Lakeshore Protection Committee

CITY OF WHITEFISH LAKESHORE PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 Place: City Council Conference Room Recorded By: Dabney Langellier Members Present: Ben Cavin Donna Emerson Peggy Brammer Roger Rowles Nancy Schuber Tara Zimmerman Toby Scott Members Absent: None Staff Present: Tara Osendorf Dave Taylor 1. CALL TO ORDER Summary: Toby Scott, the committee chair, called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Summary: None. 3. APPROVAL OF JUNE 23, 2021 MINUTES Summary: Members reviewed the minutes of June 23, 2021. ACTION: Donna Emerson made a motion to approve the minutes of June 23, 2021. Nancy Schuber seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. 4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Summary: None. 5. OLD BUSINESS Summary: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER – TARA ZIMMERMAN Summary: This is Tara’s first meeting with the Whitefish Lakeshore Protection Committee. Committee members and staff introduced themselves and welcomed Tara. Ben Cavin arrived and joined the meeting. These next two applications are right next door to one another, very similar, and contracted to the same company. However, the Ellis property application is a bit more involved. For consistency and efficiency, Tara will provide her staff report for both properties, starting with WLV 21-W42 (the Ellis property). Then, Kurt Vomfell with Terra Designworks will provide more technical information on the proposed Page 1 of 4 Lakeshore Protection Committee July 14, 2021 applications before taking questions from the Committee or the public. We will start with the Ellis property as it is a bit more involved. B. WLV 21-W42 – CHRIS ELLIS Summary: A major variance request to remove a seawall below the high-water mark and replace with rip rap and native vegetation. In addition, a standard permit request to remove concrete steps and a hot tub pad, add new steps and a walkway, and remove trees. Tara Osendorf summarized the staff report for members, noting a couple of key points: • The seawall is located on the lake side for the high-water mark and therefore changed the location of the high-water mark. • It will be removed and replaced with a combination of beach gravel and rip rap slope with planted native vegetation. • To maintain the high-water mark at its current location, a dynamic gravel beach will be employed. • A major variance is required anytime dredging is involved. Dredging is defined as any work that alters the high-water mark. • In addition, they are requesting to remove a concrete hot tub pad and concrete steps. The steps will be replaced with 4-foot wide dry stone steps and walkway. • In order to do the work, four birch trees will be removed in the Lakeshore Protection Zone (LPZ), which will be replaced with four paper birch trees. • The property is eligible for 772 square feet of constructed area. The proposed project and with the existing dock and canopy, the total constructed area on site will be 760 square feet. Consideration of a major variance: • The seawall is failing. Paint is chipping into the lake and contributing to the lake pollution. It is currently negatively impacting Whitefish Lake. • The seawall is a nonconforming structure and per regulations, it may remain and be maintained as long as there is no physical change other than necessary maintenance and repair. Therefore, removal of seawall is the best options and no reasonable alternative exists. • The removal of the seawall will cause the least impact on the lake overall and it meets the criteria for a major variance. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of WLV 21-W41 with the 18 conditions of approval as noted in the report. Kurt Vomfell with Terra Designworks spoke on behalf of the application and noted the following: • Once the seawall is removed, something will have to put in it’s place to maintain the current position of the high-water mark. The rip rap slope is taking place of the seawall. • The high-water line should not move horizontally or vertically. If we were to push the high-water mark out on the lake, it would be a hardship to the community. If we were to the push the high-water mark up on the property, it would be a hardship to the property owner. • We will employ a planted rip rap slope to hold the stones together. In addition, some small gravel will used that matches what is out there now. • The dynamic beach gravel will soften the wave energy. The slope, stone size, etc is well thought out and calculated. It is designed to with stand storm intensity and duration. • With the seawall the existing topography is two feet below the mean annual high-water mark. It is important to correct this and renaturalize the slope. Members discussed the application with staff and Kurt Vomfell, clarifying the following items: Page 2 of 4 Lakeshore Protection Committee July 14, 2021 • The City does not work with the HOA on the submitted application. The homeowner is responsible to get any necessary approvals with their HOA. • There is no record of an application that was submitted and/or denied for the removal of the seawall in the past. The previous owners may have reached out and asked questions about their options, but no formal submittal was made. • It is unknown where the original high-water