Council says it needs more public input before deciding to extend boundary to south

Citing a lack of public comment on the issue, Whitefish City Council last week delayed a vote on expanding its urban growth boundary, which would allow for city services to be provided to the area, south of Montana 40.

City Council will hold another public hearing on the matter on June 21, and likely vote on the update at that point.

“This is a weighty decision and not one that should be taken lightly,” Councilor Andy Feury said. “I’m disappointed in the lack of public comment.”

About a half dozen people provided comment on the issue during last week’s meeting. Comments included those favoring the updated boundary saying it makes sense for future planning and those against said it would lead to sprawl, and at least one person asked for delaying a vote to provide more time for input.

The urban growth boundary is meant 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.

City Long Range Planner Hilary Lindhsaid an extension of services plan is required under state law and acts as a guide for how the city will serve areas that are not currently served and areas that may eventually be annexed.

“Services are not extended unless requested by a property owner and annexation has to be initiated by the property owner,” she said. “The reality is that commercial developments in the area are occurring and requests for city services have been brought to the city, which is prompting the discussion for the change.”

“The map shows where we can extend services, it doesn’t mean we’re going to annex those areas,” Planning Director Dave Taylor added.

A decades-long policy by City Council has placed 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, has prompted placing the question before Council about a change in that policy.

During public comment, Eric Payne, one of the property owners who requested extending services and potential annexation, said there are issues that concern residents on both sides of the issue, but this is the opportunity to put control in the hands of the city for the gateway to town.

“We’re sitting right in the middle of a choice as developers between having complete freedom to do almost anything we want with very little oversight by the county to tremendous oversight and input from the city to determine what goes there,” he said. “Everybody can see the value of having accountability for these developers. There is nobody watching the participants of this corridor now and it’s pretty scary.”

Payne and Dean Grommett together own a total of about 11 acres on the northwest side of the intersection and both expressed interest in annexation. A potential owner of roughly 10 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection also expressed interest in annexation.

The draft update to the urban growth boundary shows extending it south of the Montana 40 intersection to Blanchard Lake Road. This is the physical limit of where the city could feasibly extend services in the next 10 years, according to the Public Works Department, though it doesn't mean the city has to extend services that far.

As an alternative, planning staff notes, the boundary could be located at the intersection with Emerald Drive, but with significant development happening in the area it might be better to encompass a larger area by placing the boundary at Blanchard Lake Road.

During public comment, Mayre Flowers, with Citizens for a Better Flathead, urged Council to take more time and hold a work session on the issue to better provide information to the public.

“This is a huge issue and for the last 30 years this has been discouraged and it needs much more discussion,” she said.

Rhonda Fitzgeraldspoke against extending the boundary to the south.

“The community says over and over that they don’t want this,” she said. “We already have a two- miles strip along the highway that we have to try to improve. What will these new properties do to the city.”

She did acknowledge that something should be done to protect the highway intersection, but suggested that be done through a zoning overlay.

Bob Horne said there’s active interest in developing the properties that would be part of the urban growth boundary update.

“One of the purposes of this is to protect ourselves from the county,” he said, but noted that it seems too soon to annex properties without ensuring proper zoning to guide development there.

Council has expressed concerns about development occurring in the area under control by Flathead County. The county in 2017 adopted a corridor plan and overlay zone for properties south of Whitefish, and rezoned about 490 acres along the highway.

If properties were annexed into the city, they would be subject to city development requirements, architectural review and engineering standards.

In preparing for the next public hearing on June 21, Mayor John Muhlfeld also asked city staff to provide more information on how Kalispell has handled similar situations, and also more analysis on the pros and cons of placing the southern boundary at Emerald Drive versus Blanchard Lake Road.

The extension of services plan provides a guide for how the city will provide sewer, water, police and fire protection services to areas not currently served and areas that may eventually be annexed. The urban growth boundary map reflects potential growth around the city that is likely to occur in the next 10 years.

Normally the extension of services plan and urban growth boundary are updated every five to 10 years, and the current plan was last updated in 2018. At that time a suggestion of extending the boundary to the south quickly drew criticism from those who said it would encourage growth to the south.