Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitefish council narrows tree‑removal restriction for Whitetail Ridge subdivision
Summary
The City Council agreed to amend a subdivision condition to allow tree removal within utility easements and for hazardous trees while keeping most lot‑level retention rules in place.
The Whitefish City Council on Feb. 18 modified a condition of approval for the Whitetail Ridge (WPP 24-02) 73‑lot subdivision to permit removal of trees within the 10‑foot dry utility easement along each lot front and to allow removal when a qualified professional deems a tree hazardous, while otherwise retaining the requirement that lots not be cleared during infrastructure installation.
The change affects a subdivision approved last June that includes 59 single‑family detached lots and 14 townhouse sublots along Flathead Avenue and W. 18th Street. City staff and the applicant told the council removal timing affects construction safety and efficiency; neighbors and preservation advocates warned that early, broad clearing could reduce tree cover and harm water retention and neighborhood character.
Why it matters: The amendment balances developers’ request for operational efficiency during road and utility construction with residents’ and some council members’ desire to preserve trees and avoid an immediate, large‑scale loss of canopy. Council discussion focused on when trees are removed, who decides which trees remain, and whether field marking, arborist oversight and revegetation requirements are needed.
City staff told the council that the original approval included a condition limiting lot clearing during infrastructure work “unless deemed hazardous by a qualified professional.” The applicant, represented by Eric Mulcahy of Sand Surveying, said the request is about timing: logging building envelopes at the same time roads and utilities are installed is safer and more efficient and avoids repeated heavy‑equipment traffic in narrow lots later. Mulcahy said the plan shows roughly 15 acres proposed for removal with about 19 acres to remain untouched as open space.
Residents who spoke at the public hearing described mixed views. Paul Burton, a Tamarack Ridge homeowner, said bringing two private streets into public ownership would equalize assessments among adjacent homeowners but that the council should understand the neighborhood context. Richard Dillner urged the council to “stick to your guns” and require developers to meet the condition as approved. Walker Corum, whose family previously owned the property, said a qualified logging crew would use methods intended to protect retained trees during removal.
Councilors asked whether an arborist survey and field flagging could provide more certainty about which trees would be retained in narrow side‑yard strips of about 20 feet, and whether city staff would inspect the flagged limits on the ground. Planning staff said the developer must identify and protect trees intended to remain and that staff inspections would occur to verify field conditions match the submitted plan. Staff also recommended measures to mark limits in the field and require revegetation and erosion control to prevent noxious weed infestation after disturbance.
After extended discussion, the council adopted a motion to amend condition 7 so that trees on individual lots may not be removed during infrastructure installation except in the dry utilities easement (the 10‑foot strip along lot fronts) or when a qualified professional declares a tree hazardous. The council also discussed (but did not adopt at this meeting) additional inspection and revegetation language staff recommended to ensure protection of trees intended to remain.
The council did not specify a new, citywide change to the subdivision regulations; staff said the tree retention requirement has been used as a standard condition for projects with significant trees but has not been codified in the subdivision regulations.
Looking ahead: Planning staff said they would work with the applicant to identify and flag trees to be removed or preserved and to draft any inspection and revegetation requirements for council review if necessary. The council’s amendment leaves intact the general requirement that trees are preserved unless hazardous or within the specified utility strip.
