The Whitefish Community Development Board split on a proposal to subdivide a 2.85-acre property near Baker Avenue into 24 townhome units and preserve the existing “castle” house, leaving the application without a board recommendation as it moves to city council.

Staff presented a recommended preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) for the applicant listed in the file as Taylor Hill of Whitefish, describing a compact development of 24 townhouse units in seven buildings, a 20-foot private loop road, internal pedestrian paths, an on-site stormwater pond and a proposed secondary gated emergency access to O’Brien Avenue. Staff recommended approval with conditions, including tree preservation, right-of-way dedications and improvements to the unimproved emergency-access route.

The proposal matters because it asks the board to allow six zoning deviations in exchange for on-site open space and an affordable-housing community benefit; neighbors and some board members said the deviations would substantially change neighborhood character, increase traffic on an already-constrained corridor and risk tree loss and view impacts.

Wendy (City staff) summarized the application and staff conditions, saying the proposal “generally complies with the evaluation” but recommending a tree‑preservation plan and dedication of 10–15 feet of right-of-way along West Tenth Street. Staff noted earlier approvals for the parcel dating to 1988 and 2003 and that prior plats expired in 2010.

Sherry Ross, who identified herself as the project owner, described the project’s design intent and health‑focused material choices, calling it a “community where people can come and breathe clean air.” Architect Lauren Sabula of Cushing Terrell and civil engineer Brandon Tice of Civil Solutions presented the site plan, showing the castle retained at the high point, a water feature and seven residential structures stepped down the slope. Tice described on-site conveyance to a pond and a hydro-dynamic separator, and said the developer was willing to contribute the cost of a larger regional treatment device at Seventh and Baker in lieu of installing one entirely on this site.

Neighbors criticized multiple elements of the project. Tom Eisinger said the plan “does not align with the character of the neighborhood,” warned of “detrimental” traffic and safety impacts and submitted a neighborhood petition; other speakers raised similar concerns about O’Brien Avenue’s capacity and sightlines, snow removal, loss of trees and the scale of three‑story buildings on a steep slope. Mike Larkey, administrator of the adjacent Moose Lodge, said the lodge parking lot is large and asked whether emergency access might use that property.

On stormwater, staff and the civil engineer said the applicant estimated roughly $50,000 of on‑site treatment cost could be contributed instead toward a larger city project estimated at about $200,000, making the development’s contribution approximately 25 percent of that larger improvement. Tice said the pond and pretreatment device are designed to capture sediment; maintenance would include vacuum removal about twice a year, with dredged sediment destined for landfill.

On affordable‑housing mitigation, staff described a fee‑in‑lieu equal to 10 percent of units (2.4 units for a 24‑unit project). Using the annual per‑unit rate cited by staff ($375,443), the current fee estimate was $901,063.20; staff recommended calculating the exact fee at final plat because the rate is adjusted annually. Staff also noted that providing affordable units as proposed qualifies the developer for two density incentives (up to 40-foot building height where the standard is 35 feet, and allowing open space down to 20 percent when affordable housing is provided).

A contentious point during public comment and board discussion was whether the developer has legal access for the proposed secondary emergency egress through an unimproved easement to O’Brien Avenue. The applicant and the project’s land planner said recorded plats reference an ingress/egress easement (book/page citations were provided in the record), but a speaker citing Montana property law noted that a deeded conveyance is needed to create a private easement and suggested the board not assume ownership or rights. Staff said the applicant must demonstrate the required access for emergency use before final engineering and that securing the easement could be made a condition of approval.

After public comment and board deliberations that focused on neighborhood character, tree preservation, traffic capacity on Baker Avenue and O’Brien Avenue, and the legal status of the emergency access, Board member John moved to deny the PUD; the motion was seconded, but the vote resulted in a tie and the motion failed. Because the board did not reach a majority decision to approve or deny, the application will go to city council with no formal recommendation from the Community Development Board.

Other board business: the board approved a correction to the August 21 minutes early in the meeting and later formalized first‑and‑third Wednesday meeting dates for growth‑policy work sessions. The planning board also discussed scheduling upcoming Vision 2045 public meetings and steps in the land‑use update process.

The application now goes to the Whitefish City Council for final consideration; the council will see the staff report, public comments, the board’s record and the unresolved questions about emergency‑access easements and any recommended conditions from staff.