City Council - Regular Meeting

We're going to get started. I'll go ahead and call this Monday, May 4th, 2026 of the White Fish City Council to order. We have folks joining us online, I believe, but thanks very much for attending in person. And we will start first by indicating that councelor counselors Norton and Sweeney are both um excused this evening. With that said, we'll start with our pledge of allegiance. And I would ask Ben's father, Bill Davis, to please lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Thanks very much, Bill. We will move on to communications from the public. We do have two public hearings advertised this evening. So, if you're here to speak to those individual hearings, please wait until those items are called. Otherwise, anything to bring to the attention of the council, now would be your opportunity. Uh, name and address, please, when you approach the podium. Any public comment this evening?

Z. Hello everyone. Z418 East Second Street. First of all, I would be remiss since I do have this opportunity. Uh I just wanted to give a shout out to three of our awesome local businesses. Um Cutthroat Bagel Company, Sage and Cedar, and Book Works for uh once again being on the correct side of history. Thank you for your solidarity um in closing your businesses on May 1st. We appreciate it. Thank you. Um, okay. For my comment. Oh, excuse me.

Thank you for your indulgence. The police commission is a quasi judicial cheers um body established under Montana code 7-32-4151 through 4164 and city code 2-5 ideally acting as a check on the operations of the Whitefish Police Department. Unfortunately, beyond participating in the hiring process, their oversight has been negligible. In light of the $90,000 settlement that the city will pay to be careo del Castillo, the victim of racial profiling by officer Michael Henis. It would behoove you to implement the following changes to the duties of the police commission. require the police commission to conduct quarterly reviews of policies and procedures and per 7-32-4158. Such meetings must be open to the public. Our beautiful city parks and trees

have received more attention and advocacy than public safety. A key component of community policing is building long-term relationships through engagement and partnership. Let's move forward in that spirit together. Thank you. Thank you, Z. Richard,

Mr. Mayor, Council, uh, Richard Hner, 104 Fth Street here in Whitefish. And, um, a couple of things, Craig, you may not have seen my text earlier, but in you can answer it sometime later. I had an interesting opportunity last Wednesday um crossing the foot bridge uh to um next to Birch Point where that lift station is and two of our public employees, our public works employees were busy dropping a huge hook to fish out somebody's underwear from the lift station. And it was an unpleasant job, I can assure you. And I want to shout out to our public um works employees and all of our city employees, but especially those two who are working uh that morning. Um everyone who works for this city does an amazing job and deserve all of our appreciation and thanks. And uh given that you're also now discussing um the transportation issue of motorized vehicles on our trails and streets and one thing and another. I couldn't help but notice this week in the innov type magazine innovation of the week and it starts out imagine the cyber truck but done well about a tenth the size and that's the uh 3,495 oolito which is an sorry I'm just using scraps of paper to hand this out so I didn't waste too much paper or printing

This is an amazing little machine that goes 40 m an hour. It can't pop a wheelie, I don't think, but it has enough um room for two people and it weighs 175 lbs and I think it's the next thing we're going to have to deal with on our bike pedestrian paths. Heads up. Thanks, Richard. Further public comments this evening? Any volunteer board reports from the audience? Riss and Daniel.

Hi, my name is Riss Getats. I'm executive director of Whitefish Housing Authority. Um, in the packet today, um, you should have had a proposal from Daniel and I regarding administration um, of the Legacy Homes program rental portion of it. Um, I remember when I first came back to Whitefish and was working in housing here, people were really concerned that our inclusionary zoning program that had been that you guys had worked so hard on for so long um was essentially totally neutralized by the actions that the state took by removing that as a housing tool. Um, years later, it's pretty exciting that we have so many new units coming online this year. Um, we've onboarded eight already as kind of a little trial run. Um and we have 65 more coming on later this year. Um rentals that we want to onboard. We want to make sure that we're getting our workforce into. Um and uh from my experience of getting these last eight on um on top of the other 11 that we've managed, it is a lot of work to recruit the right people um at the right incomes to these units to make sure that we are essentially doing the right case management and providing the right type of service to manage a program that we offer to developers and to our community. Um Daniel and I work together all the time. We're always talking about strategy, about administration. Um our organizations were always intended to work together. Um and for that reason, we are proposing that the housing authority contract with Housing Whitefish um to administer the rental portion of the workforce program. probably one of the biggest reasons why this is is because housing whitefish over the past few years while I've been doing some cleanup um they've been working really really hard on outreach to our workforce in Whitefish um to people who need those types of services

and they've kicked off and expanded a really successful program the um Whitefish or the Workforce Rental Assistance Program or RAP. Um Daniel and I and and our boards have seen this as an opportunity to create a position um that would uh manage all of the workforce administration in Whitefish and be able to really make sure that we're taking care of our people um who need rental assistance or who want to be long-term in a more affordable unit. Um we feel like it's a great opportunity to do so. So this um report uh and and the the little request is that um because of all the labor that it takes to establish a successful program with 65 units coming online and even more scheduled to come on next year. Um we're requesting a one-time ask of $30,000 to essentially frontload for this position. Um and Daniel can talk a little bit more um about how that position might work. Um, but essentially to ensure the success of city programs, um, that we have the right person administering it, that Daniel and I, who have a lot of other duties, aren't having to run these programs ourselves. Um, we're we're really excited to make a city program work really well as we scale it up. Thank you.

Thanks, Chris. Daniel,

just tack on a little bit on what Riss is saying. Um really for us um being able to team these two programs and have them work together. Uh we have served over right about 120 households uh right in that sweet spot for this Legacy Homes program. Um so our goal is really to help transition some of those folks that are costburdened and in the rental assistance program uh and really try to help them get into some of these deed restricted units that are going to be a better long-term option for them. Um so really as Ris said um this is kind of just the next stage for us where u it's not a big major transition. It's uh doing what we're already doing with the income verification, a lot of communication with the landlords. Uh and really uh this this ask is to help us um you know as I put in here we're going to have um with the administrative fee probably you know 37 to $40,000 once all these units are up and running. Uh but in order to get there and to make sure it's a successful onboarding um of this city program, we want to make sure that we can have the right people in place. Um so yeah, this is uh housing whitefish will match those funds one to one so we can bring somebody on uh and they'll over yeah be the workforce kind of housing coordinator or something along those lines. So um we're happy to answer any questions that you have, but that's um our ask tonight for you guys.

Thanks Daniel. Any questions for Daniel or Riss? Not seeing any. Dana, would you like a motion from the council or should we consider this at the end of the meeting? You could act right now. Um it was um in the the packet um with their request. I will tell you that you received today the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget and you do have available funds. Um I would recommend that these funds come out of our affordable housing fund and not resort tax. And is that budgeted in FY27 or can it be?

Yeah, we budgeted the full amount available, but um there's about $120,000 that we don't have specific projects identified for. So, this would be one of those that you would utilize the $120,000 for. Thank you, Dana. Steve,

uh I just a question, would that be an ongoing match year over year after year or is this something you would eventually take over out of your program? Yeah, we anticipate that once this is up and running, uh there's the 3% admin fee um that housing authority currently receives, but Housing Whitefish will then take that over. Um so that's going to be probably about, you know, again, close to about $40,000 once all these units are up and running. Uh and then Housing Whitefish will be able to fund raise and utilize our funds for the remainder. So we really do see this as, you know, seed money. Yeah. essentially seed money getting this started um just so that we can get this person on boarded help the program really. Okay. Just want to make sure it's

Yep. this is something we'd have to budget for year after year. We're seeing this right now as a as a one time. Um if the program we see a whole bunch more legacy units coming down and there's, you know, changes to the program, uh certainly worth that in the future, but right now we're intending just the one time. Thank you. I would entertain a motion or did you have a question just please? Y

so Daniel uh your organization has tapped very effectively into the affordable housing um fund that the city has put aside. If we if the council approves this in a way it's your organization taking away that money from programs uh to pay for this position because if we do that it looks like we are going down to the path of using the funds uh from the affordable housing fund. Um just just once and u are you comfortable with this?

Um so we do have the agreement with the city for the uh funds and I believe those are already budgeted for the next two fiscal years. Um I mean for for me personally um I'm doing it all at Housing Whitefish and overseeing the rental assistance program and the legacy or you know all of this. And so I think really for bringing this position on, I really see it as benefiting the rental assistance program, uh, which the city's very generously been funding, help us to grow and expand that. Um, and really just have that central point of if you're looking for a rental in Whitefish and you're working in the community, you can just have a one-stop shop. I think it really simplifies. Um, and so, Jeppe, I think for me, I think it'll really help to simplify and it will really help us at Housing Whitefish to take that next step and really getting out in the community more. Um, I think we've done a really good job getting it out there. We've had a lot of people in the program, but um, having an additional staff member that can really be out there talking about both these programs will be really beneficial. If I might add something to that, um it it's exciting that there is something built in there that this is sort of a one-time thing, right? That it will be able to pay for itself moving forward. Um, and if you think about the time that we're paying for, that's time that both Daniel and I will be able to get back and that we'll be able to work at getting more resources not from the city at maybe applying for federal grants and really expanding the work that we are doing um by having this position set aside. So, I think it's it's actually really high impact when you think of staff hours and how we're allocating that. Um, so I I would say it sometimes it's hard to be like, "Oh, we're helping pay for a position." But actually this position I really believe will be and and making sure that we can get them onboarded and getting people and like the program set up and recruiting people ahead of time with so many units coming online at the same time. Um, yeah, I would just say it it might seem like a

bit of a strange request or we'd rather be paying for programs, but this uh again one time ask will have a really high impact on the success of programs uh moving forward. Okay, thank you. Ready for a motion? Uh Ben had a question. No, just

Well, I I move to approve the request as presented for uh funds taken from the affordable housing uh funding for budget of 2627 26 27 correct fiscal year 27 um for one time as requested by Whitefish Housing Authority and housing white fish. Thanks, Jeppi. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Davis. Further discussion. Oh, wait. Could I just clarify one thing before you vote? Dan, when do you guys need the money? Because it might not be fiscal year 27.

