LNPC examines recommendations from Citizens for a Better Flathead
The Lakeside Neighborhood Plan Committee reviewed recommendations from Citizens for a Better Flathead last week and made a number of minor revisions to the plan.
CBF presented to the committee in November and submitted a 10-page document with specific comments and recommended changes to the plan ranging from including additional maps to adjusting some of the plan's policies. The committee opted to review the content separately from its December meeting at which it debated and voted on whether to change the land used designation for a portion of the Lakeside Club.
At last week's meeting, CBF representatives argued that some of the plan's policies need to be more directly linked to its implementation strategies, as people may not read the implementation strategies. Committee members agreed to cross-reference implementation strategies in the policies to direct readers to them.
The committee opted to include maps of slopes and wildlife habitat in the plan with statements that clarified the general maps are for "illustrative purposes only," but chose not to include maps on flood easements and ground water.
Kate McMahon, a Whitefish consultant who presented to the group on behalf of CBF, said a slopes map is standard in many plans. A Valley-wide map is in the Flathead County Growth Policy and the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan includes one specific to its area. Having the information in one document is more convenient for people coming into the area, McMahon said.
"It's for ease of use," she said.
Committee member Barb Miller said she requested a map of flood easements from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, but that it did not appear applicable, since it had to do with high water prior to the building of the dam.
Andrew Hagemeier, a Flathead County planner, said in pulling the ground water map that Lakeside generally didn't have close groundwater in the planning area. This conflicts with a statement in the plan that says between Bierney Creek Road and Blacktail Road to the south along U.S. Highway 93 the groundwater table is from 1 to 6 inches. Committee members said that information came from member Bruce Young who was not present at the meeting. They agreed to check its accuracy.
CBF recommended the plan should include a policy to write an overlay district to address water quality issues in the area. Hagemeier said the plan as it currently stands will require zoning from the community, which is already a significant endeavor.
"[An overlay district] would require significant steps after," Hagemeier said. "It is a simple plan and it's because you have nothing right now."
McMahon argued that in order to look into a water quality overlay district in the future, it would need to be included in the plan. The committee agreed to add language about a "possible" overlay district, so as not to require action but would allow it to be looked into in the future.
Rather than add guidelines about Planned Unit Developments in the downtown area to the plan, the committee recommended that the Town Center Development Plan Committee of the Lakeside Community Council, which was formed to look at the town center, take up the issue.
CBF suggested that the plan include a policy that development that creates traffic conditions with level of service D or E according to the Montana Department of Transportation does not meet adequate facility standards. Miller suggested they take a more indirect approach and reference language in the Growth Policy and state that roads should have a safe level of service.
Recommendations that the Lakeside Community Council provide public notice and early posting of its agendas Miller said would be addressed in the council's current review of its bylaws and did not need to be added to the plan.
Other revisions discussed at the meeting included adding a description of clustering to the plan for clarification and updating language on the Lakeside Club.
The committee agreed not to discuss a possible new zoning designation, Large-Tract Rural Zone, since county officials have said it won't be ready for sometime and that it was not intended for a place like Lakeside, according to Miller.
The committee also heard briefly from John Vore, an area wildlife biologist from Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. The committee had not previously heard from FWP in its more than two years working on the plan despite attempts to contact the agency for comment.
Vore said he was unsure where the miscommunication happened.
"We like to be in on the ground floor," he said. "I wasn't aware of this until a week or two before the last meeting."
Hagemeier offered to meet with representatives of FWP and a biologist from Plum Creek to come up with recommendations for the committee.
The committee was scheduled to look at these additional proposals by FWP at a meeting Monday, Jan. 18, and then review revisions to the plan made since the Flathead County Planning Board review in October on Monday, Jan. 25. Read about the Jan. 18 meeting in next week's West Shore News.
LNPC had previously discussed recommending that the LCC open up the plan for another public comment period at that time. Hagemeier recommended the committee let that be handled at the county level, since the plan has already been submitted to the county and is just being revised at the request of the planning board. He said the plan should still be sent to LCC again because the council expects to see it.
If approved by the council, the plan will be sent on to the planning board to begin its formal review process.
Lakeside Neighborhood Plan
For more information on the progress of the plan, visit