Thursday, May 16, 2024
74.0°F

Agreement reached in dispute over apartment complex

by Matt Baldwin / Whitefish Pilot
| January 27, 2015 9:00 PM

Neighbors of a proposed apartment complex on U.S. 93 South have reached an agreement with the developers over a disputed zone change.

The Park Knoll Homeowner’s Association says it has withdrawn its appeal to the city Board of Adjustments, allowing the Whitefish Crossing project to move forward.

Park Knoll attorney Thomas Tornow says the dispute was resolved “the Whitefish way” by the neighbors and the developer sitting down and talking.

“The developer gets the project it wanted. Whitefish gets the apartment complex it needs. The neighborhood gets the protection deserved,” Tornow said in a press release.

Jeff Badelt and Sean Averill of Montana Development Group are proposing 60 apartments in five buildings on the 4.5 acre site west of the Naturally Clean dry cleaners.

Six of the apartment units are planned to go to the Whitefish Housing Authority as deed-restricted rentals.

Council unanimously approved the zone change to secondary business district and one-family limited residential. The change returns the property, which was recently annexed into the city, to city zoning after it changed to interim county zoning when Flathead County took over planning outside city limits.

As part of a planned unit development overlay, the developers planned to blend the zoning with different densities to allow for greater flexibility in the design. They propose to utilize a density bonus to obtain the requested number of units.

Residents in the Park Knoll subdivision to the west of the property took exception to the PUD request, saying the maneuver wasn’t permitted in the city zoning code.

The developer has since redesigned the project and moved all of the 24 units from the land adjacent to the Park Knoll, which satisfied the neighborhood’s concerns.

In response to the dispute, the city is proposing a code amendment that clarifies the blending of uses and densities for PUDs.

The City Planning Board took an initial look at the amendment at its January meeting, but decided to continue the discussion at its next meeting.