Okay. In June. Okay. We do have funding still available in that fund. I will tell you that we have a little bit over $40,000 to finish off through June 30th of this year, which is fiscal year 26. So, thank you. I have a question then. Are these funds coming out of the budget uh fiscal year that is ending June 30th or cor? That actually I think is what they've requested.

Thank you for helping Dana. So, I will amend my motion the funds to be coming out of the available funds. They're available for the affordable housing programs uh fiscal year 26. Thank you, Jeppi. All those in favor of the motion, please. Did you have a question, Ben, or a comment? Please.

I just want to say this is a good problem to have. You know, the Legacy Homes program took years to draft. Um it it was a a complicated policy solution that this council and many others have worked on for a long time. And here we are finally seeing the results of that. um with several dozen affordable housing units coming online this year. That's a that's a big deal and I think that may be the hard part, but we don't want to fall down at the end in the administration of it. And I think it's really important for the city and for our partners that um that we're ahead of the game on on managing these units well so that the program is a success now that we're in this critical time. So, I'm glad you're here asking and I'm glad you've thought this through and um please um I appreciate your focus going forward. Thanks.

Thanks, guys. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like sign on that motion does care unanimously. Daniel Riss, thanks very much. Appreciate it. I'll turn it back to the council. Any volunteer board reports from city council? Not seeing any. You do have the consent agenda containing the April 20th special as well well as regular meeting minutes. Can I have a motion, please? Steve move to approve the consent agenda. A second. And Ben, you will be recusing. Yes, I will be recusing from this vote. Thank you.

All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign. And that motion does carry unanimously with councelor Davis uh recusing himself from the vote. That will bring us to our first of two public hearings. Our first being item 6A, consideration of a request from the Whitefish Assembly of God for conditional use permit to expand their church to add a multi-purpose building for youth tain activities located at 150 Lamb Lane and the property is zoned WA which is our agricultural district. Dave,

yeah, good evening. So, this is a conditional use permit request. Um, churches currently in most of our zones require a conditional use permit to um, be constructed and or to expand. And so, the White Fish Assembly of God, they're um, asking to uh, be able to add a uh, a second building on their site, which would be a singlestory multi-purpose room and four classrooms for youth and teen activities for the church. Um, as well as some expanded parking around there with an additional 26 spaces within the existing lot. So, access will be unchanged off of Caro Avenue onto Lamb Lane. Um, and it's a 20 acre parcel um with plenty of room on it. We did put out a notice. We did not receive any public comments on this. Um, in reviewing the criteria, um, it does comply with the growth policy. Um, it's a rural zoning district and church is a permitted use there. Uh, permitted conditional use. Um the setbacks will be met for that zoning district. Um it will have adequate parking. As far as a site suitability, again, it's a 20acre site. There's plenty of room for this activity on here. Um it's not going to impact traffic or anything else around the site. It's currently on city water and sewer or at least city water. Not sure about sewer. Um they'll have Yeah, it's a private sewer system. And then there um any expansion of of imperous surface over 10,000 square feet will require an engineered storm water drainage plan. Um it's not anticipated to have any neighborhood impact particularly um and it's compatible with the adjacent uses. Um we did find it meets the criteria for a conditional use permit. We recommended 10 conditions of approval. Most of them are standard. One of them would be to add nine park uh bicycle parking spaces to the site. Um they'll need a landscaping plan submitted with their application for a

building permit and they'll have to get architectural review approval. Um this did go to the planning commission on April uh 16th and the um applicant did speak. There was no other um people speaking on that and the planning commission unanimously recommended approval and staff does recommend approval. Be glad to try to answer any questions that you might have. Thanks Dave. Any questions? Steve, is it going to affect the uh disc golf course out there at all? I do not believe so. Okay, Ben. Uh, I noticed there's a condition in here number eight. It Yeah, it says it has to go to architectural review, and I'm wondering if that needs to be struck.

Everything gets arroved. We It has to combine, not the committee, but we review it for architectural review by staff. It says architectural review approval must be obtained, not committee approval, but we do review every project that's commercial or more than a duplex for architectural review. So, this will be this. This will still be a standard condition going forward given the changes. Okay. Um I have a second question. Uh, I noticed that this particular establishment is on a septic instead of a sewer. And I'm wondering um given the expansion of use, at what point uh is connecting to sewer um considered here?

You know, I can let Craig answer that. It has probably Flathead County's call. Yeah. So I'm Flathead County says if you're within 200 feet of an existing sewer main you have to connect and they're probably about 1,200 ft. So it'll be a significant sewer main extension to connect these guys to city sewer. Additional questions just just a quick one. Uh Dave and I might have missed it. Uh we make reference to the growth policy. Are we now working on the 2045 vision? Uh

well, I mean this was submitted prior to that adoption of that. So this was reviewed under the old growth policy. So anything new applications that are submitted after that was adopted on April 20th would be reviewed under the new growth policy. Thank you. Additional questions? Not seeing any. We did advertise for public hearing on item 6A WCU 26-01. Any public comment on this request? Michelle, anyone online? I don't see Michelle, actually. Dana, yeah, I got it covered. Anybody who's attending online and would like to provide comment on this item, please raise your hand.

I think you're good. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back to the council for a motion, please. Andy, Mr. Mayor, I would go ahead and move that we approve WCUP26-01, our first of the year. Now that I see that, um, findings of fact, staff report, and the recommended conditions of approval is sent to us by our own planning commission. Is there a second to the motion? I second.

Seconded by councelor Kalabiano. Further discussion. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like sign. And that motion does carry unanimously, which brings us on to our second and final public hearing of the night, which will be item 6B, uh, which will be resolution 26-12, resoning 1350 and 15. And I need to put my readers on. 1350 and 1352 Wisconsin Avenue from WR3 which is our low density multifamily residential district to WB2 which is our general resort business district. Good evening.

Good evening. This application is requesting a zone change consistent with the existing use in order to facilitate future development and align existing use with the appropriate zoning district. This will be at 1350 and 1352 Wisconsin Avenue adjacent to the White Fish Lake Lodge. It's current the properties are currently zoned as WR3, also known as our lowdensity multifamily residential district. The Wisconsin Avenue corridor plan specifically amended these two lots to resort commercial and the applicant is requesting a WRB2 which is also known as our general resort business district as the appropriate zoning to meet that resort commercial designation. The adjacent land uses to the north is commercial, south is multif family, east is open space and west is Whitefish Lake. We conducted public noticing on March 25th, the 1st of April, as well as March 27th. To date, we have received three public comments um in writing, two opposed and one in support. Also, we received one verbal um support at the public hearing on April 16th at the planning commission. The proposed zoning district is consistent with the future land use map of the and the growth policy that is the 2007 growth policy since this application was submitted prior to the 2045 adoption. Review of city standards will secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers. Public services are available to the subject properties. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air pro are provided through lot coverage. Setbacks conformance with the building code at the time of building permit submitt. Traffic impacts from any future proposes will be reviewed during

the permitting process. Zone change will promote compatibility commercial compatible commercial resort growth and will conform with growth policy and future land use map. The proposed zone is consistent with the vision of the Wisconsin corridor and the zone change will conserve the value of any surrounding buildings because any future redevelopment will upgrade dilapated buildings. The proposed zone change encourages the most appropriate use of land that is consistent with the city county growth policy and adjacent zoning. The request is also consistent with the historical established and trending pattern of uses. That is a summary of findings from my staff report. I did want to address a few of the public comments that we received. One was pertaining to the marina. No marina expansion would be permitted with this application. A marina expansion does require a PUB amendment which would go to you guys um even with the M loopa changes. So you would see a request if such proposal was um asked. I believe there's also public comment to the district size. District size refers to the entire zone rather than the lot size. Um the converting these two lots would add to the district size which is already in conformance. Um so there's nothing that would make it out of conformance with adopting this resolution. Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you, Lauren. Any questions for Lauren on her staff report? Ben,

did when I was reading through the staff report and the analysis of this um it analyzes it in the context of the old growth policy and I'm wondering if staff has analyzed this in the context of the new growth policy. We have not since the application was submitted prior to the adoption of the 2045 growth policy. And so we must recognize that the um re that we have to do what was already adopted at its time. The staff report was created during and prior to the adoption. So we weren't able to take into account the new one.

And is is this council to analyze this the same way? My understanding is yes. Okay. Angie, do you agree? Is that okay? Additional questions for Lauren on her staff reports.

