Whitefish City Council approved plans for a large mixed-use building on the corner of East Sixth Street and Spokane Avenue — as part of the deal, the city was granted riverfront property for public parkland use.

According to the staff report, the proposed development involves zoning deviations in exchange for a community benefit. The applicant is proposing to dedicate approximately one acre of riverfront property to the city for the purpose of parkland to provide access to the river trails and Whitefish River.

Concerns have been voiced about the bulk, mass and scale of the building and during the planning board’s public comment, resident Rhonda Fitzgerald said, “This is a really big building, unlike any of the buildings around it.”

Monte Gilman of MG Ventures plans to develop a three-story building with commercial on the first floor and a total of eight residential units on the second and third floors. The property for the proposed building drastically slopes down to the Whitefish River which led to the developer asking for a height variance of 45 feet on the side closest to the river while the side of the building facing Sixth Street will be the standard 35 feet tall.

“This 806 Spokane property is pretty much worthless to anybody but me and the city of Whitefish,” Gilman said. “It's been on and off the market for years.”

When the plan went before the Whitefish Planning Board, Vice-Chair John Ellis made a friendly amendment that stated the building height deviation is permitted only as shown in the supplied east and west elevation drawings.

The proposal includes MG Ventures giving approximately an acre of riverside land to the city to use as a park. The city believes there is a public benefit to owning the land for use as a park because it would provide another public access point to the river. A second benefit for the city is having easier access to a large sewer pipe that runs beneath the property.

Concerns about the public benefit of the property and the ability to make a path for access to the public section of the parcel were discussed. Councilor Ben Davis asked Parks and Recreation Director Maria Butts for her view of the usefulness and value of the park to the community even if a dock cannot be built due to the topography of the area.

“It serves as open space, it protects the corridor and it’s an area where people could still sit and enjoy the river,” Butts answered.

Councilor Steve Qunell said his concern was the city taking on the property without being able to access the river from it due, in part, because of the steep path leading to the river. Butts said the public is using the area already and that the path the city makes might be more gradual and would have to be permitted.

“This piece of property has been one the city has wanted to own for, literally, decades,” Councilor Andy Feury added. “It provides a huge benefit for access to the river for us and (a) challenge may be there to get a dock in and get good access but…. we can make that happen. The other reason we always wanted to obtain this property was because of the sewer easement we have through there.”

In May, the planning board recommended approval of the plans, as did the city staff. The council approved and passed the project unanimously with two amendments, one concerned with parking spaces and one with boulevard improvements.

In addition to 11 underground parking spaces, the project has 24 parking spaces, more than what is required, but the developer intended to use 12 spaces for the residences and staff parking, leave six for public use and keep the remaining six in his name in case plans change in the future.

City staff recommended an additional six to 12 spaces be dedicated to the city for use of the park and trail. The developer fought for the parking spaces because the use of the building may change.

“I think we deserve those spots because we don’t know the future of that building,” Gilman said. “I’m sure it’ll be a real estate office for quite a while but someday it might not be and if I'm paying to put those spots in there, we should get the spots we need for now and even for the future.”

After some discussion, Qunell made a motion to require a minimum of 12 reverse angle parking spaces on the west side of the parking lot, dedicated and signed for public use. The motion carried 5-1.

During the public hearing, Fitzgerald asked the council to make a condition stating the developer would build “an attractive, high-quality streetscape with landscaping, sidewalks, street trees, and high-quality street lighting fixtures” along Spokane Avenue. Fitzgerald said that is the requirement for this development per the Highway 93 South Corridor Plan. Mayre Flowers from Citizens for a Better Flathead supported Fitgerald’s comments.

City staff noted that street trees and a boulevard along the highway would need to be approved by the Montana Department of Transportation. Aaron Wallace from MT Creative, the architect for the project, said they are willing to work with MDT but his concern was being conditioned to meet a requirement that may be in conflict with another agency.

“We’re happy to engage with the state and try to meet as much as we can of the scenic corridor and the public requirements,” said Wallace.

Councilor Norton moved to add a condition requiring the developer to pursue with all due diligence making the street, sidewalk, and boulevard improvements as identified in the Highway 93 South Corridor Plan and the motion carried.