Phase 2 of Alpenglow project OK'd by council

Approval of a deed-restricted apartment project was among the many tasks completed by the Whitefish City Council last week. The council also approved a handful of other requests and discussed a lawsuit. 

A request for a planned unit development for Phase 2 of the Alpenglow Apartment project was made by Housing Whitefish. The development is located at 530 Edgewood Place and will include studios, and one- and two-bedroom apartments.

Housing Whitefish hopes to break ground on the project in winter 2025. 

In 2021, City Council approved the first phase of the project that included 38 units in three buildings. Homeword, the applicant for Phase 1, with help from a Low Income Housing Tax Credit, was able to offer those units to households with an area median income of 60% or less.

Phase 2 is a single, L-shaped, three-story building on a little over half an acre on the northeast corner of the lot with parking to the north. All 18 units are proposed to be deed-restricted. Two of the units will serve households with an area median income of 60 to 80% and the remaining 16 units will serve up to 120% of area median income.

Currently, executive director of Housing Whitefish Daniel Sidder said the plan is to offer six of the units to households at 60% area median income, six for households at 80% and six at 95%.

At a previous meeting, Sidder said 100% area median income for one person is $58,800 and that the standard marker for affordability is that people are not paying more than 30% of their incomes towards housing related expenses. 

“We have a lot of work to do on our end to bring money to this project to make it work,” Sidder said, adding that they are in the beginning phases of a capital campaign. “We’ll be looking to bring on a general contractor, probably later in the spring, summer, once we have a little bit more of the … funding figured out.”

He added that Housing Whitefish has a pre-approval from the Coal Trust Multifamily Homes Program, a highly competitive funding source. If approved, Sidder said they will still have to raise about $2.5 million.

Brandon Theis with Civil Solutions discussed the design of the proposed buildings in the absence of architect David Koel.

He said new buildings were not designed to match the architecture of Phase 1, but will harmonize with the character of the existing buildings. Theis also mentioned a unique feature of the apartments.

“Your traditional apartment buildings will have a hallway down the middle of the building … so you’ll only have windows on one side of your apartment,” Theis said. “The way we’ve got this set up is that you’re going to have windows in each unit on two sides and some units, three sides.”

The site, including phases 1 and 2, has 75 parking spaces or slightly more than one space per unit. One of the requested zoning deviations is a reduction to one parking space per unit. 

The applicant has requested three zoning deviations that include the reduced parking, a reduction in the amount of parking lot landscaping, and a slight decrease in the amount of side yard setback, from 15 feet to 10 feet in a couple places. 

The applicant’s chosen zoning incentive is additional building height up to 40 feet, but the plan shows the highest peak will reach just over 38 feet.

“They are in a great location to take advantage of neighborhood parks including Soroptomist, City Beach and the Whitefish Trail system,” said Whitefish Senior Planner Wendy Compton-Ring. “We’ve received some comments and they are all in support of the project.”

The Whitefish Community Development Board recommended the project unanimously at its meeting last month and the council also voted unanimously to approve Phase 2.

THE WHITEFISH City Council voted unanimously to approve three other items on the agenda. 

Since merging the Whitefish Planning Board and the Board of Adjustments into the Whitefish Community Development Board last fall, the city’s subdivision regulations needed to be amended to strike out “planning board” and insert “Whitefish Community Development Board.”

This “riveting agenda item” as Mayor John Muhlfeld called it, included a bit of housekeeping, like correcting typos.

Whitefish Public Works Director Craig Workman said the city is working on updated water and sewer master plans. 

“The intention is to provide updated information for a current revision to the growth policy,” Workman said.

Proposals were received from two consulting firms and after review from the rating panel and selection committee, it was recommended that Robert, Peccia and Associates be awarded the contract for the Sewer Master Plan update and AE2S, the Water Master Plan update contract.

The Whitefish Firefighters Relief Association asked for eligible volunteers to receive back pay.

“This is a request for 15 months of reimbursement to firefighters for the difference between previous monthly pension payouts of $225 a month and the $300 per month allowed by statute effective July 1, 2013,” said Whitefish Finance Director Lanie Gospodarek.

The council authorized the payout from the Association Pension Fund.

Lastly, the council spent time discussing the MAID versus the state of Montana case and whether or not Whitefish should get involved.

“We spoke in December about the MAID case that was filed against the case by Montanans against irresponsible densification, also known as MAID,” Whitefish City Attorney Angela Jacobs said. “I wanted to clear up some of the perceptions or maybe misperceptions of what our participation could or would look like if you folks so choose.”

Two of the Senate Bills that are affected by the suit include SB 323 which allows duplexes in single-family zones and SB 528 which affects accessory dwelling unit regulations.

She said that to intervene in a lawsuit, one first needs permission, then needs to fully participate in the lawsuit. She said, for a myriad of other reasons, her inclination would be not to intervene.

Jacobs said the other way for Whitefish to participate is to file an amicus brief. 

“I don’t think intervening is the way we should go,” said Councilor Frank Sweeney. “I think our … more effective role would be in an amicus position.”

After about 38 minutes of conversation on the topic, including two comments from the public, the council gave some direction to Jacobs which she distilled.

“We’re not going to seek to file an amicus brief with respect to the appeal of the preliminary injunction,” Jacobs said. “We’re going to hang tight, see what happens with the lawsuit and if I get any further direction from you guys to move forward with an interim zoning ordinance, I will.” 

It was also determined that the council would schedule a work session on the issue.