Whitefish changes course on highway zoning focus

The Whitefish City Council on Monday backed away from a controversial proposal to expand retail uses along the U.S. 93 strip and instead will focus on enforcing the zoning already in place along the highway corridor.

Following a public hearing that evoked resounding opposition from downtown Whitefish supporters and other citizens, the council unanimously rejected a zoning text amendment to allow additional permitted uses in the Whitefish secondary business district along U.S. 93 from Sixth Street to the Montana 40 intersection.

The council also voted to have the city staff look into better enforcement of zoning in that area and explore ways to grandfather a number of existing nonconforming businesses along the strip. While the city’s zoning code doesn’t have a mechanism per se for grandfathering such businesses, it was important to the council to find a way to give the nonconforming businesses — which include a pharmacy, florist, barber, hair salon, party rental store and others — some measure of assurance they’ll be able to continue to do business.

“Nobody’s running out there shutting these businesses down,” council member Bill Kahle said. “This is a temporary solution until we come up with a permanent solution. In the meantime, it’s peace of mind for businesses in that district.”

Although no vote was taken, the council agreed to consider a corridor study for U.S. 93 South, but at council member Turner Askew’s suggestion will wait until the next session of the Montana Legislature to see if state funding for such a study may be available. Tee Baur, a local developer who owns property on two corners at the intersection of Montana 40 and U.S. 93, offered to donate $5,000 toward a corridor study, with another $5,000 contribution upon completion.

“I don’t see it as a strip, I see it as an entrance to Whitefish,” Baur said, adding that he understands how important the preservation of the downtown area is to Whitefish.

Baur’s money could be used as a match for a corridor study, Askew said. Mayor Mike Jenson pointed out that such a study would cost somewhere between $35,000 and $50,000.

The city has spent two years studying the issues associated with broadening allowed retail uses and anticipated future uses along the strip. An ad hoc committee eventually made its recommendations to the Whitefish Planning Board in April, calling for zoning text amendments to add new permitted and conditional uses to the secondary business zone. The Planning Board signed off on the amendments, and on Aug. 2 the City Council began a public hearing on the proposal. After nearly three dozen people opposed the broadened retail uses along the strip, the council tabled a decision and asked the city staff to rework the proposal by removing shopping centers and malls from the proposed allowed conditional uses.

All the proposed changes went out the window when the council voted to reject the amendment entirely.

Several citizens stressed that enforcement of existing zoning needs to happen before changes are made to expand retail uses.

“Take a couple steps back and solve the first problem” before adding the complexity of zone changes, John Frandsen advised.

Gary Elliott, who was involved with a five-year process of establishing zoning in Whitefish in the early 1980s, said he believes the current zoning document has served Whitefish well. He pointed to existing documents such as the Whitefish master plan, the recent growth policy and the South Whitefish Neighborhood Plan, all of which address growth along the corridor.

“Make sure there are no conflicts between the documents you already have,” Elliott said.

Mary Jane Barrett, a downtown business owner, said “those wanting to change zoning should provide empirical data why downtown Whitefish should be compromised” in the process.

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead said she feels the city staff report on the zoning text amendments lacks adequate analysis. She echoed the need for a corridor study and a review of the 12-year-old South Whitefish Neighborhood Plan.

“I’m also concerned about the conditional-use process,” she said, adding that she believes the city hasn’t developed standards for fairness.

Frank Sweeney, a former Planning Board member, stressed the need for an enforcement mechanism for existing zoning regulations.

“Why in heaven’s name would we add additional retail uses [along the highway corridor] if a strong downtown is what we want,” Sweeney asked.

The Heart of Whitefish downtown group largely led the opposition to the zoning proposal, with several members testifying or writing letters to the council.

Rhonda Fitzgerald of the Heart of Whitefish noted a petition with more than 500 names of people opposing the strip-zoning proposal.

Council member Turner Askew said he believes some of the proposed changes, such as moving some retail uses from permitted to conditional uses, actually would have protected the downtown area.

“This is a work in progress,” he said. “This is an attempt to come up with what may be acceptable.”

Among the future changes may be a zoning text amendment that would create a zoning compliance permit requirement for changes of use. Current city laws outline the requirements for zoning compliance permits but it’s optional for businesses to get such a permit.