Not seeing any. We did advertise for item 6B, which will be resolution 26-12. I will start and ask if the applicants have anything further to add. Now would be your opportunity. Good evening. Donovad sand surveying two village loop. I'm here tonight representing the applicants. Um so as Lauren stated uh this is a zone change to WRB2 which is general resort business and that was planned for within the Wisconsin Avenue corridor plan. These lots were specifically called out in that plan for this future use. Um, an expansion of the existing PUD, which covers the properties to the north, will be requested at a later date. This request will have the specifics of what the plans are for these properties and will also undergo review by the planning office and also go through the proper hearing procedures. We agree with the staff report and we're available for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Donna. Any questions for Donna on behalf of the applicant? Ben, uh, what would your intentions be with this, uh, zone change? Well, it does bring it into conformance with the Wisconsin Avenue corridor and the applicants are here tonight and I believe they do want to speak as well, so they would be better able to answer that.

Thanks, Donna. Brian, do you have anything to add? Thanks, Donna. Hi, my name is Brian Averil. Live at 1500 East Edgewood. Um, these two pieces of property are very important to the lodge. They've uh we've owned them for a little over 10 years or so. They've provided a real vital support function for the current operation as you guys can see. Um, our intention, should you guys approve this tonight, which I certainly hope you do, but would be to continue the use uh for the property kind of as it is today. We're working through a master plan. We really haven't had that 100% solidified yet. Um but we have three real criteria um for that. And the three criteria um in no particular order here, but I hear a lot from the community uh and the residents on Monks Bay that how do we control the noise coming out of that tent uh for parties and late nights? the plan, whatever plan we come up with would 100% address that. Our other one that's really important is the marina. I know the marina is a is a very sensitive, it's a great community benefit and it also has a lot of sensitivity around how the marina is used and the functionality of it. We would not be I would not be in front of this board asking for an expansion of marina slips, whatever that is. Um, and then kind of the third public benefit that I'm seeing is, uh, as you guys probably know, the, uh, Viking Creek runs under the main driveway of the lodge. We look to move it to the south property lots and expose it, uh, link it in some fashion to the uh, future Wishers Lake Institute interpretation center and those ponds that are been contemplating. So, it' be

a really neat kind of public benefit and and feature kind of how that water would flow and interact in the lake. Um, so I've I had a chance to read the letter uh that came from the neighbor on Monks Bay and I I totally agree. Uh, I used to be a a resident on Monks Bay. The noise uh coming out of that tent is not not what we want. It's frustrating for me. This would allow us a solution to fix that in the future. Um and then and and then just to reiterate, we'll not be in front of this board asking for additional marina slips in the future. So that would be our intention for the property.

Thanks, Brian. Steve Brian, currently you use that at least one of those lots for your valet parking, right? We do. Okay. And that's not paved either, is it? Uh no, it's not. Okay. Okay. But we'd be happy to pave it.

Okay. Um well, I mean, obviously my concern up here is expansion of of um short-term rentals because the community has said over and over and over again, we don't want to expand short-term rentals anywhere. Um and you know, when we do a zone change and we give latitude for expanding short-term rentals, it's easy for people to see the money that comes with creating more short-term rentals. Um, and and I you know what I'd like to know is how do we hold your feet to the fire on things like daylighting Viking Creek and not just building more short-term rentals there instead of um actually making further improvements that are more beneficial to uh to the community uh instead of just to the Whitefish Lake Lodge.

Yeah, thank thanks Steve. I I don't I don't know exactly how to answer that other than our intention would be those three components. The the lots as as they exist today, they do serve a vital function for the lodge such as the parking and that's not going to go away. So, our need for those services, not just uh not just short-term rentals is really going to be really important. And what I will I understand your comments now and and whatever we do has to come back through this board to get approved for. So we would amend the PUD that we have for the lodge and that would have to take your guys's approval for it. So all those benefits would come out in that process.

So So these lots are wrapped into the PUD you have for the lodge. uh they're today they're not but the when any additional use for that land would have to come through a PUD amendment which would be the current uh lodge PUD. Well, I mean what prevents you from just putting up more um short-term rental units there like another I don't know how many you could fit in those two lots but probably a lot. Uh, that's, you know, I'm just trying to capture the sentiment of our community here and ask and since you're in the hot seat right now, I think it's fair for you to answer those questions.

No, fair enough. Fair enough. Um, I I it would whatever we would do would have to come back through through the board for approval. But it, you know, there's a we still need all those functions. So, it can't we can't just go onto that lot like I I know just intuitively you can't go on the lot and build a bunch of rentals without the parking because we need the parking where it is today. I'm not sure if I'm answering that directly, but it it it you can't use all the space for short-term rentals and not have the functionality piece. And then just being trying to be a good neighbor, one in the community, but two on the lake. There's got to be a way to solve that noise that's in the tent, which is wedding central on the lake. And this I don't know what that solve is, but I know that problem exists, and I know that I can solve it with this, which isn't short-term rental driven. It's more it's something else to solve that. And so, yeah, there might be space for that, I guess, but I can't also operate the lodge without these function pieces, which are the other aspects.

Sure, I understand those things. Um, my other question is that why does it have to be WRB2 to do those things? Because you'd only be able to build residential on those lots if it were to stay zone WR3. Is there no other process? That's my understanding. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for answering those questions. Yeah. Hope I answered them. You did. Other questions for Brian?

I had a a few, Brian. Or maybe one or two. Um, years ago, for the record, well before there was an application, I met with your father um on the property, Dan, and he discussed the concept of a conference center. Is that being contemplated?

I I don't know exactly what form it would take, but something to house those events that would come off the lake. So, it's got to take some form like that. And it doesn't need to be, you know, conference center sounds huge. Our intention would be not to build something that's huge for an overall conference center. Although there's, you know, those pros and cons, and we haven't weighed all those pros and cons out. They bring great uh business to the community for conferences, which we definitely need. You need need space for those events, but but at the same time, I don't want to give the insinuation that we're going to build a citywide conference center because that's it sounds pretty big. Okay.

Yeah. Uh my next question and last question is uh you mentioned a a music venue. Um would that be an enclosed venue or uh thank you. It I I hope I said that right. So today the wedding pavilion on the lake uh is does all the weddings. Everyone wants that spot. Uh which means late night music and noise and and whatnot. that those events would go into the facility that I was just talking about indoor indoor and would the existing tent pavilion be decommissioned or I I don't put to rest

it would be put to rest in the sense that we would not allow late night weddings to happen out there. Someone might be able to get married so you can get say your vows on the lake and have the beautiful view. It's just we would then go from there to say music, dinner and so on and so forth somewhere else not on the lake. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Further questions for Brian? Not seeing any. We will take public comment at this point. I do have a signup list. Um, you know who you are, so feel free to approach the microphone, please, and your name and address for the record.

Um, good evening. My name is Pam Shaw and my address is 1326 Wisconsin Avenue. Um, and I'm before you as a fourth generation resident of the Monks Bay neighborhood and I'm here to express my concern about the resoning request uh submitted by the White Fish Lake Lodge. Uh while I understand the value of t tour tour tourism and economic devel development, this resoning proposal presents several issues that will significantly impact the livability of the adjoining neighbors of the White Fish Lake Lodge. Um I'm sure you're all pretty well aware of some of the issues that we face. I know that there have been groups that have come before you before and um I know Brian is as well because we call the lodge the neighbors and I and the city as well uh complaining almost every week during the summer. Um I know this is about zoning, but the recent articles in the Whitefish pilot and the Daily Interlake forecast future expansion. Monks Bay and the surrounding neighborhoods are already experiencing significant strain through continuous noise pollution, intre increased boat traffic and nighttime shoreline disturbances. And these have become regular challenges for us, the residents. Adding the option to add more capacity to the hotel will inevitably intensify these impacts on the surrounding neighborhood in Bay, which are already overburdened. I'm also concerned about the additional traffic which may result from this resoning and future changes that it will bring. Wisconsin Avenue is already heavily used, especially during peak seasons, and further congestion will create safety issues for those of us who rely on this route daily. Um, I respectfully ask the city council to consider the cumulative negative impact this resoning may have on our

neighborhood, our lake, and our safety on Wisconsin Avenue. So, thank you. Thanks very much. Appreciate your comments. Can I leave this with someone? Yeah. Uh, Michelle, please. Who's next?

Toby. And then we'll take Mike Copel, Toby Scott, Barkley Lane, Whitefish. Uh, I noticed this come up in the paper and on the agenda and I think it's a good idea. It's sort of a no no-brainer uh in that they want to make it business commercial or resort commercial and that's what's going on there in in the by the lodge. And so I don't think that it's a much of an issue to change it over to this new zoning. Uh, and as far as what they're going to do, they're not asking for anything on the lake. It's just merely a zone change for this piece of property. And I think that the Averils have the best of intentions for the use of it. And so I encourage you to vote in favor.

