Neighbors speak out against apartment project

The project, 2nd Street Apartments, would create condo and apartment buildings on 24 acres in a mostly open field east of Cow Creek. William MacDonald and Sean Averill of Community Infill Partners were requesting a zone change and planned unit development overlay for the site.

“We’ve heard the concerns and we’d like to come back to you with a redesign,” Averill said. “I’d love to come back to you with a slightly tweaked project.”

The Flathead City-County Planning Board held a public hearing on the matter March 21. Before the board could make a motion on the request, however, the developers asked the board to table the project. The board agreed and gave the developers until its May meeting to return.

Several neighbors told the board they will be sad to see the open field developed, and while they know some kind of development is inevitable, the proposed project isn’t the right fit for the area.

Bob Horne said he canvassed the Wedgewood Lane and East Second Street neighborhoods asking residents to sign a petition against the development.

“No one said this property should not be developed,” he said. “But we want a component that we can welcome into the neighborhood. The apartments have been justified as being needed, but what we really need is single-family homes.”

The plan calls for 164 apartments made up of one-, two- and three-bedroom units. Nine condominium units are included in the plan. The developers have agreed to set aside 17 rent-regulated units for the city housing authority.

MacDonald said the project aims to fill a need in Whitefish.

“When we explored the rental housing we found a shortage,” he said. “We want to keep the Whitefish workforce living in Whitefish and rentals are an issue. We want to provide quality housing.”

The overall density of the project is 7.3 units per acre. The plan calls for buildings, roads and parking to be clustered on about 7 acres and roughly 17 acres to remain open space, including a walking path with much of that in a buffer along Cow Creek.

City staff recommended the project be reduced to no more than five housing units per acre.

Averill said the proposed density is necessary to provide for the amenities such as open space and trails and affordable housing.

“It’s very expensive to provide affordable housing,” he said. “Clustering is the way to maintain open space and have the infill in this project.”

Board member Chad Phillips commended the developers for keeping open space areas in the development, but suggested that apartments might not be the best choice.

“The biggest concern by some of the neighbors is whether the people renting have the pride in ownership that others have there,” he said. “You might look at doing smaller houses so there is a pride of ownership component, but still the opportunity for rentals.”

Several of the comments against the proposal came from residents who live on or near Armory Road. Many said this development will increase traffic on the already narrow road.

Melinda Morison said the development doesn’t fit the neighborhood.

“Traffic on Second Street East is going to increase exponentially,” she said. “There’s no doubt that adding these apartments is going to adversely affect Second Street let alone Armory.”

Morison pointed to The Lodge at Whitefish Lake’s skybridge over Wisconsin Avenue and said she doesn’t think the developer has a very good track record. Sean Averill, one of The Lodge’s owners, oversaw that project.

“Every time I drive down Wisconsin Avenue I am reminded of how you’ve taken advantage of this city and I do not want that type of debacle in my neighborhood,” she said.

Neighbors of Armory Road spoke about the rural feel of the area and how folks often walk dogs or push strollers along the road. That way of life would be changed, they claim, if the development were to be approved.

Kelly Davidson said the project shows a lack of respect for those living on Armory Road.

“There is a need for affordable housing, but can’t it be somewhere else” Davidson said. “I would rather have single-family homes there instead of this monstrosity. I can’t understand why anyone would think this is a good idea.”

Board member Diane Smith said overall the project looks good, but it needs a redesign with consideration taken for those living on Armory.

“I’m sympathetic to the folks who are worried about density and putting 174 apartments in their backyard,” she said. “It’s a beautiful piece of property and it’s going to get developed. But I hear very strongly what the folks are saying and I have to pay attention to that.”

Smith said the development would affect many “doughnut people” referring to those who live in the two-mile planning jurisdiction outside city limits. A lawsuit to determine planning control of the doughnut is on going between the city and county.

“I think it’s really easy to overlook the impact on (the doughnut) people,” she said. “They can’t vote in city elections. It’s really easy to ask them to take the hit. I can’t, in good conscience, ask them to take another hit.”

Dave Kauffman, the current owner of the property, noted that the two parcels of land haven’t changed in 60 years.

“The goal is to preserve the neighborhood while recognizing that this piece of property will eventually have to be developed,” he said. “I really think it can fit the neighborhood. For all the people that drive by and enjoy the view, I’ve never had any offer to pay my taxes.”

The applicant is seeking a zone change and planned-unit development, which overlays zoning and allows for greater flexibility in the design of a project. The site is currently zoned as one-family residential and agriculture. The request seeks to change the zoning to two-family residential and estate residential district.

After the planning board makes a recommendation on the project it will be forwarded to the city council for final approval.