mark was located, as the seawall created a new line. The goal is to keep the high-water mark as close as possible to where it is now. • There is no actual dredging occurring, just excavation. A minimal amount of earth will be moved to complete the project. • The excavation will done from up above. The wall will be broken into pieces and pulled back up on the shore. Both the footings and wall will be removed. • Actually 3 birches and a maple tree will be removed to complete the project. • The work will be done a low water after August 15th. • The application with Army Corps of Engineers was already submitted and approval is expected within a matter of days. • A floodplain permit will be required as well. ACTION: Peggy Brammer made a motion to approve WLV 21-W42. Donna Emerson seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 (Ben Cavin opposed). C. WLV 21-W41 – CASA MARCO MONTANA LLC Summary: A major variance request to remove a seawall below the high water mark and replacement with rip rap and native vegetation. In addition, a standard permit request to remove a deck and painted wooden stairs, and install a dry-set stone walkway and steps within the Lakeshore Protection Zone (LPZ). Tara Osendorf summarized the staff report for members, noting a couple of key points: • This application is very similar the proposed project for the Ellis property. The major variance portion of the application is exactly the same. • In addition, they are proposing to remove a non-conforming, grandfathered painted wooden deck and stairs. A 4-foot wide dry-set stone walkway and steps will be installed in its place. • This property is eligible for 808 square feet of constructed area. The proposed project and with the existing dock and canopies, the total constructed area on site will be 570 square feet. Consideration of a major variance: • See the discussion under application WLV 21-W42 Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of WLV 21-W41 with the 18 conditions of approval as noted in the report. Kurt Vomfell with Terra Designworks spoke on behalf of the application and noted the following: • The solution is identical to the proposal for the Ellis property, but just on a smaller scale. ACTION: Peggy Brammer made a motion to approve WLV 21-W41. Donna Emerson seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 (Ben Cavin opposed). D. WLV 21-W43 – ERIS HUEMER & WILLIAM CLAYTON WINANS Summary: A minor variance request to place two docks on one property. Tara Osendorf summarized the staff report for members, noting a couple of key points: • This property is located in the County and has 440 feet of lakeshore frontage. Page 3 of 4 Lakeshore Protection Committee July 14, 2021 • The owner reached out to the County for the opportunity to subdivide the lot, but due to the narrow shape, Flathead County would not allow this. • The current 56-foot I-shaped dock was in place when the Eris & Clayton purchased the lot. It is permitted and used for non-motorized watercraft. • The applicants are proposing a second larger dock at 816 square feet. Consideration of a minor variance: • The applicant does not face a hardship should the application be denied. • The only other alternative would be to put one large dock on the property, as subdividing the lot is not an option. • This will not have a negative impact on the lake. Plus, the dock will be under 60 feet in length, like the other docks in that area. • This can be considered a public benefit, since the two docks will be spaced apart and shorter in length. • Staff recommendation of approval is based on a couple of conditions: o The dock design and dimensions are to not change in the future. o The smaller I-shaped dock will be for non-motorized use only. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of WLV 21-W43 with the 8 conditions of approval as noted in the report. Members discussed the application with staff and clarified the following items: • This property is eligible for 3,520 square feet of total constructed area. • If the applicants were to have one dock, it could be 60 feet in length and 30 feet wide with lots of slips. They could potentially go out further if a water depth profile showed less than 4 feet in depth. • The two docks would be spaced 60 feet apart. Clayton Winans spoke on behalf of the application and noted the following: • The smaller dock is intended to be a swim dock for the kids. • One large dock would like a marina compared to the other docks in the area. • The intention is to give the children a safe place to play and keep with the character and appearance of the area. ACTION: Donna Emerson made a motion to approve WLV 21-W43. Roger Rowles seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 (Ben Cavin opposed). 8. STAFF COMMENTS Summary: Dave is still working on getting the lakeshore regulations updated. Potential changes have been submitted to Mark Lorang for his input and just waiting to hear back. Then, the regulations will come to the Committee for approval. 9. BOARD COMMENTS Summary: Members are interested in a workshop or further education on general principles for variances. Staff noted the variance criteria outlines the items to be considered for a variance approval. 10. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: The meeting is adjourned at 6:55 pm. Page 4 of 4