Worried about noise, board says 'no' to rooftop hot tub

A request for a rooftop hot tub at the Firebrand Hotel was shot down last week by the Whitefish Planning Board.

Citing concerns over noise coming from the roof and possible indecent exposure, the board voted against recommending the request to City Council. The vote was 4-1, with Steve Qunell voting in opposition.

The $10 million, 86-room hotel opened in August on the corner of Spokane Avenue and Second Street. Developers of the project, the Whitefish Hotel Group, requested amending the hotel’s conditional use permit to install the hot tub within the rooftop patio. This is the third time the hotel has requested permission to install a hot tub.

Board member and City Councilor Richard Hildner said he’s had firsthand experiences with noise coming from the hotel.

“My observation on noise is that I left a function at the middle school at approximately 9:30 p.m., and the amount of noise from the roof of the Firebrand was sufficient to draw my attention,” he said. “That concerns me.”

Board member Rebecca Norton added that she had also heard concerns from a teacher at Whitefish Middle School whose students had seen nudity through open windows at the Firebrand across the street, and worried that there would be more instances of indecent exposure if the roof added a hot tub.

Concerns over increased noise were dismissed by representatives of the hotel group, which conducted a sound survey to ensure that neighboring homes and businesses would not be affected by noise coming from the hotel’s roof. The study measured noise levels of music being played on the roof at different locations around the hotel, then compared it with an average amount of background noise measured in the area.

“There was no discernible noise increase when we blared noise,” said Brian Averill, with the hotel group.

Developers plan for the proposed rooftop hot tub to also be enclosed with a 5-foot glass wall on two sides and an 8-foot tall wood fence on two sides to reduce any noise toward the residential areas. Averill said these walls would keep noise within the enclosure and avoid bothering neighbors.

“Sound does not travel as a rainbow, going up and back down. Sound travels in a straight line,” he said.

Initial proposals for the hotel included a basement pool and hot tub, but when the design of the hotel moved from a business focus to a family hotel, the basement amenities were scrapped.

Sean Averill, with the hotel group, told the planning board that the confusion with the hot tub came out of a rapid redesign process.

“It wasn’t anything secretive, we really had to redesign a lot of aspects of the hotel to change it from a flagship business hotel to a boutique,” he said.

City Council in February 2015 approved the conditional use permit for the hotel, which stipulated that nothing other than a patio could be built on the roof. After the CUP had been approved, planning staff found that a hot tub was being built on the patio, despite not being a part of the final building plans.

Planning Director Dave Taylor, the city’s zoning administrator, in February denied the hot tub after the developer requested an official zoning interpretation that a patio could also include a hot tub. Whitefish Hotel Group then appealed Taylor’s decision to the Board of Adjustments, but was denied. The hotel group claimed the hot tub is a common amenity of a patio.

Had the rooftop hot tub been part of the initial proposal, Hildner said he might have supported the proposal as he recognized the need for a hotel in a mountain resort town to have a hot tub.

“Having taken another look at this, with regard to the necessity of the hot tub, I think that could have been addressed as it was initially in the designs, but to come back later I think is not in keeping with the actions of the council and the board of adjustments and the planning staff,” he said.

While the rooftop location was not recommended, the board suggested the developers revisit their original plans for a basement hot tub instead.

“You do need a hot tub, there’s no question about that, but just not in that setting,” board member Jim Laidlaw said.

The planning board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, which is set to hold a public hearing on the request at its Nov. 7 meeting.