Subcommittee formed to discuss options for Eagle's Crest

The Lakeside Neighborhood Plan Committee formed a subcommittee to brainstorm alternatives for what to do with the land use designation for a portion of the Lakeside Club, also known as Eagle's Crest.

The committee, which has been working on revisions to the plan recommended by the Flathead County Planning Board, heard a presentation Nov. 30 from Citizens for a Better Flathead and members comments on a possible change of Eagle's Crest phases 5-9 from suburban mixed to rural residential.

The initial land use map in the draft Lakeside Neighborhood Plan showed all areas of Eagle's Crest with their own designation of suburban mixed since higher densities in that area had already been approved by the Flathead County Commissioners.

After Eagle's Crest withdrew its preliminary plat application for phases 5-9 in October, some members of the committee have wanted to change that area on the map to a rural residential designation, like much of the area going out from the Lakeside town center.

The first four phases of Eagle's Crest are already in process or have approval. Only the designation for phases 5-9 is under question.

The developers do plan to resubmit the application for these phases at a later date.

The presentation from Citizens for a Better Flathead, represented by Whitefish consultant Kate McMahon, encouraged the committee to consider lower density for Eagle's Crest, to change the suburban mixed designation to rural residential and not to include development conditions for a specific project or property.

"The density exceeds the capacity of the land and infrastructure," McMahon said.

At a Nov. 9 meeting, Eagle's Crest developer Trevor Schaefer offered to address members' concerns by reducing the maximum density of the entire development from one unit for every 2 acres to one unit for every 2.4 acres, keeping higher density by U.S Highway 93 and deed restricting any guest houses from being leased. The proposed compromise reduces the total allowable units in the areas of those phases from 1,026 to 941.

In contrast, the maximum density for rural residential is one unit for every 2.5 acres with a planned unit development if zoned. Without a PUD, it would be one unit for every 5 acres.

County attorney Jonathan Smith agreed with McMahon that deed restrictions on specific properties should not be a part of the plan, but he said they could be mentioned generally as a method of mitigation.

Citizens for a Better Flathead also made other recommendations for the committee such as including maps for slopes, soils, wildlife, flood easements and other risk areas in the plan; reviewing the rural residential designation to see if concepts in the county's proposed Large Tract Rural Zone work better; and updating language on the Lakeside Club and streamlining regulations and language.

The organization submitted documents to the committee referenced in the presentation as well as a document giving further detail and policy recommendations to further carry out the vision and goals within the draft plan.

"I think everything we proposed is already there in the document. It just carries out the vision," McMahon said.

Committee member Barb Miller said the information in the presentation had for the most part been heard and considered before by the committee over the two years it has been working on drafting the plan.

"We've talked about this time and time again," Miller said. "I'm just disappointed that some of this is old information."

Keith Brown, chair of the Lakeside Community Council, pointed out that the committee at some point has to move on and accept the information that it has at the time.

"You can keep planning forever," Brown said.

Some members of the public continued to express concern that the committee may be giving special treatment to a developer by adopting a compromise or leaving the property designated suburban mixed.

"Please stand up for what is right and don't bend over for a single landowner," resident Bruce Barrett said.

As a way of getting dialogue going, some committee members read letters that they had written or an absent member had written on the decision.

One suggested that this decision could determine whether the plan was taken seriously and considered valid.

It was suggested that Schaefer, who is also a member of the committee, should recuse himself from the decision based on a conflict of interest. Mark Tanburg in turn said if that was the case that Bruce Young should also be recused for being associated with the former lawsuit against Eagle's Crest which is now moot.

Lona Santana, who was not present at the meeting, wrote that while she believed the right decision would be a change the designation to rural residential, the best decision at this point would be to leave it as is with as many conditions as possible, suggesting that making one change would create a snowball effect for other revisions to the plan.

Committee Chair Debbie Spaulding said the fact that Eagle's Crest exists cannot be ignored.

"A lot of money has been spent on infrastructure. Even if Trevor goes away, another developer will come in and pick up where he left off," Spaulding said. "Can we send a message that working with the process is advantageous to a developer?"

Tanburg argued that the area of Eagle's Crest has more infrastructure than other areas the committee has given the same or higher densities.

Miller suggested that Eagle's Crest is not the community's biggest concern in planning.

She said that in the free form section of the surveys the committee conducted as part of the planning process 94 comments were made about condos on the lakefront and only 45 comments were made about Eagle's Crest.

With Schaefer's willingness to work with the committee and the open space and infrastructure of Eagle's Crest, Miller said she would support keeping suburban mixed and reflecting the compromises in the description of the designation.

On the other hand, Young said the committee needed to look at the property as if knowledge about phases 5-9 do not exist, since there is no longer an application of regarding those lots.

"I invite you all at this table to have the courage to put it as rural residential, back to where it belongs and let it go through the process the public is due," Young said. "We need to serve the same kind of ice cream to everybody."

Miller suggested there may be a middle ground to consider of combining both suburban mixed and rural residential that would meet everyone's concerns.

The committee agreed to form a subcommittee to review the materials and documents from Citizens for a Better Flathead and to consider alternatives to bring back to the committee.

The next meeting of the full committee is tentatively set for Dec. 14.