Council denies Taylor Hill PUD after hours of public comment and staff review

The Whitefish City Council on Oct. 20 denied Ordinance 25-13, the Taylor Hill Whitefish PUD application proposing 24 townhome units in seven buildings on approximately 2.85 acres at Baker Avenue and West Tenth Street.

Council members voted 4–1 to deny the ordinance after more than two hours of staff presentation, applicant testimony and public comment. Councilmember Giuseppe Castaldo (identified in the transcript as Giuseppe) was the lone dissenting vote.

City planning staff recommended approval with 18 conditions and presented project details including a density of 8.77 dwelling units per acre, a 20-foot internal loop road, seven buildings with two- and four-unit configurations, a proposed secondary gated emergency access at the northwest corner and a central southeast open-space/stormwater area. Staff reported the applicant proposed a fee-in-lieu equal to 10% of the units for affordable‑housing mitigation and said under the newly proposed Legacy Homes fee schedule the payment could be about $907,000.

“Staff recommended approval subject to 18 conditions of approval,” Planning staff member Wendy said during her presentation, listing required elements such as final engineering review by the fire marshal, a tree-preservation plan, and stormwater design meeting city standards.

The applicant and design team described the proposal as an infill project intended to preserve the existing Castle building as a focal point, provide walkable connections to Baker Avenue, and use low‑toxicity building materials targeted to residents with environmental and chemical sensitivities. Applicant Sherry Ross said the development is intended for full‑time residents and would be costly to build because of specialty materials and construction methods.

Architect David Cool and civil engineer Brandon Tice walked the council through site plans, terraces that respond to steep topography, vehicle access and a proposed detention/filtration area in the southeast corner. Civil plans called for reconstruction of West Tenth Street at the project frontage, installation of curb and gutter and new sidewalk on the north side of Tenth, and a 20‑foot loop road inside the site that staff and engineers said met minimum emergency access standards. Tice said retaining walls would be limited to about four feet in height, and the team ran turning‑movement analyses showing fire‑truck access subject to a secondary emergency connection to the unimproved West Ninth Street easement or, if needed, through Moose Lodge parking with the lodge's permission.

Neighbors and about a dozen other members of the public opposed the PUD at the hearing. Concerns voiced included increased building height and massing, loss of neighborhood character, wildlife and tree impacts, stormwater and mosquito risk from on‑site detention, pedestrian safety, and traffic impacts on Baker and O’Brien Avenue. Several residents noted the development’s scale and stepped height would look “towering” when viewed from Baker. Speakers who questioned the proposal included Lindsay Schott (708 Lupeffer), Todd Bergland (family physician at 844 Baker Avenue), Paul Van Volkenberg and others who said the project did not fit surrounding single‑family neighborhoods.

Opponents also criticized the project's affordable‑housing mitigation plan. Under the application the developer proposed paying a fee in lieu rather than building affordable units on site. Multiple speakers and some council members said the city’s Legacy Homes program was intended to embed affordable units within developments or in‑neighborhood settings rather than rely routinely on cash payments.

Council deliberations focused on two central findings the PUD must meet under city code: compatibility with neighborhood character and provision of a high‑quality streetscape. Several council members said the proposal failed those standards because the requested deviations (height allowances, reduced setbacks, a narrower private road, lot‑by‑project lot coverage calculation and rooftop terrace height exceptions) combined to create a development out of scale with the adjacent residential area. Councilmember Rebecca (last name not recorded in the transcript) introduced the motion to deny, citing growth‑policy goals to “preserve and enhance the character qualities and small‑town feel” of Whitefish and noting the project’s proposed 40‑foot building heights at the top of the sloped site would be “out of character.”

Deputy mayor and other council members who spoke agreed that while elements of the design were thoughtful, the cumulative effect of the requested deviations made denial the appropriate action. Councilmember Giuseppe Castaldo said he disagreed and argued that denial could push the property toward a by‑right plan with fewer conditions and no guaranteed public benefits; he voted against denial.

The council action formally denies Ordinance 25-13. Staff and the applicant indicated the site has a long development history (previous approvals and expired plats dating to 2003 and earlier) and that the parcel is likely to be re‑considered in future applications. The planning staff also noted several technical items that would remain necessary for any future submittal, including a tree preservation plan, fire‑department approval for emergency access and final stormwater engineering.

Ending: The PUD denial leaves the owners with the option to revise the design and return with a new application or pursue other development paths consistent with existing WR‑2 zoning. Council members repeatedly urged any future proposal to address neighborhood character, on‑site affordable housing, traffic circulation and pedestrian connections in more detail.