By Michael Howell
The Ravalli County Commissioners conditionally approved FlatIron Ranch Subdivision, the largest subdivision in the county’s history on Monday, July 11. The 551-living-unit development is located off of Golf course Road about two miles east of Hamilton. The project is slated to be installed in 15 phases over 30 years with deadline for filing the plat for the first phase set for December 2014.
The project received a recommendation for denial from the Planning Board due to concerns about effects on public safety, especially pedestrian traffic and concerns about the effects on agriculture. The Planning Department recommended approval, but with 105 conditions attached.
Some of those conditions for approval were changed and some added during the public hearing process. Some additions to the covenants were also agreed to by the developer. Some of those additions included a $250 per unit mitigation fee to the Corvallis School District and a $100 per living unit fee to mitigate effects on public health and safety.
The developer also agreed to pay $4,500 upon the conveyance of the first lot in Phase 1 and about $32,000 upon conveyance of the first lot in each of the succeeding 14 phases. Additional conditions were also added at the beginning of Phase 2, 5 and 11.
Conditions were added as covenants concerning fencing, discharge permits for each phase and pedestrian facility requirements. An existing agricultural covenant on one lot was lifted.
Much of the public testimony regarding the project was against it. Commissioner Greg Chilcott remarked in the end that the decision could not be based on a popular vote but had to look only at the seven criteria for review of subdivisions in state law.
Commissioner Matt Kanenwisher agreed, saying, “We never asked ‘do we like it? Or ‘can the developer afford it?’” He said the only question was whether it met the state’s criteria. Both Commissioners Suzy Foss and Ron Stoltz agreed.
“I plan on staying with the law,” said Stoltz. “That’s what we did and I stand behind it.”
Foss added that in this case she did think that this developer has been quite exceptional in his efforts to meet the law and worked on it for many years.
Commission Chair J.R. Iman said the County doesn’t get to choose who applies for a subdivision or examine their finances, but, he said, other agencies are involved in reviewing and approving such huge proposals, including the Public Service Commission and DEQ and those agencies would be doing their job.
“We simply aren’t qualified to make these kinds of quantitative judgments on subdivisions of this size,” he said. “I think it struck a balance, but it remains to be seen what happens when the other agencies do their jobs.”
In other business the Commissioners approved a variance for the Mirado Mountain subdivision, a proposed 58-unit development off of 8 Mile Creek Road. The county originally denied the variance request along with a combined request for the same variance by the developer of Sandhill Ridge, a 35-lot development in the same general area.
The developers originally proposed a joint variance over road improvement requirements on 8 Mile Creek Road. The developers agreed to pay a shared portion of the road mitigation fees with Mirado Mountain paying 62 percent and Sandhill Ridge paying 38 percent.
Following the denial of the variance request the developers sued the county. District Court Judge James Haynes refused to rule on the decision itself but ruled that the decision-making process was flawed and remanded the matter back to the county to do over again. That is the process now being conducted.
The commissioners gave conditional approval to the variance for Mirado Mountain last week but did not have the time to consider the subdivision request itself. The variance request for Sandhill Ridge is scheduled for consideration this Thursday.
Barbara Gonsalves says
As a Bitterroot Valley native who has now lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for years, I appreciate the environment in which I grew up, and I know how easily it is forever lost due to shortsightness. Bitterrooters would be wise compare the Santa Clara Valley and the Napa Valley, and to investigate their divergent courses. Both these valleys were once beautiful. Only the Napa Valley remains that way. Of course, that depends on what one’s view of beauty is. If concrete, traffic, crime, and congestion (but money in the bank for the few developers) equals beauty, then by all means, the Santa Clara Valley is the model. Believe me, as urban locales become more dangerous and congested, more and more people will want to move to the Bitterroot. When I first left my Montana home as a young adult, I was the brunt of jokes when I told people where I was from. Now I receive the question, “Why are you here?” Friends and acquaintances all around me are wanting to “move to Montana.” Make plans, or you will lose what you have. Go to this site and read how forward looking Napans preserved what would have been lost: http://www.napavintners.com/about/ab_2_land.aspx.
Make laws to preserve, or lose what you have. Montana and Idaho have become the promised land to may fleeing places like the Bay Area. Plan for this. Preserve land and open space, and the land values will go up. Don’t make plans and you risk becoming outnumbered and completely overrun.
Donna says
Ravalli county is being ruined by developers.
Crime will go up. Taxes will go up. No subdivisions should be allowed. Come on people wake up. Your rural way of life is being destroyed.