Developers for a proposed 174-unit apartment and condo complex on East Second Street are headed back to the drawing board after neighbors spoke out in opposition of the project at last week’s city planning board meeting, saying the development is too dense for the area.

The project, 2nd Street Apartments, would create condo and apartment buildings on 24 acres in a mostly open field east of Cow Creek. William MacDonald and Sean Averill of Community Infill Partners were requesting a zone change and planned unit development overlay for the site.

“We’ve heard the concerns and we’d like to come back to you with a redesign,” Averill said. “I’d love to come back to you with a slightly tweaked project.”

The Flathead City-County Planning Board held a public hearing on the matter March 21. Before the board could make a motion on the request, however, the developers asked the board to table the project. The board agreed and gave the developers until its May meeting to return.

Several neighbors told the board they will be sad to see the open field developed, and while they know some kind of development is inevitable, the proposed project isn’t the right fit for the area.

Bob Horne said he canvassed the Wedgewood Lane and East Second Street neighborhoods asking residents to sign a petition against the development.

“No one said this property should not be developed,” he said. “But we want a component that we can welcome into the neighborhood. The apartments have been justified as being needed, but what we really need is single-family homes.”

The plan calls for 164 apartments made up of one-, two- and three-bedroom units. Nine condominium units are included in the plan. The developers have agreed to set aside 17 rent-regulated units for the city housing authority.

MacDonald said the project aims to fill a need in Whitefish.

“When we explored the rental housing we found a shortage,” he said. “We want to keep the Whitefish workforce living in Whitefish and rentals are an issue. We want to provide quality housing.”

The overall density of the project is 7.3 units per acre. The plan calls for buildings, roads and parking to be clustered on about 7 acres and roughly 17 acres to remain open space, including a walking path with much of that in a buffer along Cow Creek.

City staff recommended the project be reduced to no more than five housing units per acre.

Averill said the proposed density is necessary to provide for the amenities such as open space and trails and affordable housing.

“It’s very expensive to provide affordable housing,” he said. “Clustering is the way to maintain open space and have the infill in this project.”

Board member Chad Phillips commended the developers for keeping open space areas in the development, but suggested that apartments might not be the best choice.

“The biggest concern by some of the neighbors is whether the people renting have the pride in ownership that others have there,” he said. “You might look at doing smaller houses so there is a pride of ownership component, but still the opportunity for rentals.”

Several of the comments against the proposal came from residents who live on or near Armory Road. Many said this development will increase traffic on the already narrow road.

Melinda Morison said the development doesn’t fit the neighborhood.

“Traffic on Second Street East is going to increase exponentially,” she said. “There’s no doubt that adding these apartments is going to adversely affect Second Street let alone Armory.”

Morison pointed to The Lodge at Whitefish Lake’s skybridge over Wisconsin Avenue and said she doesn’t think the developer has a very good track record. Sean Averill, one of The Lodge’s owners, oversaw that project.

“Every time I drive down Wisconsin Avenue I am reminded of how you’ve taken advantage of this city and I do not want that type of debacle in my neighborhood,” she said.

Neighbors of Armory Road spoke about the rural feel of the area and how folks often walk dogs or push strollers along the road. That way of life would be changed, they claim, if the development were to be approved.

Kelly Davidson said the project shows a lack of respect for those living on Armory Road.

“There is a need for affordable housing, but can’t it be somewhere else” Davidson said. “I would rather have single-family homes there instead of this monstrosity. I can’t understand why anyone would think this is a good idea.”

Board member Diane Smith said overall the project looks good, but it needs a redesign with consideration taken for those living on Armory.

“I’m sympathetic to the folks who are worried about density and putting 174 apartments in their backyard,” she said. “It’s a beautiful piece of property and it’s going to get developed. But I hear very strongly what the folks are saying and I have to pay attention to that.”

Smith said the development would affect many “doughnut people” referring to those who live in the two-mile planning jurisdiction outside city limits. A lawsuit to determine planning control of the doughnut is on going between the city and county.

“I think it’s really easy to overlook the impact on (the doughnut) people,” she said. “They can’t vote in city elections. It’s really easy to ask them to take the hit. I can’t, in good conscience, ask them to take another hit.”

Dave Kauffman, the current owner of the property, noted that the two parcels of land haven’t changed in 60 years.

“The goal is to preserve the neighborhood while recognizing that this piece of property will eventually have to be developed,” he said. “I really think it can fit the neighborhood. For all the people that drive by and enjoy the view, I’ve never had any offer to pay my taxes.”

The applicant is seeking a zone change and planned-unit development, which overlays zoning and allows for greater flexibility in the design of a project. The site is currently zoned as one-family residential and agriculture. The request seeks to change the zoning to two-family residential and estate residential district.

After the planning board makes a recommendation on the project it will be forwarded to the city council for final approval.