By KEITH ERICKSON

Press Correspondent

COEUR d’ALENE — In a community renowned for its beautiful waterfront, public access to the shoreline is becoming increasingly prized — and rare.

In Coeur d’Alene, with most waterfront property held privately, few opportunities remain for the public to bask in the tranquility of a day on the beach.

That’s what makes the ever-evolving River’s Edge development just west of Riverstone on the Spokane River such a high-profile prospect.

Earlier this year, the City Council unanimously struck down a proposal by Spokane developer Lanzce Douglass for a 680-unit waterfront apartment development that would have provided public access to a 1,600-foot stretch of the Spokane River.

City officials cited the high density and potential for commercial development along the corridor for denying the developer’s request.

Frustrated by the City Council’s rejection, Douglass went before the city’s planning commission with a new plan — informally referred to as Plan B — that would effectively block public access to the river.

Unlike his 680-unit first proposal — Plan A — the new plan is permitted under current zoning regulations and an approved annexation agreement between the developer and the city.

Among other things, Plan B includes 28 luxury home lots on the river with a 6-foot block fence cutting access physically and visually from the river.

“It’s been approved and (Douglass) can move forward,” associate city planner Mike Behary said Friday.

But the developer says he’s not ready to move any dirt yet. He’s asked the city to reconsider Plan A, which includes a waterfront trail, public swimming areas and other shoreline enhancements.

“From the public’s perspective, it’s got all the cool features … public access, trails and picnic areas,” Douglass said last week.

While the density of his Plan A proposal remains unchanged, the developer has removed the request for commercial zoning to alleviate concerns for commercial development, which he says were never part of the plan to begin with.

Douglass says he could make more money under Plan B with the riverfront home lots estimated to sell at over $650,000 each. But in the long run, the developer said, his original proposal is a better plan.

“It would really be a community asset with all that public access as opposed to having more of the same old thing: single family houses on the water and a wall blocking the public out,” Douglass said.

But the City Council and a citizen’s advocacy group, We The People, say the Plan A proposal, while allowing public access to the water, is too dense and would negatively impact streets, schools and other infrastructure.

Yet Douglass says the city’s own traffic engineering studies determined Seltice Way, which abuts the proposed development, can handle the increased traffic.

We The People member Roger Smith said the group adamantly opposes Plan A, with its 680 apartment units and a total of 21 structures ranging from 55 to 63 feet in height.

“The aesthetics of having multiple high rise buildings right on the river is not what the community really wants,” Smith said. “People have said it would make the riverfront look like Manhattan.”

While We The People appreciates the proposed public access under Plan A, Smith said, it doesn’t compensate for the high density.

“There’s no doubt (Douglass) wants to add some good waterfront amenities — but at what cost?” he said.

If the developer moves forward with Plan B as approved, the project would also include eight apartment buildings with up to 250 units and 513 parking spaces, and a storage facility complex with 391 units, according to plans submitted with the city. Maximum building height is 45 feet.

Smith said We The People offered a compromise the group sees as a “win-win.”

The proposal would keep the waterfront trail and move the single-family homes farther away from the water behind the trail. The homes would have a riverfront setback of 100 feet rather than the 40 feet allowed outright.

“We felt it was a good compromise proposal,” Smith said. “The people deserve some concessions on this very unique piece of property.”

Douglass said he isn’t taking the group’s proposal seriously. “There’s nothing in it from a (developer’s) perspective,” he said.

With construction season coming to a close, the developer said he’ll wait until next year to decide how to proceed with his property.

“I’m holding out hope for reconsideration of my first plan,” Douglass said. “Right now it’s just a wait and see.”