A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Council declines rezoning request for two Wisconsin Avenue parcels after residents, council raise concerns about short-term rentals

May 05, 2026 | Whitefish, Flathead County, Montana


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Council declines rezoning request for two Wisconsin Avenue parcels after residents, council raise concerns about short-term rentals
After more than two hours of testimony and council questioning, the Whitefish City Council on May 4 declined a developer-requested rezoning for two parcels at 1350 and 1352 Wisconsin Avenue adjacent to the Whitefish Lake Lodge.

Planning staff said the rezoning to WRB2 (general resort business) was consistent with an earlier Wisconsin Avenue corridor plan and with the growth-policy map in place when the application was submitted. Applicants and property owners represented by Brian Avril said their near-term objective is to bring the existing use into zoning conformity, avoid unpermitted parking and to preserve the functionality of lodge operations; they also described potential future benefits such as daylighting Viking Creek, enclosing an outdoor event pavilion to reduce noise, and coordinating future planning through a PUD amendment.

Several residents from the Monks Bay neighborhood opposed the rezoning during public comment, citing repeated noise complaints, increased boat traffic and congestion on Wisconsin Avenue. Pam Shaw, a fourth-generation Monks Bay resident, told council the rezoning "would inevitably intensify these impacts on the surrounding neighborhood" and urged denial.

At the dais, Councilor Ben Davis and Council leadership pressed applicants on why they sought a straight zone change—Ben Davis argued the council has been "crystal clear" in the growth policy that no new land should be made available for short-term rentals. Councilor Steve and others said the outstanding question was whether claimed public benefits (daylighting the creek; moving noisy events indoors) were guaranteed or merely aspirational unless and until the applicants return with a PUD that spells out details and enforceable commitments.

Applicant Brian Avril told the council he did not intend to come forward seeking more marina slips and repeatedly said any master-plan proposals would return to the council for approval. "We would not be in front of this board asking for an expansion of marina slips," Avril said. He also framed rezoning as a way to bring existing parking and service uses into formal compliance.

Councilor Giuseppe moved to approve the rezoning and adopt staff findings; after debate the motion failed on a 3–2 vote. The council then considered but withdrew a motion to deny after discussion of procedural findings.

Because the rezoning request was not adopted, any future lodge expansion or facility changes would require a PUD amendment or separate approvals with additional public review. The applicants said they expect to return with project-specific proposals when they have a defined plan.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee