2nd Street project doesn't fit neighborhood

It’s called the 2nd Street Residences, a refreshing name change from 2nd Street Apartments, as it was presented to us at the last neighborhood meeting. Why the name change? Could it be to make it more palatable?

Residences certainly sounds better than apartments, which is what the vast majority of these units will be. Aptly named efficiencies or mother-in-law’s take the last count up to 118 of them, and that’s not counting the condos.

This proposed land development project will put 143 housing units, including 3-, 4-, and 5-unit buildings, on less than 24 acres in a quiet single-family neighborhood. Ninety-two units, plus parking and garages, will be crammed into the Kauffman meadow on the north side of Second Street. For every property owner, there will be two renters, which means that this development will have to have an on-site property manager during the day.

It will add more than 1,000 vehicle trips per day in the Second Street and Armory Road area.

To accomplish all of this, the developers are requesting a rezoning for part of their property that could well constitute improper “spot zoning.”

We, the Whitefish residents who own homes and raise families in the surrounding neighborhoods, have told the developers and the Whitefish City-County Planning Board that:

• The proposed development is out of scale and inconsistent with the character of our neighborhoods.

• That the proposed zone change, which serves only to increase the possible development density, is improper and inconsistent with the surroundings.

• That the proposed development is not consistent with the Whitefish Growth Policy.

• That ours are already socially and economically diverse working class neighborhoods.

• That Armory Road, which will experience significant increases in traffic volumes as a result of this project, is a school route, but has no sidewalks or a bike lane.

• That Second Street is already heavily traveled as a result of bus traffic during the school year and dog park visitors to the WAG dog park, not to mention the current construction traffic in the area from the high school.

• There is already land that is planned and zoned for probably hundreds of multi-family units between downtown Whitefish and Highway 40, and that our neighborhood need not be sacrificed for potential “employee housing.” Yes, it is always less costly to tie up land in a neighborhood, then ask the city to rezone it for you, than it is to purchase land that is zoned for multi-family in the first place.

We have repeatedly told the developers and the Planning Board about these and other potential problems. We have told them in two public hearings, at two on-site meetings with the developers, in petitions with more than 80 signatures, and in countless e-mails. Not only are the developers and board not hearing us, but the Whitefish city administration is actually recommending to the Planning Board that this absurdity be approved!

So, we need help. The developers, Planning Board, and the city are all tired of hearing from us. But if you too think it is extremely unfair and shortsighted to sacrifice a desirable and stable single-family neighborhood for multi-family housing that can and should be built elsewhere, even if you don’t live in our area, tell the Planning Board what you think.

Or better yet, come to the meeting on July 18 and tell them yourself. This is the wrong fit for this part of town and every business owner, resident and person that we’ve spoken with who is invested in Whitefish agrees. This is a bigger issue than it just being in our backyard.

Your neighborhood may be next.

— Erin Barbee, Jack & Phyllis Quatman, Brian & Sharon Wood, Bruce & Melinda Morison, Sarah Fitzgerald & Neal Buffington, Robert Horne, MJ & Greg Hennen, Scott & Karin Bates, Nancy Tigue, Bobbie Barrett, Ryan & Suzanne Kann, Suzi Stagg, Dave & Sarah Scott, Kathy Spangenberg, Steve Sullivan & Velvet Phillips-Sullivan, Susan Schnee