Whitefish City Council last week turned down a hotel project on US 93 South, while at the same meeting approved a downtown boutique hotel on Central Avenue.
The council unanimously voted to reject a request from the Rimrock Companies for conditional use permission to develop an 85-room hotel on Hedman Lane off US 93.
Councilor Ben Davis said the proposed hotel does not meet that part of the city’s growth policy that says good growth should address the needs and challenges of the community, such as affordable housing, infrastructure and development, without exacerbating them.
“If you asked the people of Whitefish if this is our community vision for this place, I think 99 out of 100 would say no to you,” he said. “If you allow a hotel here that would allow one on every corner, and I think that is not our community vision.”
In its next item on the agenda, the council unanimously approved a proposal for a proposed residential unit development to build a boutique hotel with 40 suites, including a bar and lounge, at 38 Central Ave.
The council seemed to feel that the downtown hotel had community benefits.
Councilor Frank Sweeney said an downtown hotel has been part of the city’s downtown master plan for years.
“It was always expected and we always wanted it as a community,” he said. “Yes, it will make an already overcrowded downtown area worse, but that was intentional. The community wanted to exacerbate this overload when they created the master plan. “
LOCATED IN The Rimrock Companies, a subdivision north of the First Baptist Church, had proposed building a hotel that the company said would be designed for long-term stays. A CUP is required for hotels and also large buildings in zone WB-2 where the property is located.
Two weeks ago, the council delayed a decision on the motion asking city officials to return with a list of reasons for rejecting the project. The council raised concerns about the level of traffic, noting that the hotel is expected to generate over 700 vehicle journeys per day, the hotel supports tourism beyond what can be supported by the community and its infrastructure, and that the hotel is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood is compatible.
Councilor Rebecca Norton said she could not support the project.
“We are facing an unprecedented housing crisis and if we continue to approve projects that will help, we will only make it worse,” said Norton.
Speaking to the council at the beginning of the meeting last week, attorney Sean Frampton, who represents the developer, questioned a possible rejection of the project. He said the city’s planning report said the hotel will have minimal impact on the transportation system and make the hotel compatible with the neighborhood. The Montana Department of Transportation also said the freeway is sufficient to handle the increased vehicle traffic.
“I know that through their zoning the city has said that a hotel is allowed in this location where they suggest it, but we have two councilors on record saying they don’t want a hotel there,” he said.
THE DOWNTOWN The hotel is to be built by Averill Hospitality on five vacant lots along Central Avenue and First Street. The hotel would have 42 underground parking spaces on-site, although city regulations do not require the city to provide downtown parking in this area.
The developer plans to donate $ 500,000 to the Whitefish Housing Authority for workers’ housing. They also plan to introduce an optional 1% hotel room and board fee, which will go into housing projects for workers.
Sean Averill, speaking on behalf of 38 Central Partners LLC, which is proposing the project, said a lot of planning has been put into the project and its design.
“We saw that it would have an effect, and that’s how we came up with the donation,” he said.
During the deliberations, Councilor Steve Qunell said that in making his decision, he needed to consider how best to use the property. He also praised the donation as a benefit to the community.
“This lot has been vacant as long as I’ve been here to build a hotel there that will have more trade in our downtown area, and I think that’s not a bad idea,” he said. “One of our goals for a long time has been to increase traffic to our inner city so that our companies can survive.”
The council added terms to the PUD – that no live or amplified music is allowed on the rooftop, the hotel will provide the city with an annual account record of the 1% affordable housing collections donated to the Whitefish Housing Authority on a permanent basis, and that no real estate or professional offices can operate on the ground floor of the building in either street.
In the public statement, two people spoke out against the project.
Jake Howe said the downtown hotel project is like dropping the big city in Whitefish.
“I’m against it because of the quality of life in Whitefish,” he said. “I hear the complaints from locals and tourists.”
Joe Courtney criticized the project, among other things, because of the lack of parking spaces for his employees and because of the height of the building.
“As soon as you go 45 feet up, you set a precedent for it and that bothers me,” he said. “When it comes to the $ 500,000 that bothers me because if they are really interested in supporting affordable housing they would offer it outside of a construction project.”
The plan for the hotel building provides for a restaurant and bar on the first floor, as well as areas for retail and services as well as the hotel lobby. The hotel suites are to be accommodated on the second and third floors, and a publicly accessible roof terrace is planned as part of the restaurant and hotel.
The property developer applied for the PUD because the plan provided for a deviation from the construction height measurement standards for the zoning of the property of WB-3. The building would be 35 feet tall with only the stair and elevator towers extending 45 feet.
City standards state that no building can be higher than 35 feet or two stories, whichever is less. The design standards of the building height make the development of a large hotel more difficult and, according to the planning staff, are more geared towards the development of individual 7-meter-wide plots in the city center than the development of half a block.
The plan is that the entire third floor will be flush with the first two floors and that the building, at 35 feet on the street, should be no higher than neighboring buildings, but would have three vertical floors with no 20 foot setback.
