Council to consider controversial apartment project

Developers Will McDonald and Sean Averill of Community Infill Partners are planning to construct 143 housing units on 24 acres of open land east of Cow Creek.

The 2nd Street Residences would include 92 apartment units, 36 condominiums and 15 accessory apartments. Some of the units would be affordable housing managed by the Whitefish Housing Authority.

A rezone and planned unit development overlay are being requested to allow the project to go forward.

The zone changes would be from one-family residential to two-family residential, and from agriculture to an estate residential district. The proposed PUD will allow the developers to cluster homes at the center of the property and retain 68 percent open space.

The subdivision is expected to create about 1,080 vehicle trips per day. A traffic impact study conducted by Abelin Traffic Services concluded that the project will have little impact on the surrounding streets.

City staff is recommending approval of the zone change and PUD with 19 conditions.

The City-County Planning Board recommended approval of the project at their July 18 meeting following a 5-1 vote.

The project has been scaled down numerous times since it was first presented to the public this winter as the 2nd Street Apartments. The original plan called for 174 housing units in large multi-plex buildings.  

Still, some residents say the development remains too dense and that it will be a detriment to the neighborhood.

“The applicants knew when they purchased the property what the zoning designations were, and should not be allowed to change them in order to develop the property in their proposed manner, especially when the proposed development is not in conformity with the existing neighborhood,” residents David Bennetts, Cheri LeBlue, Henry Bennetts and Samantha Bennetts wrote in a letter to the city.

“Four months was plenty of time for the applicants to try and address the concerns of the neighborhood, and they were not able to because this type of development is not appropriate for this neighborhood.”

East Second Street resident Kathy Spangenberg is concerned that approval of the zone change could set a dangerous precedent in the neighborhood.

“There are many areas in the city that have already been designated for high density residential development through the growth planning process and are already zoned for it,” Spangenberg wrote in a letter to the city.

Greg and Mary Jo Hennen warned the city that approval of the project could lead to litigation.

“I am all for developing this property as it is currently zoned,” they wrote. “I oppose the spot zoning the developer is requesting. If this passes, it will cost the taxpayers of Whitefish thousands of dollars, as I am sure this will end up in court.”

East Second Street resident Nancy Tigue says she is not against change, but that the proposal could be detrimental to the predominately single-family neighborhood.

“The proposed residences are to be primarily rental units, thus potentially lacking care and pride of individual home ownership by creating a transient population,” she wrote.

Noah Couser, a new resident on Armory Road, says his main concern is the impact on traffic and pedestrian safety.

“We’ve only lived on Armory for eight months now, and it doesn’t take that long to see the sheer numbers of people using the roads to get to the dog park, Edgewood, the skate park or other residential areas,” Couser wrote to the city. “Throw in another 100-300 cars leaving and coming around a similar time, and you have an absolute nightmare.”

Proponents say the infill project adds needed affordable housing in Whitefish.

KK Jense, founder of Proof Research, told the city that as a newcomer to the area, it was a “nightmare” for his family to find a place to live close to town.

“It’s also been very challenging for our company to find places for our new hires to live,” he wrote.

Flathead Valley resident Charene Herrera says the lack of affordable housing in Whitefish has prevented her from living in the city for the past six years.

“I am the premier demographic for Whitefish: 25, single and active,” she wrote in a letter to the city. “So why does the city’s housing situation not appeal to people my age? It is not the lack of available rentals — it is the affordability. Affordable does not mean cheap, grungy or run down. Whitefish has an issue to address with affordable housing and I am in total support of the new apartments and think they will be a great asset to the community’s growth.”

Linda Roberts, owner of Whitefish Property Management, noted in a letter to the city that currently there is a limited supply of affordable rentals.

“I have many potential tenants who cannot find adequate housing here in Whitefish,” she wrote. “I believe the developers of this project are putting much thought and consideration into the impact, or lack of impact, on the community and are holding their standard high.”

Local builder Cole Blackwell threw in his support, saying the development will be a benefit to families.

“The location of this project seems ideal, with its location within city limits and its close proximity to the middle and high school, along with child care,” he wrote. “If I were in the position of requiring a rental as a father of three, it would be very beneficial if my children could walk to school, not only for convenience, but for safety.”

The city council meeting is slated for Aug. 19 at 7:10 p.m. at City Hall.

