Whitefish housing project revamped once more

A new design plan is emerging for the embattled 2nd Street Residences project in Whitefish — this time a subdivision of about 68 to 70 single-family homes.

Amid heavy opposition from neighbors, developers Sean Averill and Will MacDonald of Community Infill Partners recently withdrew their application for a mixed-use project that included 16 single-family homes with accessory apartments, 20 condominiums and 92 apartment units. 

It included 14 deed-restricted affordable units to be managed by the Whitefish Housing Authority.

A zone change from WR-1 (one-family) to WR-2 (two-family) residential would have been needed to proceed, but a main concern from surrounding homeowners was that changing the zoning would allow a density that’s out of character with the neighborhood.

Four neighbors — former Whitefish Planning Director Bob Horne, professional planning consultant Kate McMahon and Whitefish attorneys Jack and Phyllis Quatman — met with Averill Aug. 27 to discuss a rough draft he presented of a more conventional subdivision layout for the 24-acre tract north of Second Street on the city’s east side.

“We did agree to support this concept and continue to cooperate with the developers on refining this concept,” McMahon said. “Key to this support from us was that the WR-1 zoning would remain in place.”

Averill said he and MacDonald knew they could develop a conventional subdivision without a zone change, but wanted to address what they see as a severe lack of rental housing in Whitefish.

“We wanted to put it out there, to see if Whitefish was ready for mixed-use housing,” Averill said. “Apparently they’re not ready. It’s a little bit of a shame because this [new design for single-family homes] doesn’t solve the housing rental need.

“The big loser is Whitefish,” he continued. “If you can’t buy in Whitefish you can’t live in Whitefish” because there are so few rentals.

Averill further said he and his partner backed way from the zone change for a mixed-use plan out of fear of legal retaliation.

“I was legitimately worried about a lawsuit, frivolous or not,” he said.

Phyllis Quatman, one of four attorneys in the neighborhood, confirmed that “absolutely” there would have been a lawsuit had the developers been granted the zone change.

A new application will be submitted to the city within 30 to 60 days. Averill said he and MacDonald will continue to seek approval for a planned-unit development for the project to “make it as innovative as we can.”

The new design won’t include any affordable housing or rental units and will not have as much open space, Averill said.

The project began in March as a 174-unit development, with 164 apartments spread over 17 buildings. Later, in response to neighbors’ concerns about traffic and density, the project was downsized by 30 units. That revision removed the massive apartment buildings and reconfigured the units into numerous small buildings in a “pocket” rental community within the development.

There seems to be initial support among the neighbors for the latest scale-back to around 68 single-family homes.

“This is exactly what I was looking for,” said Sarah Fitzgerald, a former Whitefish City Council member who lives near the proposed development. “I want that land to develop in continuity with the existing neighborhoods on both sides.”

On the west side of the housing site there is more traditional block-by-block housing. East of the site, home lots tend to be larger with single-family homes, she said.

“The town needs single-family housing, so the way he [Averill] is proposing it fits right in line with what our housing stock needs are,” Fitzgerald said. “Young families want to buy small homes to get started.”

Kathy Spangenberg said the main issue she had with the earlier designs is that the developer was proposing a development that was not compatible with the growth plan or the neighborhood.

“In order to maximize the density, they were requesting a non-conforming WR-2 zone change for one of the parcels, using the increased density it allowed and applying it and the affordable housing bonus by using a planned-unit development to maximize the density for the site, resulting in a development that was not in conformance to the surrounding neighborhood,” Spangenberg said. “This is what I was opposed to and what I believe my neighbors were as well.”

Kelly Davidson said she feels single-family homes with no rental apartments make a much better fit for the neighborhood.

“Regarding safety and traffic issues, the lower density will obviously reduce some of the concerns, but there are still concerns about an intersection at the bottom of that hill,” Davidson said, referring to the intersection of Second Street and Armory Road. “So many children and families utilize that area as bikers and pedestrians that some attention needs to be given to the infrastructure of paths/sidewalks and intersections.”

Suzi Stagg also weighed in on the latest redesign.

“I am not against the development of the property,” Stagg said. “For me, the need for affordable housing and rentals had to be put on the back burner when talking about a zoning change that drastic. That zoning change would have set such a dangerous precedent that I could not support it.

“If there were no other places in town currently zoned and undeveloped — and there are — for the type of project Mr. Averill wanted to build, I may feel differently. I do believe that he did, and still is, using affordable housing or lack of it in his current design as a pawn.”

Phyllis Quatman said Averill estimated the home lots would be in the $40,000 to $60,000 range, “pretty affordable for young people,” she said.

“This is a vast improvement from the old project,” she said. “It’s what the neighbors wanted and what Whitefish needs. We believe people want homes where they can raise their families.”

The traffic and safety issues are still issues, Quatman said.

“They’ll have to remediate that and I think they’ll do that,” she said. “I thank Sean and Will for stepping up.”

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.