How to accommodate future commercial growth in Lakeside was one of the issues that surfaced as the Flathead County Planning Board took its first look at the proposed Lakeside Neighborhood Plan on Wednesday.

The board opted to move forward with the review despite a lawsuit and request for an injunction to stop the plan filed in Flathead District Court by a group of Lakeside and Somers property owners.

Planning Board member Jeff Larsen did not attend the work session, noting in an e-mail that he believes Lakeside's neighborhood planning process does not comply with state law or the Montana Constitution. Larsen said his attendance would violate his notarized oath.

Board member Charles Lapp, who was at the meeting and participated in the review, also questioned moving forward.

The board chose to proceed.

At the heart of the controversy is a members-only Yahoo Web site used by the neighborhood plan committee to conduct business as the planning process progressed.

Board members went through the 157-page plan - an update of the 1994 Lakeside Neighborhood Plan - page by page during the three-hour work session.

Board chairman Gordon Cross questioned a policy in the plan that would discourage any further commercial development along U.S. 93 north or south of downtown Lakeside.

"It seems draconian to me," Cross said.

He suggested the committee find ways to soften the language, such as stating the community discourages any further "unmitigated" commercial development. Cross also took issue with another policy that discourages general commercial development not supported by the community.

"Does someone have to take a poll to open a business in Lakeside?" he asked, adding that the idea of having a "taste committee" decide what businesses to allow may be the wrong message to send in the plan.

Mark Tanberg, a member of the Lakeside plan committee, said community surveys on which the plan is based were conducted at the height of rapid growth in Lakeside a couple of years ago, and that "people were fairly reactionary to what was going on in town."

Other Lakeside plan supporters said safety along the busy U.S. 93 corridor was a primary concern as future commercial growth was considered.

Cross continued to point out elements of the plan that discourage commercial development. In its regulatory recommendations the plan "strongly recommends" that future general commercial development be focused downtown, and that neighborhood or small-scale commercial businesses are acceptable "anywhere in the plan area except along Highway 93."

The intent, the plan notes in a reference to the county growth policy, is to not create a "journey through a commercial canyon" on U.S. 93. Cross advised it may be better to focus on ways to mitigate commercial growth.

In the chapter on land use, Lapp questioned one of the plan's stated opportunities: "Support of the rural small town character." Small-town character is arbitrary and difficult to adequately define, he said.

There were other elements of the land-use chapter that were deemed arbitrary by board members, too, such as the statement: "Unzoned land is unprotected from incompatible development." How should "incompatible" be defined, they asked.

Board member Marc Pitman noticed the draft plan doesn't include any future plans for Lakeside to look at incorporation.

"As towns grow, you want to have the ability to do things," Pitman said. "It's short-sighted not to start thinking about it."

Lakeside has considered becoming an incorporated city twice in the past, and cost has been the biggest deterrent, Lakeside plan supporters said.

Regarding the plan's land-use map, Cross once again advised softening the language because boundaries may shift and a "broad brush" approach would provide more flexibility. Lapp suggested adding an industrial zone.

Neighborhood plan committee chairwoman Debbie Spaulding said the land-use map was determined through community surveys and interview with residents. She also said most Lakeside residents who responded are in favor of zoning.

"We believe it's a good vision for the future," she said.

Committee members said they would meet to make revisions to the draft plan, based on the board's comments. Then it will come back to the Planning Board for further review. Ultimately the board will make a recommendation on the plan and send it to the county commissioners for final action.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com