Thank you, Toby. Mike,

Mr. Mayors, city council, people, good to see you. Uh Mike Copel, director of the White Fish Lake Institute. Um we own the property uh across Wisconsin Avenue, immediately to the east of the subject property. And um that ownership by the White Fish Lake Institute was the culmination of two years of negotiations back in 2006 2007, right? where we had lunch and meetings for um yeah a good part of two years between the Averil family, us, and the friends of Wisconsin Avenue wetlands, which was a kind of an organic grassroots neighborhood group that had formed in opposition to previous highdensity uh development proposals in the area. Um the culmination of that uh negotiated process was an application that went to city council that called for economic expansion with the construction of the Viking Lodge. Uh but it also included a land donation to the Whitefish Lake Institute for 28.82 acres. Um and then it also included the 17 lot Viking Creek subdivision which was located entirely on an upland designated parcel. Um there's other various minor uh conditions there with that deal, but that came to city council and that was approved unanimously and uh and then was basically touted as an example of how developers could work with local groups to to broker a solution to benefit all. So currently today, the Whitefish Lake Institute now has a public interpretive nature trail there, which we get, you know, fifth graders from Whitefish and Callis Bell each year and it's really our educational flagship. Um, and it's really a great respit for community

members to visit. It's a nice flat trail. Um, so we get a lot of seniors and and young families utilizing that that trail. So I think it's really become a great community amenity. And uh as most of you know, we also have a lot of wildlife in that area. So uh in the wildlife urban interface um it was just in the paper a couple weeks ago. We put in a beaver exclusion fence uh on the front end of the culverts going under Wisconsin Avenue because the beavers were busy um daming that up. Um so the Whitefish Lake Institute is in Brian alluded to we're considering a project to increase our educational programming. Um I'm really not at liberty tonight to say exactly what that is. Our we have a board meeting May 18th to uh discuss that. So just in a couple weeks we might have an update. Um but uh we're looking to uh further mentor the next generation of environmental stewards. Um, and like the develop development proposal back in 2007208, uh, Brian Averil and I have been talking now for a couple years about some resource benefits that could take place as these potential projects move forward in parallel fashion. So, one on the west side of Wisconsin Avenue, one on the east side of Wisconsin Avenue. So, Brian mentioned that, you know, we've been talking about daylighting Viking Creek. So currently where the beavers try to make a home or try to dam the stream, uh that culbert extends 250 feet all the way to Whitefish Lake, it offers little to no resource value for the biology, right, for the ecology. Um so uh we've been talking about daylighting Viking Creek. It would be great to work with Montana Department of Transportation to actually maybe even get open arch culverts or a bridge there. But in lie of that, we can still break into the

culvert on the lodge side of of where the culver's located and then daylight. It provides some sineuosity um to the stream and it would probably be a great aesthetic, you know, addition to uh the Averil's lot. Um at in the meantime, it would serve, you know, potentially through um uh fostering good aquatic life, whether it's aquatic insects or we might even get fish moving up it to to spawn, you know, who knows. So, um so I'm not here tonight as a proponent or opponent of what you're voting on tonight. That's not what the White Fish Lake Institute does. But I am here tonight to say that we have partnered in the past with the April family and the lodge of White Fish Lake to provide resource benefit and community benefit and those discussions have been ongoing here uh again for the last couple of years. So I'm looking forward to what the vision for that area of Wisconsin Avenue could look like. And um just to let you know that there's a couple projects uh in the hopper um and I hope to report back to you soon about that. So thank you.

Thanks Mike. Any questions for Mike? You bet. Thanks Mike. Additional public comment. Marcia, did you have anything to add? Good to see you.

Thank you. I'm still walking the planet. Not sure how much longer. Anyway, Marcia Sheffles, 4550 Parkway Drive, Whitefish. I'm a neighbor right to the south of the Whitefish Lake Lodge. Actually worked at the Viking to put myself through college. Um to a well seasoned council and a well seasoned mayor. Um I want to thank you for all of your service to Whitefish. It's much appreciated. Um we don't come often enough to thank you. We come to complain. So I'm here to complain. I have a concern. I have a great concern about um the reasonzoning. The lodge is commercial, but those of us to the south, to the north, to the east, and upper areas, um we're all private homeowners. We pay high taxes. We are vested residents and we have just found it difficult to work with the lodge for almost two decades. We have tried and um have not gotten responses. Unfortunately, they have not been good neighbors. So, I would just strongly like to go on record that I oppose this uh resoning request. Thank you.

Thanks, Marcia. Further public comment this evening.

Michelle, anyone online? Uh for those of you who are interested in um speaking towards uh this agenda item, please raise your hand. Um Mike, if you would like to please uh unmute your mic and state your name and address, please. Mayor and city council Michael Hine 612 Lur uh not speaking as a member of the planning commission but uh for information in response to Ben's question about whether this request was considered in light of the the existing growth policy or the new community plan that's going in. We did discuss that briefly during the hearing of the planning commission and the uh Dave Taylor clarified for us that these two lots are in the same place type as the lodge as waterfront neighborhood. So from the standpoint of the at from the standpoint of the new growth policy, the place type and also the incorporation of the Wisconsin Avenue plan uh meant that this was largely in compliance with the uh with the new community plan. So that's all I had. Thanks, Mike.

Anyone else? Michelle, I think we're good. Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back to the council. We'll start with Steve and then Jeppe. I just have a couple questions first. So Dave, about the PUD that they have over there. Um these two current the two lots that we're talking about tonight are not currently within the PUD. Yeah, they did not own those when that PUD was obtained back in the day. Okay. So for them to wrap those into the PUD, they need to come back and apply to move their PUD to correct. The boundary would change to encompass that. Yep. And and then then the city has a little more say over what gets done, right?

Yeah. Correct. Does the zone change have to happen first before they apply to move those lots into the PV? Yeah. I mean, it makes it consistent. I mean, they've been using those lots for overflow parking as well as for employee housing, you know, since they obtained those lots. And we've kind of been nudging them to get them consistent with the zoning and which is why when they um approach the Wisconsin Avenue corridor committee, um I don't think you're answering my question. Is there is there anything that prevents them from amending the PUD to include those lots before we change the zoning? Well, a PUD is an overlay. So the zone the underlying zoning stays the same in a PUD.

So they could apply for a PUD, but that' be those two lots would be R4 with the PUD overlay, which means you could potentially spread the PD across those. But I mean, from a consistency point of view, you know, from a zoning point of view, you know, that's something that it should be consistent with the lodge and with the future land use map, which of course has been changed to a place type map. The old map showed that as resort,

but but if it's within a PUD, then it doesn't really matter, right? Because they can they can change they can change things around and do things without with with the city having some oversight over what's there. That I mean, that's my concern. I'm I'm speaking for the people of Whitefish right now. When I when I see two lots that would be reszoned WRB2 to that could include more resort residential, they could still do that if they extended the PUD over to that area. Correct or incorrect? You can Well, the the uses can they would have to apply for it. They'd have to apply for it and come in and ask for it.

Correct. It's just cleaner to have them be the same. I I understand the cleaner part of it. I'm That's not the question I'm asking. So they could apply for a PUB change first and then still come back. Intention was to expand the lodge facilities on, you know, as part of the overall hotel. Well, they've already I mean, Brian just said we're we're talking we're this is going to be part of the PUD. So that's part I'm trying to make sense of in my mind and and if it's part of the PUD, then it includes boat slips and things like that. I mean,

because currently if we change the zoning, they could they could apply for a new dock potentially, even though they said they're not going to. I'm just trying to run through some scenarios here. Is that correct? That's I mean, I think that's correct. I mean, I think you know, some of the um you might want to um ask the applicants, but you know, when this thing kind of started because they were looking at potentially changing their drive entryway and bringing some of the um the loop parking onto that property. Okay. And all that can be all that can be accomplished under a PUD. Correct. Well, the change in the driveway would not trigger a PUD amendment.

Okay. Uh and then my other question is if they do daylight the stream, would that trigger our setbacks that we require from waterways? Well, they would have to have, you know, right now there's it's culverted, so there's no setback requirement. We didn't anticipate. That's why I'm asking. Well, I'm just saying, but yeah, if they did their property, they would need they would need a PUB in order to ask for a variance to those setback requirements because there's, you know, wouldn't there's no way they could conform with where the lodge is located once that creek's daylighted as well as the parking and everything else that would need to be associated with that. Okay. So, PUD would be necessary for that part of it. Okay.

I did want to answer your question about the dock. they would not be able to add a dock because it is a common waterfront property and only one dock is permitted per common waterfront property and so that would have to require a PUD amendments which you guys would have to approve. They wouldn't be able to change add anything without coming to the council first in regards to docs or the marina. Thanks, Lauren. Jeppi.

Yes. I just wanted to summarize uh Dave and Lauren. Um this application went uh in front of the planning and building department which recommended it to the planning commission. The planning commission voted unanimously. Am I correct? Um you have to ask Lauren. I don't have the her sheet, but I believe they did. I just I have it here. I just wanted to be said on the record. Sorry. Could you repeat your question one more time? The planning commission voted in favor to recommend this zoning change to us. Was it unanimous? Yes, it was unanimous.

Thank you. Now, I just Thank you, Lauren. I just have a question. And I was reading uh under title 11 um and I think if I'm correct is title 11 uh Q uh the definition of this zone and if you scroll down to 11- um 2Q-4 just explain to me I I don't think we have an issue here but explain to me why the standards for WRB2R and amongst The standards, our code defines minimum district size as 15 acres, minimum lot area as not applicable. And how does this um definition apply to what we want to do tonight or we are asked to do tonight?

Yeah. So the district refers to the zoning district. So the zoning district as a whole, including all parcels underneath that given zoning district that are continuous, that counts towards that 15t acreage. The White Fish Lake Lodge and its PUB current zoning meets that 15 acre minimum. So increasing adding these lots on would only increase conformity or maintain conformity. It would not affect um conformity as far as lot sizes um since it's not applicable um no minimum lot size is applied to these lots.

