Seeking more control, Whitefish pushes growth boundary south

Saying it wants greater control for future potential development, Whitefish City Council last week approved pushing the growth boundary for the city south from Montana 40 to Blanchard Lake Road.

The move reverses a decades-long policy held by Council not to consider allowing areas south of the U.S. Highway 93 and 40 intersection to obtain city services and annex into city limits. It also comes after roughly an hour of public comment on the issue last week in which several people who spoke said they opposed future expansion of the city to the south.

Councilor Andy Feury, who has the most years on the board, said he could see arguments on both sides of the decision on whether the city should expand its urban growth boundary, but ultimately was swayed by the fact that the area will only likely see continued growth.

“As someone who wants to look out for the future of this community we need to extend this boundary,” he said. “It’s time for me to pull my head out of the sand and support this.”

Council on a 5-1 vote approved moving its urban growth boundary and thus amending its extension of services plan. Councilor Ben Davis was the only vote against.

The urban growth boundary is designed to reflect the growth around the city limits that is likely to occur in the next 10 years, and along with it the extension of services plan provides a guide for how the city could effectively provide services to areas not currently serviced and areas that may eventually be annexed into the city. For a property to be annexed into the city it must be part of the urban growth boundary, but just because an area is part of the boundary doesn’t mean it would automatically be annexed.

Garth Wells, owner of Whitefish Marine, says he doesn’t want his property to be annexed into the city. He was one of a few business owners on the highway there who said they don’t want to be within city limits.

“My biggest concern is annexation and that starts with moving the urban growth boundary,” he said. “This is for one business, but if the boundary keeps extending how far south is Whitefish going to go.”

However, Steve Gorden, owner of Bridge Medical Center, said he would rather the city have control of the area. He was one of several business owners who worked with Flathead County to create a corridor plan and rezone properties to the south of Montana 40, but he said the county hasn’t enforced that vision.

“Does the city want to do something out there or let the county do nothing,” he said. “The precedent has been created with one business out there and I’m very disappointed with the county that they pretend they have no authority.”

City Council for years has kept the southern urban growth boundary at the Montana 40 and U.S. Highway 93 intersection at the current city limits.

However, recent enquiries from owners and potential developers of properties directly south and west of the intersection, which are not located inside the urban growth boundary but would like city services, prompted placing the question before Council about a change.

Councilor Steve Qunell was pointed in his comments saying that at least one new business in the area is an “eyesore” that comes as a stark contrast to the rest. Pointing out that the city has been approached by two developers, he says the city needs to be able to have control in how that area grows.

“This is the first step in gaining control,” Qunell said.

During public comment, several community leaders expressed opposition to the extension.

Kevin Gartland, executive director of the Whitefish Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber’s board of directors oppose extending the boundary to the south.

“There will always be businesses that choose to locate outside the city,” he said. “The city has more important issues to deal with such as housing.”

The two developers who approached the city about extending the boundary so they could ask for city services also addressed Council.

Mayre Flowers, with Citizens for a Better Flathead, said the city has other priorities that should come before extending the boundary such as updating its annexation policy, constructing necessary roads and focusing on workforce housing.

“Whitefish residents have repeatedly voiced their opposition to this,” she said. “You should not allow uncontrolled commercial development.”

Eric Payne and Dean Grommett, who together own a total of about 11 acres on the northwest side of the intersection, approached the city about obtaining services. Kirk Demetrops with MidCity Real Estate Partners of Atlanta, Georgia, says his firm has the roughly 10 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection under contract to purchase and is interested in annexation.

Both Payne and Demetrops addressed Council during the meeting.

Demetrops says his firm has worked in many towns similar to Whitefish to develop mixed-use projects. After visiting Whitefish for years, he noted, he has been looking for the opportunity for a project here.

“We have a strong connection here and we’re not looking to make a quick dollar,” he said. “I believe control is a better situation than working with the county.”

Payne said there is concern about the county’s lack of oversight for the intersection.

“This is about what the community is going to look like in 20 years,” he said.

By extending the urban growth boundary further south that allows property owners to request city services and annexation. If annexed, properties would be subject to city development requirements, architectural review and engineering standards.

The extension of services plan was first adopted in 2009.

The option of adding the potential of extending services south to Blanchard Road came up during an update of the plan in 2018. However, after the idea drew criticism the plan was scrapped.