A controversial proposal for a large-scale apartment and condo project on East Second Street will go before Whitefish City Council on Monday, Aug. 19.

Developers Will McDonald and Sean Averill of Community Infill Partners are planning to construct 143 housing units on 24 acres of open land east of Cow Creek.

The 2nd Street Residences would include 92 apartment units, 36 condominiums and 15 accessory apartments. Some of the units would be affordable housing managed by the Whitefish Housing Authority.

A rezone and planned unit development overlay are being requested to allow the project to go forward.

The zone changes would be from one-family residential to two-family residential, and from agriculture to an estate residential district. The proposed PUD will allow the developers to cluster homes at the center of the property and retain 68 percent open space.

The subdivision is expected to create about 1,080 vehicle trips per day. A traffic impact study conducted by Abelin Traffic Services concluded that the project will have little impact on the surrounding streets.

City staff is recommending approval of the zone change and PUD with 19 conditions.

The City-County Planning Board recommended approval of the project at their July 18 meeting following a 5-1 vote.

The project has been scaled down numerous times since it was first presented to the public this winter as the 2nd Street Apartments. The original plan called for 174 housing units in large multi-plex buildings.  

Still, some residents say the development remains too dense and that it will be a detriment to the neighborhood.

“The applicants knew when they purchased the property what the zoning designations were, and should not be allowed to change them in order to develop the property in their proposed manner, especially when the proposed development is not in conformity with the existing neighborhood,” residents David Bennetts, Cheri LeBlue, Henry Bennetts and Samantha Bennetts wrote in a letter to the city.

“Four months was plenty of time for the applicants to try and address the concerns of the neighborhood, and they were not able to because this type of development is not appropriate for this neighborhood.”

East Second Street resident Kathy Spangenberg is concerned that approval of the zone change could set a dangerous precedent in the neighborhood.

“There are many areas in the city that have already been designated for high density residential development through the growth planning process and are already zoned for it,” Spangenberg wrote in a letter to the city.

Greg and Mary Jo Hennen warned the city that approval of the project could lead to litigation.

“I am all for developing this property as it is currently zoned,” they wrote. “I oppose the spot zoning the developer is requesting. If this passes, it will cost the taxpayers of Whitefish thousands of dollars, as I am sure this will end up in court.”

East Second Street resident Nancy Tigue says she is not against change, but that the proposal could be detrimental to the predominately single-family neighborhood.

“The proposed residences are to be primarily rental units, thus potentially lacking care and pride of individual home ownership by creating a transient population,” she wrote.

Noah Couser, a new resident on Armory Road, says his main concern is the impact on traffic and pedestrian safety.

“We’ve only lived on Armory for eight months now, and it doesn’t take that long to see the sheer numbers of people using the roads to get to the dog park, Edgewood, the skate park or other residential areas,” Couser wrote to the city. “Throw in another 100-300 cars leaving and coming around a similar time, and you have an absolute nightmare.”

Proponents say the infill project adds needed affordable housing in Whitefish.

KK Jense, founder of Proof Research, told the city that as a newcomer to the area, it was a “nightmare” for his family to find a place to live close to town.

“It’s also been very challenging for our company to find places for our new hires to live,” he wrote.

Flathead Valley resident Charene Herrera says the lack of affordable housing in Whitefish has prevented her from living in the city for the past six years.

“I am the premier demographic for Whitefish: 25, single and active,” she wrote in a letter to the city. “So why does the city’s housing situation not appeal to people my age? It is not the lack of available rentals — it is the affordability. Affordable does not mean cheap, grungy or run down. Whitefish has an issue to address with affordable housing and I am in total support of the new apartments and think they will be a great asset to the community’s growth.”

Linda Roberts, owner of Whitefish Property Management, noted in a letter to the city that currently there is a limited supply of affordable rentals.

“I have many potential tenants who cannot find adequate housing here in Whitefish,” she wrote. “I believe the developers of this project are putting much thought and consideration into the impact, or lack of impact, on the community and are holding their standard high.”

Local builder Cole Blackwell threw in his support, saying the development will be a benefit to families.

“The location of this project seems ideal, with its location within city limits and its close proximity to the middle and high school, along with child care,” he wrote. “If I were in the position of requiring a rental as a father of three, it would be very beneficial if my children could walk to school, not only for convenience, but for safety.”

The city council meeting is slated for Aug. 19 at 7:10 p.m. at City Hall.