Apartment project clears planning board
A 60-unit apartment complex proposed for U.S. 93 South is a step closer to breaking ground.
The Whitefish Planning Board on Thursday voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Whitefish Crossings project with only a few changes. City Council will review the proposal at their Nov. 3 meeting.
Jeff Badelt and Sean Averill of Montana Development Group are planning to construct five apartment buildings with 12-units per building at a site west of the Naturally Clean dry cleaner on U.S. 93 South.
The developers say the project will provide needed affordable and workforce housing in Whitefish. Six of the units are proposed to go to the Whitefish Housing Authority as deed-restricted rentals.
“What we’re trying to hit is the need for affordable housing,” Averill told the board. “But there’s also a need for workforce housing and family housing. If you can’t buy a home in Whitefish and need to rent, your options are very limited.”
“This is a great spot to slide quality rentals into Whitefish. These are long-term rentals. They aren’t seasonal or transient. These are for people that actually work in Whitefish.”
The developers are requesting a Planned Unit Development overlay for the project. They plan to utilize a density bonus, as permitted with a PUD, in order to obtain the number of units requested.
Access to the apartments will be off a newly constructed city street that will intersect with U.S. 93 on the east and a future Baker Avenue extension on the west.
Each building will have a parking lot with covered carports.
The proposed buildings are 39 feet and six inches high, which is above the city building standard of 35 feet.
Developers are also proposing 120 parking spaces — two per unit — as opposed to the 140 required by the city. The board has requested developers find a way to provide the 140 spaces.
Board members also were concerned about increased traffic. The project is estimated to generate about 400 trips per day.
“I do think that the accumulative effects of traffic are worthy of a study,” board member Richard Hildner said. “I worry about left turns and the potential for traffic accidents.”
Eric Mulcahy, with Sands Surveying, said the Montana Department of Transportation had reviewed plans and determined no traffic study was necessary.
A few neighbors in the Park Knoll subdivision spoke against the project.
Don Spivey said he was concerned about the density at 14.7 units per acre. He noted increased traffic, parking and the possibility of vandalism in a wooded area that buffers the apartments from Park Knoll.
“We’ve had to deal with fires and vandalism,” he said. “These are very scary probabilities.”
Karen Giesy also expressed concerns about tenants using the wooded area. She said the site was inappropriate for housing.
“This development needs to be put in an area more conducive to families,” she said. “There’s no place for those kids to grow up and be kids — they’ll go straight to the woods.”
“Even if you build a fence, they’ll go right around the fence because those woods are a good time.”
Jennifer Connelly said there are better sites in town for a housing project, such as the old hospital site or the vacant lots near Super One Foods.
“I’m concerned about children playing and riding bikes, or chasing a ball onto Highway 93,” she said.
Speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, Chris Hyatt noted that creating affordable housing has long been considered a top priority for the city.
“We know there is a need,” he said. “At some point there is a need to get behind a group like this.”
Averill conceded that they will likely face opposition from neighbors no matter where they propose to build affordable housing.
“I realize you can’t develop and not impact somebody,” Averill said, “but we think we’ve found a spot where the impacts will be minimal.”