Commissioners review FlatIron subdivision proposal

By Michael Howell

The Ravalli County Commissioners have been proceeding slowly and carefully in a detailed examination of the FlatIron Ranch subdivision application in a series of meetings starting on June 30 and continued on July 6 with further meetings planned for Monday and Tuesday, July 11 and 12.

The 396-lot subdivision on 451.79 acres northeast of Hamilton off of Golf Course Road, if approved, would be the largest subdivision in the county’s history. The development is slated to create a total of 551 living units, with 389 on single-family residential lots and 162 on three condominium lots. It would also create four lots dedicated to commercial use.

County Planner Tristan Riddell noted for clarification that the developers of the subdivision were different people than the landowners. He said that although Harold and Brad Mildenberger and Lowell Olin owned the property being developed, they were not the developers of the project. The original developer was listed at FlatIron Ranch LLC, but due to inaction that company was dissolved. Manager Ken Madden is working to have that company reinstated, but he is currently working with local investors Jim Schueler, Jim Cote and Mark Moreland on the project.

The Planning Department submitted a recommendation for approval of the application with 105 conditions attached. The Planning Board recommended denial of the application primarily based on concerns about effects on agriculture and public health and safety.

By the end of the July 6 meeting the Commissioners had analyzed the potential negative effects of the development on only two out of seven state criteria that must be considered according to law. The commission found the negative impacts on agriculture and on local services to be sufficiently mitigated.

Commissioner Matt Kanenwisher made it plain that they were only considering potential negative effects on neighboring agricultural operations, not on agriculture in general. It was decided by the board that a requirement to build a 48-inch-tall fence around the border of the subdivision property (except along Golf Course Road) would mitigate any problems with the neighbors. A dedication of open space land for use by residents as a community garden was also proposed as mitigation for loss of agricultural land.

As far as effects on local services go, the commissioners considered a recommendation from the planning staff that the applicant pay mitigation fees of up to $1.1 million as his share in the cost of improvements to the roadway system that would be required to meet the demands of increased traffic. The subdivision was estimated to generate an additional 5,200 average daily trips along Golf course Road, or about 58 percent of the predicted increase in traffic along the road during the course of development. Improvements at the intersections and on the affected roads to handle the total increase in traffic were estimated to be about $1.9 million. The developers’ share at 58 percent would be $1.1 million to be paid in $70,000 installments for each of the 15 phases of development.

The developer submitted a memo for consideration at the meeting which criticized the county’s calculations, arguing instead that the 58 percent increase in traffic would not show up at every intersection. Based on a study by its own engineering company, Sanderson and Stuart, the developers’ consultant argued that the analysis should be based on the peak daily use at each intersection and not on the total average daily trips. By that calculation the developers’ proportional share would only come to a total of $461,680 to be paid in installments as the first lot is transferred on each phase.

The commissioners changed the findings of facts submitted by the planning staff to reflect that they considered the developers’ calculations of the cost of roadway improvements to be “more accurate.” They came to consensus that the payments, as proposed by the developer, would sufficiently mitigate the negative effects on the roadway system.

Noting that the local fire department had agreed that the developers’ plan for street designs, adequate water flows and fire hydrants met their concerns, the commissioners agreed that negative effects on fire services had also been adequately mitigated.

Based on census data, the current estimate of average number of children in a household is .5. The 551-living-unit development was estimated to potentially add a total of about 275 students to the Hamilton School District. Superintendent Duby Santee submitted a comment from the school district about the effects of the subdivision and suggested that the developer pay mitigation fees of $800 per lot.

The developers’ consultant said that his client had considered a $500 per lot fee but instead offered a $250 per living unit fee.

Commissioner Matt Kanenwisher took issue with the school superintendent’s request. He noted that the same superintendent had not made any request for fees on the recently approved Grantsdale Subdivision. He said there was no consistency in the superintendent’s approach

“This seems to have been pulled out of a hat,” said Kanenwisher.

The Commission agreed to accept the developers’ proposal of $250 per living unit.

Sheriff Chris Hoffman spoke about the potential effects of the subdivision on public safety services. He said that he used to provide written comments on subdivision proposals but had quit for a number of years. He said that his office was understaffed and had not been providing adequate service for years.

“But there is nothing the developer can do to mitigate these effects,” said Hoffman. He said given the chronic lack of funding over the years that there was no amount of money that any single developer could offer to mitigate the lack of services in the county.

Kanenwisher said that to keep the project marketable and competitive with other counties which do not collect any mitigation fees for public safety, it seemed reasonable to accept the developers’ offer of $100 per residential unit. The Commission agreed.

They also agreed that effects on emergency services had also been sufficiently mitigated.

Public testimony on the criteria was overwhelmingly against the subdivision. About 20 people raised objections to the subdivision over the criteria while only three spoke in favor of the plan.

Many of the people speaking in opposition voiced concerns about the effects of increased traffic on Golf Course Road and the danger to pedestrians.

Mary Barton called the developers’ offer of $100 per living unit for public safety “chump change.” She said the Commission should be advocating for the citizens in negotiations with the developer. She said they appeared to be advocating for the developer instead.

John Meakin criticized the commission’s acceptance of the developers’ $250 per living unit fee for effects on the schools. He said that if the Superintendent’s recommendation of $800 per lot was considered to be lacking in rationale that the commission should seek more information before simply dismissing it. He said the developers’ offer could also be considered arbitrary since it, too, lacked any rationale. He suggested that they take the advice of the superintendent because he had a lot of experience in these matters.

Other people complained about high groundwater in the area and the potential negative effects upon the aquifer.

Following the public comment, the developers’ consultant, Jason Rice of Territorial Landworks, said, “I understand the feelings involved. I wouldn’t want this in my backyard either.” But he went on to say that the applicant had the right to develop the property and had offered adequate mitigation for all the negative effects being considered.

Starting on Monday afternoon the commissioners began considering the proposed mitigation for negative effects on agricultural water users, on the natural environment, on wildlife and wildlife habitat and on public health and safety.