Thank you. So as a counter example, if those two lots were not adjacent to any uh side of that property and they were uh two blocks to the south, uh the they wouldn't satisfy this because the district they by themselves wouldn't qualify as a minimum district for that zone. That's correct. Thank you. Ben,

my first question I want to ask I I think is somewhat similar to what Steve was asking, but just so I'm clear, I if the applicant wished to expand the facilities of the lodge in ways that they've described, could they not simply apply to amend or expand the existing PUD to encompass the expanded operations without this zone change? Yeah, I mean I believe they can. I mean I don't know at what point they plan on, you know, coming forward with their plans and all that stuff. I mean currently, you know, what activities that are happening with there. Some of them are out of compliance with the residential zoning that's there. You know, commercially parking vehicles on there isn't something that with you know, they don't have a paved parking lot there. Um there's some stuff that we'd like to see them come into conformance with which isn't in conformance with that R2 zoning. Um, if they did amend the PUD and bring that in there, then I think that they could, you know, accomplish that. So, there's kind of like a catch 22. They, you know, they could amend their PD. They're not ready to do that. Um, however, they, you know, would like to make it consistent with the rest of their property. So, there's not some, you know, difference there between things because they are

using as part of their facilities. Okay. because there have been some public benefits described here tonight that I mean this is a simple zone change right so these public benefits that have been described we have no guarantee or anything that those no not until they come in for the PUD amendment which they need to do if they want to you know expand the lodge correct well there's a lot of things but I mean without you know started with the minor you know looking at a minor rearrangement of their parking area and how that, you know, they want to pull valley parking into the front of that, which they would need to come onto that lot for in order to accomplish it.

Um, and so that's, you know, one of the things that they maybe have in their pipeline that maybe they could address, but, um, that they weren't really able to do that without bringing the zoning into compliance. So, okay. So, Oh, yeah. Please. Real quick followup, Dave, what defines expanding the lodge? Well, if they were going to make the building footprint bigger, not not attached, like detached facilities that support the lodge operations, is that considered expanding the lodge?

You know, I'd have to go back to the original PUD and look at, you know, exactly what the wording of that is. I mean, there's some specific language in there about um you know, the number of parking spaces that are required, you know, um per room that are in there. um there's some specific language in there about you know it's basically changing that what that PUD was if it's something that wasn't part of that PUD and it's happening completely separately then I you know Angie and I have to talk about how that would work but um it's a very complex original project and it's been amended um you know and I just haven't like read through it all since it was Lauren's project since you know 10 years ago probably so

thanks Ben I have just one Another question. Um, from a high level policy standpoint, I think this council has been crystal clear for a long time that there is to be no expansion of land that allows short-term rentals. And I believe that was culminated in our latest growth policy as being a pretty clear red line if I recall. So, I'm just wondering how to think about this. Um, I mean, I don't have I some of what was proposed here seems probably non-objectionable, but um but here we are not two weeks later asking to vote to change zoning from medium density residential to short-term rental zoning. How do we vote on that? I mean for us it goes back to what you know with what standard growth policy document I'm referring to and it was specifically the Wisconsin Avenue corridor plan calls out these two lots and calls for the you know resort business future land use which was is the only zoning that would go into that would be this resort business. And so you know we have that as a document that went through the planning commission the council voted on it and adopted it. You know that's our standard to review things. Um you know now we have a new growth policy but that was not in effect when this was submitted. So, we're based on that and the new growth policy, you know, is ambivalent about it because the future land use the same as the lodges on these lots. So, um you know, how we were able to recommend approval is because it's something that was anticipated in the past with the adoption of the Wisconsin quarter plan, which is only back in 2018, wasn't that long ago. So,

thanks. Additional questions for Lauren or Dave? Additional public comments. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back to the council. Preferably one way or another. I'd prefer to start with a motion, please, unless there's outstanding questions for staff or the applicants for that matter.

Steve, I I guess I'd like to hear from the applicants in response to both Ben and my question about if you want to come up, Ryan, that'd be great. Um, or if you don't want to answer, that's also fine. Uh my question though is why why not just apply for a PUB change instead of have to change it to WRB2 knowing knowing our concerns.

Yep. No, I Yeah, I I can understand and thanks for letting me talk again. Um I said earlier that we've owned the land for over 10 years. Uh and although it would be great, there's clearly public benefit. We heard from the neighbors here about how that noise is. We will solve that. But if but we can never solve that without incorporating that land into the lodge. Um I and the so I think that's that's generally my my um I I don't that's generally my answer. Right. I I don't I don't think we're we're not going to come and say we need to expand a bunch of short-term rentals on there. I I we're

we wouldn't have to because you'd be able to do it by right.

Well, but we don't No. Well, we can't do that by right. We would need to come in front of this council and ask for permission for whatever we would think. So, you guys will have a chance to vote that up or down based on what we propose. I think that's the first and for foremost most important thing is that you will make a decision of whatever we propose at that time and and I don't have a clear timeline for when that would be. I'd like to tell you it would be soon but I honestly don't have a timeline for that. It's not we're not we're not there in any uh fashion at all. And again we've had the land for 10 years and it's been in the use that it's been in for about that time frame. So, it's something for the future and when that day comes, it will come in front of you guys. But I do believe that and we would like it to be in conformance today. Um, and so we can continue doing what we're doing in conformance instead of out of conformance because that land is critically important to the lodge today. So, and I' I'm if I'm not really being clear about why that's critically important today, it's being parked on. Right or wrong, it's being parked on today. But the benefit of being parking on that land is that that cars aren't strung up and down Wisconsin. And the other benefit is that cars aren't crossing Wisconsin into the lot across the street. And that's a lot of cars every day, all day long. And so there's there's just benefits there for doing what it is. And I think that's why it's just been okay to to park on that and that land as it is, which is why we're not highly motivated to do anything with it. But someday when we get ready and we figure out something that really benefits, everyone will be back in front and we'll ask permission for whatever we're doing.

Okay. Thanks, Brian. Can I ask staff a question now, please? Um Dave, if this gets reszoned to WRB2, what oversight does the council have over what what could be built there? Well, I mean, it's you know, there's permitted uses in the RB2 the but the lodge like the accessory uses all have to be part of a lodge facility in that zoning district. Why why do they have to be part of the lodge facility if we RB2? That was my question earlier. If it's not, I mean, these are separate lots from the lodge, correct? If they're not part of the PEB yet.

No, but there's many uses that are listed that have to be accessory to a lodge facility to be permitted that are listed in that RB2. There's some a few standalone uses, but the What are the standalone uses? Hang on one second. So all the you know commercially associated use of the hotel and all that stuff have to be part of that lodge facility. Um computer's being weird.

Okay Brian if you can answer that question you can come on up. I I don't know if it's a direct answer, but the reason we would come back for an APUD amendment is that the property has to function as a whole. It it can't you can't have this standalone convention center, for example, and not have the ability to to serve alcohol in the thing. And so, and you can't go afford to buy another liquor license is maybe my way of describing it. So, I'm like it the only functionality is is to go to the lodge uh PUD and expand it, which is why we would do what we would.

And I I that's still my question is why I don't understand why we wouldn't just expand the PUD to cover that area instead of have to reszone it be RB2. That's and and I think it's the timing is that it's it's a we we might be a while. I guess I don't we don't have a time frame to to do it, but or we don't have a plan. I I guess better yet, I don't have a solidified plan to to present for it either. I understand. I understand that part. So, Steve, do you want me to get back to your question?

I I would actually like you to respond to Steve's question, please. Yeah, just so in that RB2 um you know it allows uh established resort complexes um that meet certain conditions and then any like all any retail uses that would be allowed would have to be part of that overall um complex and there's a list of things like you know flower shops and health studios um things like that and then the other standalone uses are things are boarding houses so employee housing um daycare um hotel motel obviously I mean that's already established on that other one and then um residential um single family through multif family dwellings um and then the conditional uses are boat launches and ramps um private clubs commercial recreation facilities convention centers and facilities um marinas professional offices RV parks Um, and then uh ski areas and facilities, but that wouldn't really apply.

Water skiing. So, just one final question, if you'll allow me. Sorry, I know I'm taking up a lot of time because I'm trying to make sense of this. So, if they had a if they wanted to expand their PED, they couldn't just say, "Hey, we want to expand the PUD to cover these two lots." They'd have to have a plan in place of what they're going to do in that area. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure whatever they have intentions there is going to be part of that overall resort facility and not some standalone thing on there.

Okay. And I just want to clarify something else you said because it didn't strike me as it struck me wrong and I don't I'm not not sure this is true or not, but I think you said that we want we want to change the zone to bring them into compliance with the zoning with what they're doing now with the underlying zoning. So I mean they're using that facility for employee housing which is allowed use in that RWR4 zoning district.

Okay. Um, but yeah, but the, you know, commercial parking of vehicles, it's kind of a gray area there. I mean, we haven't got any complaints about it, but it's also, you know, technically if you're parking cars that you have to have a parking lot and landscaping, all the things that we require in our code. What about the wedding center or the tent or whatever it's called? Yeah, they would that the tent facility is in front of the lodge, just not on this site. It's not on these sites. Okay, that's I didn't think it was, but that seems to garner the most complaints. Okay, thank you. Jeppi.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Let me find the best wording here. Uh, I move to approve WZC26-03. Is it? Uh, and adopt the findings of fact in the staff report as recommended by the Whitefish Planning Commission on April 16, 2026. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second. Seconded by councelor Fury. Jeppi, would you like to address your motion?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Um, I I I'm I'm moving this way uh based on the finding of facts, the discussions we've had tonight, the planning commission's unanimous recommendation, uh, the fact that we're looking at changing uh, 1350 and 1352 Wisconsin Avenue from WR3 to WRB2. Um it's uh it's just the zoning change for those two properties. Our scope tonight is not um allowing for additional boat sleeps, dock expansions, and future master plan. That will need to come if he ever if it ever needs to come at a later stage. And as the discussion between Dave and Steve clarified and it's written in our code, a POD requires a certain level of investment and detail in the plans. We've seen PUDS coming to us and we see we see what they look like for this reason uh and the compliance to the growth policy. I support this motion.

