Whitefish council denies Taylor Hill PUD after hourslong hearing

The Whitefish City Council voted 4–1 on Oct. 20 to deny Ordinance 25‑13, a planned unit development that would have placed 24 townhome units in seven buildings and retained one existing house on about 2.85 acres at Baker and West 10th Avenue.

Councilors and dozens of members of the public spent more than two hours debating the project’s design and requested zoning deviations. Councilor Rebecca, who moved to deny the ordinance, said the proposal failed to meet the city’s growth‑policy criteria for preserving neighborhood character. “I personally feel like it's irresponsible to take away the livability and privacy of people that have been here for decades,” she said during deliberations.

Wendy, a city planning staffer, summarized the application as an eight‑lot subdivision with 24 townhome sublots, a 20‑foot internal loop road, and six requested deviations from WR‑2 standards. Staff noted the project’s density at about 8.8 dwelling units per acre, projected traffic of 198 vehicle trips at full build‑out and that the developer proposed a fee‑in‑lieu to meet the Legacy Homes affordable‑housing requirement (10% = 2.4 units). Staff recommended approval with 18 conditions, including a tree‑preservation plan, 10–15 feet of right‑of‑way dedication on West 10th and street‑lighting along Baker.

Neighbors and other speakers urged denial, citing building height when measured against Baker’s steep topography, loss of mature trees and wildlife, and transportation and safety worries for Baker and parallel O’Brien Avenue. Paul Van Volkenberg said the project’s tradeoffs were unacceptable: “If our zoning only applies until a developer writes a big enough check, then we don't have zoning,” he told the council. The record included 19 written comments received before the hearing—14 opposed and 5 in support.

Applicant Sherry Ross, who said she has stewarded the castle property for more than 20 years, described the development as a resident‑oriented community built with low‑toxicity materials intended for people with environmental and chemical sensitivities. “We are using low to no tox materials, not traditional building materials,” Ross said in her presentation, explaining the higher construction costs and arguing the project is designed to preserve the castle as a focal point and add open space and pedestrian connections.

Technical presentations by the project’s architect and civil engineer outlined the site’s steep topography, a proposed gated secondary emergency access (with the Moose Lodge parking lot offered as an alternative if the West 9th easement is unavailable), a small detention pond at the site’s southeast corner and a plan to reconstruct the immediate portion of West 10th Street. The city’s public‑works representative and the developer’s engineer discussed an optional regional stormwater treatment concept; the developer offered $50,000 toward a regional facility estimated at roughly $1,000,000, while on‑site pre‑treatment devices were also described as part of the project plans.

During deliberations, councilors who supported denial said the cumulative effect of multiple deviations—reduced setbacks, a private 20‑foot internal road without traditional sidewalks, a 40‑foot building height in places and lot‑by‑lot exceptions—would produce a final development that did not adequately buffer or transition to adjacent single‑family homes. Councilor Giuseppe dissented, arguing the PUD complies with the WR‑2 zone and that the PUD process gives the city greater design control than a by‑right approach; he voted against denial.

Motion and vote: Councilor Rebecca moved to deny Ordinance 25‑13; the motion was seconded and passed 4–1, with Giuseppe voting in opposition.

Next steps: With the denial, the applicant may revise the proposal and return, pursue a by‑right development within existing zoning where applicable, or seek other options; the council did not direct staff to take a specific follow‑up action during the recorded vote.

Details: Staff said the PUD would have provided a fee‑in‑lieu equal to 10% of units (2.4 units) rather than on‑site affordable units; staff had estimated the cash‑in‑lieu calculation per the current policy and proposed conditions during the hearing. The planning commission (community development board) had been unable to make a recommendation due to a tie vote at its prior public hearing.

The council’s denial centered on findings that the project did not meet required criteria for neighborhood compatibility and high‑quality streetscape standards; the record includes the staff report, public testimony and 19 written comments.