Lakeshore Protection Committee

CITY OF WHITEFISH LAKESHORE PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 Place: Great Northern Conference Room Recorded By: Dabney Langellier Members Present: Nancy Schuber Ben Cavin Donna Emerson Peggy Brammer Members Absent: Herb Peschel Allison Linville Roger Rowles Staff Present: Bailey Minnich 1. CALL TO ORDER Summary: Staff called the meeting to order at 6:01pm as both the Chair and Vice-Chair were absent. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Summary: Members decided to discuss application WLP 20-W02 first, since the applicants were already present and no one is currently here for application WLP 20-W01. 3. APPROVAL OF CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR ACTION: Emerson nominated Herb Peschel as the Committee Chair. Brammer seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Summary: The Vice-Chair will be responsible for running the meetings when the Chair is unable to attend. ACTION: Brammer nominated Donna Emerson as the Committee Vice-Chair. Schuber seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 11, 2019 MINUTES Summary: Members reviewed the minutes of December 11, 2019. The Public Works application from last meeting was approved by City Council. No start date has been set for the project at this time. ACTION: Schuber made a motion to approve the minutes of December 11, 2019. Emerson seconded and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Summary: None. 6. OLD BUSINESS Summary: None. Page 1 of 4 Lakeshore Protection Committee February 12, 2020 7. NEW BUSINESS A. WLP 20-W01 – RANDY DUNLOP & CAM CLARK Summary: The applicants are proposing to remove three individual docks to install a new shared EZ dock with attached gangway between all three properties within the Lake and Lakeshore Protection Zone (LPZ) at 736, 750, and 810 Birch Point Drive. Staff summarized the staff report for members, noting a couple of key points: • There are 2 property owners and 3 pieces of property for this application. • The lakeshore regulations encourage shared docks, as it reduces the overall impacts on the lake and lakeshore, including navigational congestion on the lake. • Special standards permit shared docks to have a greater wind length of 60-feet but requires greater setbacks of 40-feet between outer riparian boundaries. • The proposed dock will be ‘T’ shaped with three inner wings. This will include three shore stations with canopies and three jet ski ports. • The total dock square footage will be 2,363.72 square feet. No other structures are located within the lakeshore protection zone. Based on the applicants’ lakeshore frontage, they are eligible for 2,544 square feet of constructed area. • The total dock length including the gangway is approximately 98-feet long. • The lakeshore regulations permit docks to exceed 60-feet in length if the water depth from low water is less than 4 feet in depth. Then, the dock length may be increased, but not to exceed, 100-feet. • The applicants submitted a water depth profile that showed the water depth is 3-feet 11 inches at 98-feet. • Staff received one comment from the public in support of the shared dock. However, the resident expressed concerns about the dock location. Since the comment was received today, members were emailed a copy and printed copy was provided to each committee member at the start of the meeting. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the requested lakeshore construction permit with the 17 conditions listed in the report. Members discussed the following items: • Members inquired if the western side of the properties may be a better location for the shared dock. It would be further from the river inlet. There is the possibility the water depth would be greater in this area. • The water depth submitted was for the center of the properties because this is where the regulations state the shared dock should be placed. No one was in attendance to represent this application. Members invited Charles Abell, a resident on Woodland Place, to present his public comment on the request: • Minimizing the number of docks is a good thing. • However, the application is devoid of material: o Defined property lines – The lake frontage noted may also include river frontage. o Specific dock location – The middle of the property may be adequate for keeping the dock away from the river inlet, but it is difficult to tell with the information provided. • In the past, adjacent property owners were notified of these types of applications. However, he did not receive one. Page 2 of 4 Lakeshore Protection Committee February 12, 2020 Staff clarified the lakeshore regulations do not require adjacent property owners be notified of application submittals. Members discussed Charles’ concerns. It was noted should one of the owner’s (or a new owner) no longer want to have a shared dock, new applications will have to be submitted for individual docks and the project will have to meet current regulations. ACTIONS: 1. Brammer made a motion to propose the applicant put the dock 40-feet from the farthest western property line and submit a water depth profile for this location. Emerson seconded and the motion passed 3-1 (Schuber opposed). 2. Brammer made a motion to table the application with a request that the applicants submit a site plan detailing property lines with lake frontage noted separate from river frontage. Cavin seconded and the motion passed unanimously. B. WLP 20-W02 – MARK & SHELLY ELLIOTT Summary: The applicant is proposing to revegetate the location of a previous home within the Lakeshore Protection Zone (LPZ) at 1110 Birch Point Drive. Staff summarized the staff report for members, noting a couple of key points: • In October of 2019 the property owners were denied a lakeshore variance to reconstruct the home within the LPZ. As a structure cannot be rebuilt in that area, the location of the previous house foundation needs to be filled in and revegetated. • The lakeshore regulations prohibit the establishment of new lawn in the LPZ, although the remaining lawn next to the old foundation is considered grandfathered and may remain. • The area of the structure removed from the LPZ must be revegetated with native plants compliant with the regulations. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the requested lakeshore construction permit with the 16 conditions listed in the report. Chuck Birgensmith with Apex Restoration & Remodel was in attendance to represent the application. He made the following key points: • There was no crawl space and the house was on the ground, so the area is not that deep. The old foundation/concrete will be removed. Then, the area will be filled with dirt and bark mulch. • The area is roughly 9 feet by 40 feet. Members reviewed the plans submitted with the application with Chuck as there was some confusion over what area will be revegetated. Chuck further clarified the deck and retaining wall remain in place. They are not part of this project. ACTION: Brammer made a motion to approve WLP 20-W02 with the 16 conditions. Schuber seconded and the motion passed unanimously. This item will be on the City Council agenda on March 2nd as a consent agenda item. Page 3 of 4 Lakeshore Protection Committee February 12, 2020 8. STAFF COMMENTS Summary: The next committee meeting will be held on March 11 th. There are no applications on the agenda at this time. However, the committee is still scheduled to meet for Board training with the City’s legal counsel. Members are asked to attend, so they may benefit from this education opportunity. If any applications are received, those agenda items will be discussed first and the education piece will be done after the applicants and public depart. 9. BOARD COMMENTS Summary: Members inquired about the process for a text amendment to the lakeshore regulations that would require notifying adjacent landowners for Lakeshore Construction Permit Applications. ACTION: Brammer made a motion to request City Council change the Lakeshore Regulations to require notification to adjacent landowners when Lakeshore Construction Permit Applications are submitted. Cavin seconded and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Recommendation: Staff will confirm the options committee members have to request items to Council and report back at the next meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT Summary: Meeting is adjourned at 7:02pm. Page 4 of 4