Thank you, Jeppi. Further comments on the motion? Andy? Yeah, I guess I'll make a couple of comments here. after just having spent the last 18 months going through a new growth policy and fretting over place types, land use designations, and a map. And here we have a piece of property, two pieces of property, both called out to BWRB2 in both the Wisconsin Avenue corridor project and then also in the um you know, previous growth policy future land use map. And as Mike said who on the planning board who just spoke it also is in compliance with what you know we are looking at the 2045 plan. I think that's a a pretty pretty hard thing to say no to for me. I don't see why we would have spent all the time in the last 18 months really coming up with all these land use designations if we're just going to ignore them when they come up. And granted this is a new application but it still is applied for underneath the old rules. Um, I'm going to take them at their word that they're trying to address some of the problems there, which I think is what the neighborhoods is mostly worried about. And noise is the biggest concern there. And I live just around the corner on the lake and I can tell you I can hear weddings at 10:00 at night around the corner at my house. And an expansion of enclosing that and eliminating the noise, I think, would be a huge benefit. And we don't know that that's specifically going to happen, but I think that's part of the direction that they're looking at. So, I'm going to take them at their word that that's what it is. Daylighting the creek, if that ultimately happens, would be a huge thing. It'd be a very big benefit for Viking Creek rather than spending its life in a dark culvert all the time. I think that's kind of a kind of a bad thing. And so, I just would really have a hard time saying no in this case. And yes, something will come back to us. And then I think the final thing I would think is yeah, maybe it would be short-term

rentals if they did expand rooms from the lodge over to there to, you know, be with whatever else they get built over there. Or it could then be employee housing and I think that's it. But I think to think it's going to be something else other than high-end property. It's not going to be affordable housing built there because it's lakefront and it's right next to the lodge and ultimately something's going to get built there and it WR33 it's going to have some density and that's going to generate traffic and you know even if they do move weddings to the inside of a building they're not going to be able to do anymore. They already do two a day all summer long for the most part. So it's not like they're going to make more weddings there. I don't see that that's going to necessarily be an expanded use. It's a use that's already happening. So, I will support the motion.

Thank you, Andy. Further discussion, Ben,

this is a really tough one. Not going to lie to you. Um, like I said before, I feel like this council for quite a while has been very crystal clear about the fact that we manage our short-term rental population by zoning district. And in fact, when we went through this growth policy process, we very specifically wrote very specific language that says there will be no more short-term rental land available. Period. And here we are two weeks later and we are having an application for a straight zone change from medium density residential, which is actual housing, to um resort business, which is not. So, there would be nothing preventing the applicant from scraping all the employee housing, selling the property tomorrow, and building the world's largest short-term rental project. There would be absolutely nothing to stop that with zero community benefit. Now, I want to be clear. I'm not hostile to what's being proposed. Um, but what's being proposed is not what's in front of me. What's in front of me is a straight zone change. And I I just question the way that this is going, the process that this is following. And I personally do not feel without further information provided that this is within what I see as the long-term growth vision of our community, which is no expansion of land for short-term rentals, period. Um we have talked about that ad nauseium for multiple years now in the process of gring policy. So um Mr. Ail, I think the right thing to do in my opinion would be to come back with a PUD amendment. Um, as I stated, I personally would not be hostile to the ideas, but I'd like to see the ideas. Um, I don't think I I have no reason to think you're not a trustworthy person,

but when it comes to development, it is very hard to take people at their word, so to speak. Um, and so, um, I apologize, but I will not be supporting this motion. Thanks,

Steve. Um I I too am not hostile to the ideas. I hope you understand that. Uh the question my question is about the process here. We've already had our zoning director admit that we're the zone change would bring you into compliance with what you're already doing there which seems to me backwards not the right way to to to do things and it's been gotten away with somehow and hasn't been an issue. Um, and it may provide a community benefit by not having cars parked along Wisconsin, but I don't know if you'd be able to valet park along Wisconsin either. Anyway, um, and that, you know, that that causes me some heartburn as somebody who is in charge of, you know, not only creating policy, but overseeing the functions of our city government. And um for us to admit to making a zone change to bring a property owner into compliance with what is already being done is not seem like a very good process to me. Um the other thing is that it seems like we're also hearing two different things. One is that you that the that the applicant wants to have the wants to change the zone so that the things that they're doing there they can do inside um that they can bring some of those things inside which could be done with a PUD and the process goes through and we get to see what it looks like and then you're saying and you want to do those things but you say we're nowhere near the point of applying for a PUD and bringing those things into uh a real plan so that we can actually see those and comment on those and make sure that those things um support what you're saying and and provide the the benefits that that we're expecting from you. I have no reason to think that you won't be looking at daylighting Viking Creek or continuing the affordable uh employee housing on that property. The problem is

that there's no guarantee that we get to see those things until we see a PUD that comes through. And I understand that the growth policy was changed that that the Wisconsin corridor plan was changed um to include those two parcels as WRB2. Um and I I understand the the thought process behind that. I just don't see I I don't like Ben said, we have been an I personally have been against any expansion of short-term rentals because of what they actually do to our community. Granted, these are next to a place that is full of short-term rentals and it's not a large impact, but the to me the greater issue is the way that the process is playing out here. Um, I think that we I think that not only this council, but I think that that the people of our community deserve to see the plan that you're going to do with these two pieces of property that you bought 10 years ago uh before we approve whatever you want, whatever changes, zone changes that that you want to have there. So, I will not be supporting the motion. Further comments from the council. All those in favor please raise your hand. Those opposed like son and I will vote against the motion. And so that motion does fail on a what is it 3 to2 vote with councilors Cornell Davis and myself voting in opposition. I would now entertain an alternative motion please.

Well there's only one other there's only one other option. Um, I would move to deny uh resolution 26 uh or excuse me, a resolution reszoning uh 1350 and 1352 Wisconsin Avenue from WR3 to WRB2. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Seconded by councelor Cornell. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Discussion. Jeppi. Go ahead. Thank you.

I have nothing else to say. I just had a procedure pro procedural question. When uh the planning commission recommends and the building department uh writes the finding of facts when we deny, do we do we not need to state uh alternative finding of facts? I would recommend you do so. Thank you. Then I stay and wait. Should that be please?

My computer just died. Okay. I would modify my motion to state that the proposal is incompatible. I would adjust finding one. Finding one states the proposed zone change to WRB2 is in accordance with the growth policy. Um because the proposed zoning district is consistent with the future land use map of the growth policy. Um I would modify that to say the opposite that it is um not consistent with the future land use map of the growth policy. Anything additional then terms of findings?

Still going through these. Sorry. This is a lot to go through, but I think I'll I'll rest on that. Is that okay with the second, Steve? Yes. Okay. Just a quick point to that, Andy.

It is consistent. So to deny that it's not consistent, I think is patently false. Is it is your issue the map or the text of the meaning that if if if we're modifying the findings as a fact to state that it's not consistent with the growth policy future land use map, it is in fact consistent with the growth policy future land worth map. So if you say that it's not, then that's a false statement. So I don't know how that can work. And honestly, I don't even think Angie, do we even need a motion to deny? We It just didn't pass. Right. It just didn't pass. Yeah.

I think that if it would be fine with the first and the second, you could just withdraw your motion and then it just doesn't get approved and we're business as usual. Ben, would you like to withdraw your motion? Yes. Is that okay with the second? Yes, that's fine. Motion is withdrawn. Thanks everyone for attending. We're going to take a fivem minute break here and we'll reconvene in about seven minutes. Thanks.

going to go ahead and call the meeting back to order. We are on item seven, communications from Dana Smith. Excuse me. Nope. No longer. Uh we'll move on to item 7A. You do have Dana's report and close with the packet. Any questions for Dana on her manager's report? Dana, anything additional to report on? The only thing I have is that you have our fiscal year 2027 proposed budget. Um, your two workshops for the budget are scheduled for May 26th, 5:30 p.m. and June 8th at 5:30 p.m. outside of our normal Monday meetings.

Great. Thank you very much, Duna. Is everyone able to meet those deadlines or attend those meetings? May 26th and June 8th. I I have a commitment at 6:00 pm on May 26. And those will begin at 5:30, Dana. Yes.

Okay. Anyway, regardless, uh we can move on. Uh you have two letters enclosed in the packet under communications. Any comments on the letters? Not seeing any. We'll start with counselor comments. Jeppe, would you like to start tonight? Yeah, absolutely. No comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeppi. Steve, uh just have a couple questions. Sorry not to prolong this anymore. Uh but uh political signs, are those allowed to be put onto um fencing that surrounds construction areas because the the stuff that's right next to the political signs are allowed on sites. Um I don't think we differentiate whether it can be on the fencing if it's on private property.

