The Whitefish Planning Board recently considered a zone change for a parcel of land with a somewhat contentious history, near the intersection of Highway 93 and Montana 40 and decided to postpone the item.

The property, totaling approximately 11 acres, is located on Iverson Lane and Highway 93 and was annexed into the City of Whitefish on Feb. 21, 2023.

Since the land was recently annexed, it required city zoning in place of its current county zoning designation. Part of the property is zoned B-4 and some is SAG-5, both with a highway overlay. The city requested the designations be changed to WB-2 (Secondary Business) and WCR (Country Residential District) which is the closest city equivalent to the SAG-5.

The WCR zoning is intended for detached single-family homes in a rural setting and has a minimum lot size of two and a half acres, whereas SAG-5 has a minimum lot size of five acres. The city’s WB-2 zone (Secondary Business) is nearly identical to the county’s B-4.

The proposed zoning is in accordance with the Growth Policy because it complies with the text of the Highway 93 South Corridor Plan.

After deliberation and an extensive presentation by the landowner, Eric Payne, the board voted unanimously to postpone the item to their next meeting, which is scheduled for April 20.

A collection of issues, including the new Business Transitional District (WB-T), the extension of services plan and the Iverson Lane easement, made for a long discussion prior to the vote to postpone.

The planning board studied and recommended forming the WB-T zoning about a year ago and the Whitefish City Council finally adopted it just last month, so the WB-T is not yet on the books. It will go into effect on March 21.

“We couldn’t necessarily recommend the WB-T for this just because that zoning doesn’t exist,” Whitefish City Planner Dave Taylor said.

Chairman Steve Qunell asked about the extension of services plan and how it relates to the timing of the annexation request.

The extension of services plan is a guide for the provision of city services to areas of the city not served currently and for territories to be annexed into the city. The plan, in part, establishes policies to identify methods of financing and extending municipal services.

“There is a little sliver of this property that goes a little south of that and there was some question and discussions with the applicant about whether his entire property was in the extension of services plan,” Taylor said.

The city amended the extension of services plan to reach south to Blanchard Lake Road in June of 2021. Taylor said the city had an initial conversation regarding annexation with the applicant approximately two years ago.

Payne, with nuWest Builders, is one of the two partners in this project and said he finds the development of properties in the corridor, particularly the one adjoining his property, to be very disappointing.

“We have no plans whatsoever for what we would use these properties for,” Payne said. “Up to this point, our goal is simply to control and protect this intersection… in hopes we would not have a repeat of what has gone on on adjoining properties.”

He said the WB-2 zoning is appropriate for the types of businesses they want on the property and that they would be complementary to the surrounding residential community.

Qunell expressed that when the property was annexed, the city expressed an interest in having the land zoned WB-T because it gives the city and its residents more control. The WB-2 and the WB-T zoning designations are nearly the same except that the developer would have to get a conditional use permit rather than build by right.

Payne said he wasn’t extremely familiar with the WB-T zoning except he was “somewhat shocked” by how “drastically more limiting” it is.

Another issue was raised by Tom and Linda Iverson whose home on Iverson Lane is surrounded on three sides by the new development. In a letter to the Whitefish Planning Board, they said Iverson Lane runs east and west and will be within part of this development. There is already a safety issue when entering Highway 93 from there and they think this development will make it worse.

They said, as Payne did, that the developers proposed an exchange — Iverson Lane for a road that would take them to the junction of Highway 93 and Montana 40 where there is a traffic light.

“We told them that would be wonderful and all we wanted was an easement that was the same as the easement we now have,” the letter read. “They would not agree to that.”

Payne said he controls the access to the traffic light at the intersection. He said the easement the Iversons have now is a residential easement, not a commercial easement and he will not give them commercial access to the light.

There was no other public comment.

After weighing their options, the board voted unanimously to postpone the decision until their next meeting so they can recommend the WB-T zone for this property and there can be more time for public comment.

“We’ve been trying very hard… to finally come through with the WB-T zone… and by moving everything into a conditional use it allows the citizens to have more say in what actually develops down there and that is the key point of all of this consideration,” Qunell said.

OTHER ITEMS on the docket included a request by the City of Whitefish to rezone a 9.9-acre property located at 625 Lund Lane. The property was recently annexed into city limits so city zoning was required to take the place of its current county zoning.

The WR-1 zone is the city equivalent of the county’s R-3. The WR-1 designation is intended for residential purposes to provide for single-family homes in an urban setting.

The board voted unanimously in favor of recommending the zoning map amendment.

The final item addressed involved amending city code with a new section that allows the city council to approve a zone change ordinance from county zoning to city zoning at the same time it approves a petition for annexation.

The new plan is similar to the one that Missoula uses, it will close the gap between annexation and rezoning and it does not require the planning board’s involvement. The board voted unanimously in favor of the amendment.