Planning commission approves small canopies at 300 Sky Place, denies deck expansion

The Whitefish Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve two small airspace variances and to deny a deck expansion at 300 Sky Place, a nonconforming lakeshore property.

Planning staff described three requests in the application filed on behalf of Jamie Given: a shed roof over the garage that would encroach up to 7 feet 3 inches into the 25-foot front setback, a 5-by-12-foot gable stair cover that would extend 5 feet into the 10-foot lakeshore protection zone (LPZ), and a proposed deck remodel that would enlarge a second-story deck and encroach into the sideyard and LPZ setbacks. Staff said the house predates the LPZ setback adopted in 2006–2007 and that neighboring properties have similar grandfathered encroachments.

"The variances for the proposed canopy roofs to protect the exit stairs and the garage door are the minimum necessary," planning staff member Dave said during the presentation, recommending approval of those two canopy items but recommending denial of the deck expansion because staff found the deck was not the minimum necessary alteration.

Applicant representative John Hutmaker told the commission the neighbors on the side that would be affected support the project. "We've been doing the work on this place," he said, and noted the owners want the deck for outdoor use. Another representative, Pablo Ebling of Rail Outdoor Solutions, said his firm will prepare the lake shore protection permit if the commission approves.

A commissioner moved to follow staff findings: approve the two canopy/awning encroachments and deny the deck expansion; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The commission clarified that, because the three requests came in one variance application, a single motion could resolve them all.

The commission’s decision leaves the approved canopies in place as allowed by the variance. The applicants were reminded that a denial of the deck variance can be appealed only to district court under state law; staff advised alternatives remain available that would require different approvals. The commission did not receive written neighbor objections; staff said notices were mailed to properties within 150 feet and no public comments were received before the meeting.

The commission moved on to a second public hearing after the vote.