Didn't we say you can't have certain kinds of things on your fencing like advertising and stuff like that? Because my my question is because on the fencing that's currently right next to um the u the quarry where they're building over there, there's like four or five political signs tied to those to that construction fence. My recollection is that you're not allowed to advertise. You're not allowed to put up advertising as part of your fencing if it has a cloth thing. So I just assume political advertising would be similar to that.

Yeah. I mean they are allowed to put up the business name and other things on the fencing. I mean I don't think we diff they don't have something that says you can't put a sign on a fence. So Okay. And then political signs are permitted based on but they're based on a certain size and they they can be bigger on commercial properties versus residential properties. Okay. Well it's tacky as hell either way. um the quiet zone on Birch Point. Where are we on that since we're talking about these things? And you know, I bring it up not only because of our discussion, but somebody asked me about it just yesterday. Yeah. The goal is to construct the quiet zone at Birch Point this summer.

Okay. Is that this this summer or next this summer? That's the summer of 2026. Okay. Thanks, Craig. this this summer. Okay. Anything else, Steve? Uh, yeah. I just have one more question about the bike path behind Idaho Timber. When is that supposed to be paved? Because it's eroding in several places now. I don't know if you've been over there, but there's one part where the erosion has kind of overtaken the the black barrier that prevents the sediment from washing down into the river.

Yeah. Uh, so we have a two-year bond on the Whitefish Yards property that I think expires next year. So, not this summer, but next summer. Okay. Um, uh, but I mean that thing, that property has been an interesting um kind of debacle of ownership. Uh, and so I I can't tell you exactly who owns it right now, and I don't know exactly what the plan is for it, but uh, we do have a bond in place to pave that that trail, but we have to call the bond to do it. So, okay. All right. And

there's no real good answer to that. Could be next summer at the at the early. Correct. Yes. Okay. Uh when do we when are we going to pave our portion of that which extends from the current path to the border of their property? The intent is to do them both together. Okay. So that we save some Yep. Okay. Um and uh it seems like maybe we need to consider putting some sort of barrier to prevent cars from going through that property to access Birch Point. Yeah, I need to go back and look at that. I don't It's getting warned. I mean, it's worn like it's being used more often now.

Yeah. Was there a like a picture you sent me of a car going through there or something? Okay. All right. I'll I'll go back and find that and make sure we can prevent that from happening. Maybe I Well, maybe I send it to Bridger instead. I'll find it and I'll send it to you, too. I might have only sent it to Bridger. I forget because I that that was the first thing that struck me. It's definitely something I'm hoping at some point during counselor comments that we talk a little bit about the railroad crossing elimination. Um but we're not at a point where we're ready to have vehicles go under that trestle. For sure. Absolutely. Yeah. It's not Yeah, for sure.

Okay. Thanks, Craig. And I have no further comments. Thanks, Steve. Ben,

well, I was going to comment on the work session. Um, I think the most interesting part of that work session was was the end, which was rushed. And um, I mean, I everything I saw generally seemed to make sense. Um, and I'm not until I got to the end. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, but what I saw was a very large uh thing o towering over the dog park U-shaped overpass thing that just seemed like I had a lot of questions about it. So, my I guess just to to ask like what what are the next steps with that design and are we are we locking ourselves into something like that at this point or what anyway what's the future of this going to be? I I would say far from it. I I think what we tried to put together was a concept that stayed within the right of way. Um it would be great to acquire some additional right ofway to make that a little straighter and you know make the um the overpass a little less abrupt. Uh but ultimately, you know, the goal is do we if if we want a crossing to be separated at East Second Street, now is our opportunity to talk to Federal Rail and BNSF because I think some of those funds are going to dissolve here quickly. So, we were really just kind of looking and and without having this plan completed yet, it's a little tricky to talk about, but um we're kind of just looking for the council's um I don't know whether what what your attention is to this. I mean, it's it's in the the new growth policy to have a a grade separated crossing at East Second

Street. and now is probably the best time to start going for those funds. Uh but we didn't want to go too fast. So, we're kind of looking for your comments on that. I mean, it seems to me I mean, just looking way into the future, right, which we have to do with something like this. I mean, right now we have one vioideuct and and that that existing crossing at Second Street, that thing is terrible. I mean, I've I used to live east of town and I would sit at that crossing for ever waiting for the train to go by. It's infuriating. And so, I mean, depending on what time horizon you use, eventually you need another crossing over the railroad tracks somewhere. And so, I mean, I would point out that, you know, we I think approved an apartment building right there on that thing that probably I think just got withdrawn. But, you know, the longer we wait to plan this, the more impossible it gets to change the rightway situation or whatever. And so, um, I mean, I seems to make sense that we would plan another crossing, but I maybe we should consider other concepts as well. Just a thought.

Yes. I mean, so it's a very conceptual drawing that we put together. Um, and we have we've had comments from the task force. Um, and we're going to have a public meeting here in a couple weeks and so we'll get additional comments. But, uh, the reality is if we want to go for these Chrissy funds, we have to have an application in by it June 8th. So, um, it's more or less do we want to at least apply for it? And if if we get the funds, that's great. If we don't get the funds, then we don't. But, uh, we don't necessarily have to build it if we get the grant, do we? I'm looking at Spencer because he's still here. We won't get arrested if we don't spend the federal money.

We've made it this far, right? So, I mean, isn't the answer that we need to apply for these funds? I mean, I think we need to consider what the match will be for both funds. Um, the what are we calling it, Chrissy, or CRSI, however that is. I think that's only an 80% share. I was just looking up. So, we have a 20% match on anything that we have to come up with there. And the RCE is also 20%. And usually when you have federal funds on one project, the total probably has to be 80%. It can't be has to be federal funds and then there's a 20% or can you use the RCE for a match?

You have to have 20%. Yeah. So, we would have to have locally 20% that's non-federal funds as a match to the grants received. Um, and the the CR the C1 um you have it's like a or the RCE is a minimum of $1 million grant and then the other one doesn't appear to have it might have a minimum. One of them has a million dollar. So, like your minimum you're looking at for a 20% match is $200,000. So, if we want to move forward, we're going to have to talk about where we come up with $200,000 because it's not in the budget. I can tell you that. How is this $200,000?

That's the match for the grant funds and it's a minimum of a million dollar grant. Oh, yeah. Request. But you're talking about a bridge and that thing's going to be right. But yeah, so you have planning and develop. That's Yeah, that's the min. I'm just saying your minimum matches $200,000. So whatever the cost of the project, if you're trying to go for planning and development in the grant, you can do just planning or you can do panning planning and development. So the development is going to cost obviously a lot more than just doing the planning for it. I don't know which type we would apply for, but I will just say your minimum match is $200,000. That's how I'd look at it.

And we can expect BNSF to probably split the match, right? or something close to that. So my my opinion for what it's worth um given the study and the crossings that were evaluated like from my perspective when I think about ranking these projects in order of priority for me it comes down to emergency response safety which includes multimodal transportation modes as well as circulation and I think the lowhanging fruits at this point and which we've focused on for 20 years now should be Birch Point. I think there's safety issues at State Park, you know, in terms of having or not having a separated bike and ped path at that crossing if I'm not mistaken. And obviously the biggest lift is going to be East Second Street. So, I would prefer that we focus and let's get Birch Point done and look at improvements for State Park um from my perspective to address, you know, what what's of most importance to me and that what we've heard from residents who live on Birch Point as well as um the state park area. Any other comments on the study?

Just a couple quick ones. Just knowing the push back a four airplane hanger got out in that location and if I look at the size of what that vioduct would be and where that thing starts to go up the hill and where it gets across, that's going to be a hard sell to anybody five years from now, 10 years from now, anytime. And so I think I really have to agree with Ben in that it's like if we're going to we got to look at some other kind of solution in terms of what that thing ultimately looks like because it's going to be exactly like the one that crosses west of the uh fiberboard mill in Columbia Falls and that thing starts a half a mile gaining grade which is almost what that thing does. I mean, it's quarter mile almost probably, you know, and it's going to Oh, the You think an airplane hanger was going to cut down views from the dog park? Well, get guess what? That thing's really going to cut down some views from the from the dog park. So, yeah, I it I mean, yeah, we need it, but I don't know how, you know, how do we sell it? I guess that's going to be And then ultimately, how do we fund it, too? I mean, you're talking a $20 million project. Probably probably more than that, maybe. Wouldn't you think, Craig?

Yeah, I think with contingency, we were about 30 million. So, but I think we do need to start planning and designing and I mean, yeah, if we're looking forward, we got to we got to start now. But anyway,

yeah, I just don't want it to be another one of those, you know, people talk about the downtown bypass conversation as another analogy where 20 years ago we could have had the right away to build a downtown bypass and now we can't because it's all built. And I just I mean I don't know that I love what I saw but I also think at some level we have to plan for the future of how growth happens in the like distant term. And so I don't know if this is the right opportunity or not. I'm struggling with this but we need to study the concept of another crossing somewhere either there or somewhere in the future in the event that our town is twice the size as it is now. Something's going to be needed eventually. The scale of this is so much bigger than what this city can handle. I mean, this is a national railway that runs through our town. That is a major sighting. The reason why Second Street is a problem is that it gets jammed up and same with Birch Point because they're shifting the trains all around there and they move them forward and they move them back. So, this is not just our problem. And we're I we have to start thinking about it more broadly. If this was a an interstate highway running through our town, we would not be thinking about it as, oh, what is Whitefish going to do to address this? But this is the same thing as an interstate highway. Uh, and in fact, it's more valuable than an interstate highway or at least as valuable because of the the sheer volume of goods that come through our town every single day. And I think there's more that needs to be said than just tiny little whitefish Montana focusing on something that is absolutely safety related in terms of getting people

across that vi across the the railroad in a timely fashion. Not only for um emergencies, you know, like the your run-of-the-mill emergencies, but for emergencies of wildfire and those things. I mean, this is not just our problem. This has got to and the funding cannot just be our problem. I mean, we're looking at like a hund00 million maybe for this bridge. Is that kind of am I is that the right 30? Yeah. 30 or 40 million.

