Just past midnight at Monday’s meeting, Whitefish City Council members decided they still had too many unanswered questions about the controversial 2nd Street Residences housing development, so they opted to table a decision until Sept. 3.

In an unusual twist, council members were asked to submit their questions to the city staff by today, and City Manager Chuck Stearns plans to post the questions on the city website to allow opponents of the project equal time to address any remaining issues.

Normally additional information requested by the council would be included in the council packets prior to the next meeting.

The subdivision proposed north of the intersection of Second Street and Armory Road on Whitefish’s east side went through three public hearings with the Whitefish Planning Board before a redesigned plan won a positive recommendation in July. The Whitefish planning staff also has recommended approval of the project.

As it stands now, 2nd Street Residences developers Sean Averill and Will MacDonald of Community Infill Partners propose to build 92 apartment units, 20 condominiums and 16 single-family homes with accessory apartments. Rental units would be configured in the interior as a “pocket” neighborhood, and those units would be professionally managed.

If approved, this project would be the first to adhere to a new city requirement that all dwelling units go through a review by the Architectural Review Committee to avoid homogeneous design.

“It helps ensure we won’t have six blue houses all the same shape,” said Scott Elden of Montana Creative, a member of the project design team. “This kind of pocket community is an innovation. I’m pretty proud of this.”

The developers need a zone change from WR-1 (one family residential) to WR-2 (two-family residential) on six acres of the property and a change from agricultural to estate residential on two other tracts. A portion of the land has been farmed for hay over the years and an old-growth forest covers an eastern hill on the property. Much of the forest land will be preserved as open space.

A planned-unit development — a planning tool that allows a developer to accommodate density without being bound by existing zoning requirements — will allow the developers to cluster the homes and preserve about 68 percent open space on the 24-acre tract.

The developers will take advantage of density bonuses by providing 14 deed-restricted affordable rental units to be managed by the Whitefish Housing Authority.

“Why we started with this project is a need” for affordable housing, Averill told the council, noting that local property management agencies have few affordable rentals and families have a hard time buying affordable homes in Whitefish.

Lori Collins, director of the Whitefish Housing Authority, testified in support of the development. She pointed out the location is within walking distance of schools and downtown and there’s a waiting list in her office for affordable housing.

Whitefish resident Ryan Zinke, who lives on the west end of Second Street, said when he asks people what’s changed about Whitefish in recent years, the response is almost always that people can’t afford to live in the community. He called 2nd Street Residences “a good project overall,” and wondered if a left-turn lane into the subdivision could help traffic flow.

KK Jense, a local firearms manufacturer, said his company has tried to find housing in Whitefish for 10 employees who moved here to take jobs.

“We’ve not had a single success; there’s nothing available” in Whitefish, Jense said.

Throngs of Second Street neighbors attended the hearing and spoke at length about the impact such a development would have on their neighborhood.

Pedestrian safety was a recurring theme.

Nancy Tigue said she applauded the developers for a “beautifully done presentation,” but remains deeply concerned for all of the dog walkers, mothers with baby strollers, joggers and so on who heavily use Second Street.

Jack Quatman, who lives off Armory Road, said there are “huge concerns about public safety being swept under the carpet.” He also said fire and police protection for the development hasn’t been adequately addressed.

The subdivision will generate an estimated 1,080 vehicle trips per day, with about 85 percent of the new traffic using Second Street and the remaining 15 percent using Armory Road.

Second Street will be rebuilt next summer from Larch Avenue east to the railroad tracks. The grade will be reduced and a bike path will be built on the south side of the street, improvements aimed at accommodating neighborhood growth.

Sarah Fitzgerald, who lives near the proposed subdivision, commented the developers seem to be using a strategy of “start huge, compromise down and get what you want.”

Several neighbors said approval of this subdivision would set a precedent because the zone change constitutes spot zoning. The developers want to change the zoning on the westernmost six acres from WR-1 to WR-2, but that parcel is bordered on the west and south sides by WR-1 zoning.

“You’re walking right into a spot zoning issue, forcing a round peg into a square hole,” Quatman said. “Setting precedence is a very scary thing and you have to look at the unintended consequences.”

Bob Horne, a former Whitefish planning director, said by leaving the property as WR-1 the developers could build a maximum of 99 dwelling units. What’s been proposed remains too dense, out of scale and the wrong product type for this area, he said.

David Kauffman, who owns the property in question and grew up in a home that will remain on the site, said he bought the adjoining 20 acres in 1988 to preserve the land while his parents lived there.

“Personally and emotionally I would like to see it preserved,” Kauffman said, but added that his financial situation dictates he sell the property.

“The developers have bent over backwards to make this a great opportunity,” Kauffman said. “I feel strongly the city can benefit from this project.”

The final decision on 2nd Street Residences will require a two-thirds majority vote of the council.

State law stipulates that if 25 percent of the property owners living within 150 feet protest the proposed development, a two-thirds majority vote is required. Property owners adjacent to the project site turned in a petition with enough signatures that was verified Monday.

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