The Whitefish Planning Commission last week split its vote on a proposal to build townhouses at the site of a home on Baker Avenue known as the castle. 

The commission, formerly the Whitefish Community Development Board, voted 3-3 on a motion to deny the planned unit development request, so it will send no recommendation forward for City Council’s consideration.  

Several board members said the design of the project was beautiful but there were many concerns, including traffic, affordable housing, building height and lack of fit for the neighborhood. 

The property is located at 900 Baker Ave., and is developed with a single-family home designed like a castle. The project is known as Taylor Hill of Whitefish. 

The applicant is proposing an eight-lot subdivision on nearly 3 acres, with access off West 10th Street. The development comprises seven buildings, five with four townhome units and two with two units. The new buildings would surround the existing castle. 

Six zoning deviations are proposed, including reduced setbacks, overall lot coverage and increased building height to 40 feet. The applicant is proposing to pay the fee in lieu rather than construct affordable housing for 10% of the units, or 2.4, per the Legacy Homes incentives program. 

Lauren Cebulla, architect with Cushing Terrell, said the units range from a three-bedroom, three-bathroom at about 2,200 square feet, to the largest units, which have seven-bedrooms, five-bathrooms and cover about 4,000 square feet.  

Board member Mallory Phillips noted that by right, the developer could make 39 units but is choosing to make 24, and while the design is beautiful, the housing is not affordable for workers in Whitefish. She asked the applicant about the obstacles to building affordable housing. 

Eric Mulcahy with Sands Surveying cited the topography of the property, the existence of the castle and yard around it, and the desire to preserve the Baker Avenue corridor as factors in not building the site out to 39 units. 

“It’s a tricky site,” Mulcahy said. ‘It’s a site that, I think, people have an emotional connection to, and we didn’t want to just destroy it.” 

If approved, the developer will install a stormwater holding tank but will not be required to treat it onsite because it will give money to the regional treatment station the city will install at Seventh Street and Baker Avenue. 

“It’s always better to spend [stormwater treatment money] in a regional sense,” Brandon Theis of Civil Solutions said. “You get more bang for your buck.” 

Whitefish Senior Planner Wendy Compton-Ring noted that, although the buildings will not be built to LEED standards, the developer is interested in pursuing sustainable and low-impact materials, as well as other health-conscious approaches to construction. 

Cebulla said the buildings include stone, stucco and wood elements.  

“The goal would be to source local lumber and use wood for the main structure that is either SFI, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, or FSC, Forest Stewardship Council certified,” Cebulla said. “Both of those are very regulated, sustainable certifications on the wood front that we would be pursuing, and then across the board, similarity, we would be looking at healthy products.” 

Cherie Ross, owner of the property, said she grew up in Minnesota and has lived in Montana for 20 years. She currently works in the integrated and holistic health business for people and animals. 

She said the project is geared toward people with environmental and chemical sensitivities and people who want a cleaner way of life. 

“My goal is to create a community within our Stumptown community where people can come and breathe clean air and heal, because that’s what I experienced when I came here,” Ross said. “I was one of those very sick people.” 

Six people spoke in opposition to the development. Many discussed the narrow, steep nature of O’Brien Avenue and the fact that cars park on the street, making it even more narrow. 

Tom Eisinger said the proposed development does not align with the character of the area and will negatively affect the established neighborhood. He had gathered 12 signatures of people in agreement with his statement. 

“It seems like there may be efforts to rezone or bend the rules by possibly incentivizing approval,” he said. “That’s not how planning decisions should be made. 

“When growth is done responsibly, it can be a good thing, but this proposal is not responsible,” he added. “It does not respect the existing zoning, the limited infrastructure, or the historical character of the castle house, which is on the historic registry.” 

Whitefish resident Mark O’Brien said he’d rather see actual affordable housing than a payment for some future “mythical” housing.  

O’Brien added that he owns the road that is being proposed as an emergency access. Mulcahy said there is an easement for ingress and egress. Compton-Ring said the parties will figure out the secondary emergency access at the time of engineering plans. 

A permit was issued in 1988 for a bed and breakfast in the castle. In 2003, the property was approved for a preliminary plat to develop a 23-unit residential project with a commercial lot, which was amended two years later to include 33 units. The subdivision and planned unit development expired in 2010.