The future of Whitefish’s southern entrance hangs in the balance as Flathead County considers a zoning proposal to allow more commercial development along the U.S. 93 highway corridor.

A citizen-initiated corridor plan to change the zoning from largely agricultural and suburban agriculture to commercial and business service zoning on 490 acres along 1.5 miles of U.S. 93 south of the Montana 40 intersection will be heard by the Flathead County Planning Board on Wednesday during two public hearings. One hearing will consider the zoning map amendment; the other hearing focuses on the zoning text amendment.

If approved, the affected acreage would be placed in an overlay zoning district called the Highway 93 South Whitefish Overlay.

It’s no surprise that lines have been drawn between proponents and opponents of the plan.

Property owners along the highway have been waiting at least a decade for more zoning flexibility in how they can use or develop their land. Their property lies within the former Whitefish “doughnut” area that was the focus of an epic power struggle between the city of Whitefish and Flathead County over planning control. Land-use planning decisions were controlled by Whitefish for several years before a legal battle erupted with the county. The Montana Supreme Court ceded planning control to the county in 2014.

Independent land planner Dave DeGrandpre of Charlo was retained by property owners four years ago to pitch the idea of a corridor study to both city and county officials. That effort was put on hold until the Whitefish doughnut litigation played out. DeGrandpre was back in Whitefish last fall to present the corridor plan to the Whitefish City Council.

Although the city has no official say in how the county chooses to zone the highway corridor, the council nevertheless held a public hearing in December to provide more public feedback on the proposed zone change.

Tee Baur, who owns the high-profile tracts on the northeast and southeast corners of the U.S. 93 and Montana 40 junction, weighed in with his support of the corridor plan. He noted in a letter to the city that the plan is long overdue and has the support of more than 100 property owners.

Baur maintained the corridor plan protects the southern entrance to the city by incorporating provisions that discourage sprawl, “through landscaping, signage, architectural design, lighting, zoning that complies with adjacent city zoning, traffic recommendations and other standards.”

Whitefish Planning Director David Taylor acknowledged more restrictive standards would be a welcome addition to the corridor, but his 10-page letter to county officials points out the lack of public feedback and involvement prior to submittal of the corridor plan and concerns about the potential proliferation of commercial zoning along the highway.

The county planning staff noted in its report that most elements of the zoning overlay proposal comply with the review criteria. However, the staff report also recommended more discussion regarding strip development issues, traffic safety issues, compatibility with the city of Whitefish future land-use map, the lack of water and sewer services and the limited public input.

Baur disputes the city’s assertion that it has not had sufficient time to consider the plan.

“I have tried for over 10 years to have the city of Whitefish work with me to embrace a 93 corridor study ... and both times my initiatives and generosity have been rebuffed,” Baur stated in his letter. “Where has the city’s interest been over the last 10 years?”

In 2011 Baur sent the city a check for $5,000 to help offset the costs of a corridor study. The city later returned Baur’s money, saying the city wasn’t able to find any grants or local funds to put toward such a study.

Richard Hofland and his brothers own the property at the southwest corner of the U.S. 93/Montana 40 intersection and have been trying to sell the property since 2007 as part of their retirement plans, but were stymied by the doughnut litigation. He said the high volume of traffic and noise in that area make it “completely unsuitable” for five-acre residential development, the only allowable use under the current zoning.

Bob Graham of Old Goats Inc., a business located in the affected corridor, said landowners in that area “simply want our properties to be considered as the commercial properties that they already are.

“We’re not proposing the expansion of our properties into big box stores or brightly lit buildings to tick off our neighbors,” Graham wrote to the city in November. “We simply want the ability to sell our properties and business without future hassles.”

Many of the comments received by the city prior to its Dec. 5 public hearing voiced opposition to the corridor plan.

“Please let’s not become another congested ugly everywhere USA,” Roger and Susan Sherman of Whitefish texted the city to put their opposition on the record.

Several residents pointed to state laws that stipulate the county has a duty to work with the city of Whitefish on zoning that is compatible with the city’s zoning.

“We are losing our open spaces,” Debo Powers said. “Our valley is becoming a clutter of ugliness.”

Dru Rafkin of Kalispell referred to the “anywhere USA” look of North Kalispell, and how it looks similar to areas in Northern California, Denver and any number of other cities.

“I cannot see how rezoning the corridor as is being requested would do anything but create a steady path where Whitefish becomes one of those ‘other cities,’” Rafkin said in an email to the city. “Unfortunately, as much as I believe that you (the city) will follow steps to preserve Whitefish’s character, I see no reason to have faith in the county to follow suit.”

Bruce Boody, a Whitefish landscape architect, said the corridor plan seems to contradict the Flathead County growth policy, citing in his letter to the city language from the growth policy that states “combining the need for commercial land uses with the vision of residents is both a function of where they are located and the impact on the local community.” He said Whitefish residents and business owners have invested years of effort into preserving the character and vitality of its business districts, especially the downtown core.

“This land-use proposal directly impacts and undercuts the Whitefish growth policy,” Boody wrote, noting Whitefish has a significant inventory of undeveloped commercial properties already.

The proposed zoning map amendment has several prongs. One part includes extending the existing secondary business zoning adjacent to Whitefish south of the highway intersection.

Another part of the proposal rezones about 235 acres from suburban agriculture with a five-acre minimum lot size to a business service district that creates defined areas appropriate for nonretail limited commercial services and light industrial uses. This area affects 63 tracts of property.

A third part includes rezoning 16 tracts and about 160 acres from agricultural zoning with a 20-acre minimum lot size to suburban agricultural with a five-acre minimum lot size.

The Planning Board meets at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 11, in the second-floor conference room of the South Campus Building, 40 11th St. W., Kalispell.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.