a key connector,” he said.

In addition, Workman noted, the city likely faces a hurdle connecting a bridge across the river to the east. While the city owns the property on the east side of the river, deed restrictions prevent the construction of structures, which could exclude building a bridge on the tract.

“Locking in the bike and pedestrian path,” he said. “Seems more important than a transportation plan that has issues on both sides of the river.”

Councilor Jen Frandsen was skeptical of making changes to the city’s transportation plan.

“While I’m in favor of getting a bike path,” she said. “I’m not in favor of removing that connector from the plan until we have another connection.”

Councilor Andy Feury concurred, noting that providing an east-west connector is important because future development will likely occur on that side of the river.

“We can’t just change the plan to drop that [connector],” he said. “We have to have good rationale. We have to develop a reasonable alternative. We’d be remiss for Councils sitting here 20 years from now, if we don’t come up with an alternative crossing and give up one that’s been identified.”

Workman said one alternative may be to cross the river to the east beginning at Greenwood Drive. He also noted that the city plan calls for improving north to south connections that would funnel traffic to existing river crossings.

“Both east to west and north to south connectors are going to become even more important in the future as we continue to develop,” Workman said. “We need more collector streets to assist in the efficiency of Highway 93.”

Council asked staff to further investigate, including determining whether the city can construct a bridge on its property to the east, and provide updates on the issue.

Councilor Katie Williams said that information is key.

“We may not even have the connection on the other side,” she said. “That gives us our answer.”

Any changes to the city’s transportation plan would require a vote by Council.