So, I mean, that's the reason we're talking about it now is we're talking about a $30 million project and the Chrissy funds are going to dry up. the rce funds are going to dry up and if we can get 80% of this paid for by the feds and split the 20% with BNSF, you know, so our share is more like $3 million. This could be our opportunity. But I I get it. I I realize that we're very it's a county problem. It's a state problem. It's a national problem. I mean, and it's not just our problem on the national level or even the state level,

but I I understand the urgency and I'm I'm for doing whatever we can to secure those federal dollars and do the other part of the advocacy part because this is I mean it it just doesn't make sense to put a even a you know $4 million burden or $8 million burden on a city of our size to to affect to greatly improve the safety of our town. So anyway, Craig, what do you recommend?

I guess I recommend that we go through the public meetings that we're going to have later this month and get some more comments. Okay.

The problem is the application for Chrissy is due on June 8th and so we're going to have very little time. I'm just looking for some direction from council on whether do we really think that the overpass at Eastn Street is something we want to pursue or not. And I know it's you know you guys obviously just had the presentation here a couple hours ago. So um the I mean the the drawings that were presented were very conceptual and so there's lots of time to refine that and work on it. Uh, but I think that our opportunity for federal funding is going to dry up here pretty quickly.

I don't know if that's a recommendation or not. And Dana is going to tell me that is HDR. Is there current scope of work to prepare grant applications or would that be a contract amendment? Uh, that would be a contract amendment, I imagine. Okay. Oh,

thank you, Jeppi.

Yes. And just following up on this couple of comments here. Number one, I support what Steve's concern because those two crossings Birch Point and Sean East used to be crossings where the bars came down or the lights came on, the trains crossed and then the cars and the pedestrian went through. What's happening historically as you said is that now those are I would call it yard enlargement. So those two areas for BNSF have become more and more used as a yard that as a transportation route. H in fact it is a shifting they build trains and because of the length of the train they're building trains all the way past those two crossings who have become now fences to a yard that is used as a yard until the train is built and is ready to go. So that's not going to go away. And by the way, you made the analogy to a highway that's federal. So it's actually the analogy is to a freeway because those tracks are federal tracks. Um now given that this the issue on the train side is not going to go away unless we have super huge pipelines or whatever. Uh I think it's very important to consider ways to being independent from those bars on the tracks. Uh we talked about the number of tracks that a crossing not a grade and not a great crossing would have to cross um anywhere but in Second East West East. Second East Second Street East has only two parallel tracks if I remember well. I know and I heard you all saying the

concerns about drainage, but if we're talking about $40 million bridge, I do not know if it's worth uh uh to go back and look at an underpass uh as high as the highest track you can imagine or fire track. uh that only has to cross two railroad tracks and won't impact on the dog park and the views and will still satisfy the criteria. So, we can proceed with a feasible uh grant application and and then keep pushing the can down the street. So, that's my comment.

Further comments on this, Craig? Yeah, I guess Spencer, do you want to talk just real quick about the underpass option? Spencer, do you mind approaching the if you get get the mic? I we've we've talked to BNSF about the underpass on a number of occasions, thinking that it was the more logical solution, but they don't like underpasses.

Yeah. So there's there's a couple challenges when it comes to the underpass option there. Um number one is at the outset during construction. When you go under railroad passes, you then have to build two new railroad bridges, right? Um those are big, heavy, serious structures. Um during construction, we would need to uh create a temporary structure so that BNSF can continue their operations uninterrupted while building these bridges and then kind of rectify that as you go. So, at the outset, it's a little bit more expensive to construct rather than an overpass. Long-term um and this was kind of one of the really key features um that made it a little bit um in our eyes at the outset less economic feasible is if you go under because of the um the drainage issues that are there, we'll have to install a pump station. And those are that's ongoing maintenance um for basically in perpetuity, right? Um, in the winter time, um, it does snow. Um, maybe not this winter, but presumably in the future it's going to snow again. Um, and that's a lot of moisture issues that you then have in a freezing environment, which causes, as we all know, water um is not really friendly when it freezes, right? And so there's these additional maintenance and operations costs down um down the road that we really thought those may balloon um much much further beyond what an overpass option would um would institute. I think it's important to note that while our recommended preferred alternative is that overpass, if you pursue grant funding, um you're still going to have to go through NEPA, right? Um and there's still going to be, hey, let's make sure we check all of our boxes. And so there is still an opportunity that hey, maybe as we do some final designs, um a little, you know, sharpen our pencils a little bit more. Um that the overpass option is not the best opportunity here. Um and that's when you talk to the FR and say, "Hey, we got, you know, you do have to write the application to a project." Um but we went through NEPA. Um we we're walking away with this and thinking maybe this isn't the best option. Um can we adjust what this project looks like? At the end of the day, it's still going to be um the elimination of a great rate

crossing. And so FRA still gets their goals met. Um we can go through the NEPA process and really definitively say yes, option A versus option B is is better or worse um based on those uh you know more detailed and and stringent um screening processes. But what we've done to date is just kind of the planning step, right? That's the key that is going to unlock those further project development cycle funding pots. They're not pots anymore, but previously FRA would say, look, you've got planning, you've got final design, and you've got construction. Now, they want to lump some of those together, particularly final design and um construction. And so, we've kind of done the first step. We've planned this. We've looked at it. We said, "Hey, this is this is actually feasible, this overpass option. Um same as the underpass. Let's take a look at this. do some final designs, go through NEPA, and then build it. Um, and so we're at kind of a unique opportunity right now where um, we can take a really big bite at this apple um, in in ways that you haven't maybe previously. So that was a little bit beyond, I think, what the original question was, but

I say we go for it. I mean, if it's not now, when? You know, I mean, the money's there. It's going to be competitive, but we've positioned the city well to hopefully be competitive, and if it's not now, it's never going to be. So we don't want to look back 20 years from now thinking what are we going to do about East Second Street? Yep. So my recommendation would be to proceed with state um East Second. Do we have to have a resolution that shows where the matching funds are coming from for the application?

Yeah. So in the application, you'll need a um if you're providing matching funds, you'll need a letter of funding commitment. Um, and usually most municipalities that I work with, um, and this is generally the case across the country, um, you'll have a resolution saying, "Hey, city council, um, since you're the governing body, um, city council, we have approved matching funds. Um, we are going to pay the money when, um, you know, down the road when it's obligated, um, we support this project and just have a kind of formal declaration." And so, um, that normally happens at a in a setting like this, um, and just provides a level of, um, documentation that they're going to need. Do do you have to state for example it's coming from our street fund or we're going to float an SID or do you have to be that specific with the commitment?

It certainly helps um but usually because um sometimes you know these projects are down the ways right let's think about uh the planning study that we got it took a year year and a half to get through the grant agreement process. So there's a recognition that, you know, where the funds may come from may shift slightly based on the reality of of whatever communities are going through. So as long as you've got that letter of funding commitment saying, "Hey, we're good for, you know, we we've got this documented, we've all voted on this, we all support this." Um, you'll be okay. You don't need to say, "Hey, this is coming directly from certainly helps competitive wise." Um, you know, building that picture, but it's not necessarily going to be a deal breaker.

Okay. you will be looking at going out for a bond for this. Just so you're aware, if we do the full planning through development asking for 20 million or $22 million, I guess, how however the math is, um 80% of 30 million. So, we would have to bond for it.

20% of 30 million. But still, I think what we need is a commitment from BNSF on what they are going to fund. And I I I don't I mean these aren't fiscal 27 funds. We're talking about a year or two down the line. So at least I mean just to get through the grant process is probably going to be a year. So So will NEPA. So if maybe like the second meeting in May, we can look at a resolution to

what if you did at the first meeting of June after the public hearing is I know it's due on the 8th, but you could do the preparation at least for the grant. I know that's work that could go un needed at some point, but then you've had your public meeting. Then the council can have a public hearing pro. I don't know if it's public hearing. Some grants require public hearings. I don't know. you would just need to have um just at a public meeting just a resolution.

So so at a public meeting have a resolution um because you are committing taxpayers to that dollar that dollar amount in the future. I mean I think whatever it is whether it's BNSF portion they pay half or whatnot we are committing them to that in the future. So I think it's important and it might be a good thing to have as a public hearing.

Steve, I'm just going to make one more comment and and then I'll shut up. I I still don't understand why this is just our problem because it's not just our problem. It's not just our people driving these roads. The end of Second Street goes hits county property. It's not just our problem. I think that's the intent of this process is that we're taking 20% of the problem and splitting it with BNSF. So we're making it 10% our problem hopefully. I mean if we can come up with that agreement with BN. Any further comments on this topic?

Thanks Greg. Okay. Thanks Dana. Ben, anything further? No thank you Andy. And I do not have comments either. And on that note, thanks everyone. Uh we are adjourned. See you in a couple weeks.