Emotions Run High at Mountain Gateway Development Hearing

Public testimony stretched late into the night on Oct. 22 as the Whitefish Planning Board considered the merits of the Mountain Gateway project at the bottom of Big Mountain Road, where developers are laying plans for a mix of residential and commercial uses that have generated an outpouring of opposition, prompting the formation of a new nonprofit whose core mission is to scuttle the project.

However, the plan has curried some favor among residents who say high-density housing developments are necessary amid the city’s accelerated growth trajectory. They say new development close to the city center is one way to begin solving Whitefish’s affordable housing crisis, pointing to the development’s inclusion of deed-restricted units, as well as avoid urban sprawl. The project’s supporters emphasize that both the 2007 Whitefish Growth Policy and the 2018 Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Plan identify the site as an appropriate location for mixed residential and neighborhood commercial use.

Proposed by Arim Mountain Gateway (AMG), the project consists of 318 residential units at the base of Big Mountain Road and its intersection with East Lakeshore Drive. The multi-unit community would provide long-term rentals, but for many residents population density and vehicle congestion are concerns of equal or greater importance.

Such contingencies have sparked considerable outcry within the Whitefish community, including social media campaigns and online petitions opposing the development. Upwards of 400 letters were submitted by members of the public via email prior to the meeting last Thursday, while over 160 attendees tuned in online or attended in-person to watch the discussion that spanned nearly five hours. 

Although the project still has significant procedural hurdles to clear before gaining approval from the Whitefish City Council, which is slated to consider the project next month, the city’s planning staff is recommending the request for a planned-use development (PUD) overlay. Senior Planner Wendy Compton-Ring summarized the staff report in more depth and said the property has upheld its existing zoning districts since 1982. 

That recommendation did little to temper the heightened emotions of opponents who describe traffic and safety issues as forming the basis for their resistance, but who also characterize the project as running counter to Whitefish’s small-town appeal. Meanwhile, proponents of the project cite the workforce-housing crisis roiling the Flathead Valley as a prominent reason to approve large-scale developments like the one Gateway is proposing, particularly as some of the project’s critics aren’t part of the demographic struggling with housing insecurity.

For more than four hours, attendees pleaded for and against the development. By 11 p.m., planning board members were forced to adjourn the meeting due to time constraints, even as individuals remained queued up behind the podium. The hearing was continued until Nov. 18 for further rebuttal from the general public, as well as from the project’s lead developers and engineers. 

Although members of the public reached a consensus over the critical need for more affordable housing, the overwhelming sticking point for opponents centered on the development’s location at the intersection of Big Mountain Road and East Lakeshore Drive. 

President of Whitefish Mountain Resort Nick Polumbus urged the planning board to deny the project for “traffic and safety concerns,” while another local business leader, Glacier Restaurant Group Vice President Will Hagan, raised similar concerns, describing the development’s benefits as “minimal” compared to the “unreasonable traffic load on the road.” Hagan also noted that he was speaking on behalf of the Foley Family, who are the majority shareholders of Whitefish Mountain Resort. 

Also at the podium was Whitney Geiger, a board member of Flathead Families for Responsible Growth, the newly minted nonprofit responsible for an online petition titled, “Oppose Proposed Development at Big Mountain Road and East Lakeshore Drive in Whitefish.” Geiger, like many others, argued that the development was “in complete contrast to the surrounding neighborhood.” 

The group’s other board members, Jeffrey Allen, John Collins and Carol Atkinson, who also sit on the Whitefish Community Foundation, criticized the development’s proximity to Wisconsin Avenue, surmising that greater density in the area would impede future fire evacuations. 

The organization also arranged for hydrogeologist David Donnie, attorney Kim Wilson and Montana State University civil engineering professor Ahmed Al Kaisy to present technical arguments against the development and its location.

According to the specialists, more analysis and information, such as stormwater runoff plans and approval from Montana Department of Transportation for the roundabout, were needed in the application.

Other attendees addressed the reluctance of opponents and questioned whether their critiques were sincere.

“We talk about affordable housing and say we want it, but every time it comes up as a proposed project, people say, ‘Not in this location. This isn’t the right spot,’” said local writer Jessica Owens. “I genuinely wonder what is the right spot then? Nobody seems to actually want it there.”

Whitefish resident Nathan Dugan drew attention to the development’s critics, suggesting those who opposed it likely had secure housing while warning that growth was inevitable. He also noted that the proposed commercial market would contribute to the goals of the 2020 Climate Action Plan by limiting and shortening vehicle trips. 

For Ben Johnson of the Whitefish Housing Authority, the development was vital for a valuable segment of the Whitefish community that was not well represented in the room. 

At the meeting, members of the city’s planning board reviewed two separate requests on behalf of the project’s lead developer, James Barnett, who implored them to consider the projects on its merits rather than be swayed by emotional rhetoric. 

“It’s difficult for me to watch the changes that I’ve seen recently in the valley, but I’ve had to remove my emotions and be realistic,” Barnett said. “Growth will keep happening and I’d like to see a place where we mix all types of people from different socio-economic backgrounds in one community. All I can do is try to shape it in the direction that benefits our community and those that work here”

AMG intends to develop 270 rental units on the west side of Big Mountain Road, 24 townhouse units and 24 condominium units on the east side of Big Mountain Road, as well as install a neighborhood market at the northeast corner of the intersection. 

To accommodate the long-term rental community’s layout, Barnett requested a PUD overlay for a flexible land use development, as well as a zoning deviation within the PUD to accommodate AMG’s request to build four-story buildings, which exceed the city’s three-story threshold for building height. In exchange for the zoning deviation, AMG promises 32 affordable/deed-restricted units to the Whitefish Legacy Homes Program.

If approved, the three county lots would be annexed into the city limits.

The area was labeled as a key development area in the 2018 Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Plan, which recommends a satellite fire station and traffic intervention; Barnett prioritized both in the development.

To allow for a more distributed flow of traffic down the Wisconsin corridor, AMG identified the installation of a roundabout to create better, safer traffic flow at the intersection of Big Mountain Road and East Lakeshore Drive. 

During the meeting, Mark Bancale, senior traffic engineer of WGM group, explained how a single-lane roundabout would accommodate large trucks with a “truck apron” design, allowing large vehicles to navigate the road without striking nearby road users. 

In a separate statement, WGM engineer Mike Brodie emphasized that even under a no-build scenario for the roundabout, the intersection will be reduced to a level of service “F,” where traffic approaching the point exceeds the amount that can be served by the year 2025.