Land-use limbo snares Kila subdivision

A major subdivision proposal in the Kila area was remanded by county commissioners to the Flathead County Planning Board for further consideration Thursday.

The action reflects an apparent impasse between the Planning Board and county commissioners, in which the overworked board is increasingly unwilling to fix flawed or imperfect planning applications and the commissioners are unwilling either to deny them or fix them themselves.

The result, in several recent cases, has been a kind of land-use limbo where controversial subdivisions and growth-policy amendments get batted back and forth between the board and commissioners like birdies in a badminton game.

The latest case involves Haskill Mountain Ranch, a high-end, 74-lot subdivision on 530 acres off Browns Meadow Road in an unzoned area southwest of Kila.

The Planning Board recommended denial of the project on an 8-0 vote in June, largely because of density and wildlife concerns.

However, the commissioners sent the application back to the board Thursday, saying they had concerns about the proposal but lacked grounds to deny it and didn't have time to fix it themselves.

"We've mitigated most of my concerns, but there are enough issues left, we could spend another two hours trying to amend the conditions. I don't think we have the time to do that," said Commissioner Gary Hall, who seconded Commissioner Joe Brenneman's motion to remand.

Commissioner Bob Watne voted against the motion, saying the Planning Board already had too much on its plate.

Brenneman said he was hesitant to go against the board's unanimous recommendation for denial. Nevertheless, the findings of fact contained in the planning staff report didn't support a negative recommendation - and the developer "went to extraordinary lengths to address some of the public safety concerns" by offering to pave four miles of Brown's Meadow Road.

Consequently, "I'd like to send this back to the planning board so they can explain how the findings support their vote," Brenneman said. "If they aren't going to change the findings of fact, there aren't clear grounds for a denial."

Several neighbors spoke against Haskill Mountain Ranch, both during the Planning Board hearing in June and again Thursday.

"There are 77 homes in the Browns Meadow watershed right now, and this would add another 74," said Jeff Hutten, who lives on Browns Meadow Road. "I think the developer could be a lot more creative. This is basically the same old Benihana slice-and-dice development."

Alice Cabell encouraged the developer to "do something different" and submit a subdivision design that didn't ruin the wildlife habitat and rural character that made the area so special.

"How many more beautiful spaces are we going to eat up?" she asked.

Kalispell attorney Ken Kalvig, representing developer Greg Carter, asked the commissioners to fix whatever concerns they had with Haskill Mountain Ranch by adding conditions to the subdivision approval, rather than send the project back to the planning board.

Kalvig said developers are increasingly being caught between the planning board and the Flathead County Planning Office. They try to follow the subdivision regulations and planning staff recommendations, only to get slammed when they go before the planning board.

Haskill Mountain Ranch "is a good example of that," Kalvig said. "The planning staff recommended approval, but when it comes to the Planning Board, it's like entering a foreign country - they aren't speaking the same language. My guess is that you have a planning board that's tired and overworked, and on this application they took their eye off the ball."

The board is made up of nine volunteers.

Before 2004, the board typically met once a month. Over the last two years, though, it has rarely met fewer than three times a month - and with the ongoing growth policy update, it's now sometimes meeting twice a week.

"It's getting to be like a job," board member Kim Fleming said during the board's regular meeting Wednesday. "There should be a limit on the number of things we have to do."

Several mechanisms are being considered to speed up the meetings, including creating a consent agenda that would allow minor applications to be handled more efficiently.

It's unclear, however, whether these measures will address the impasse with the commissioners.

To some extent, the issue is philosophical: Given the amount of time they're spending on planning applications, some board members don't think they should have to spend hours trying to fix development proposals, particularly when numerous concerns need to be mitigated. Others are reluctant to impose their own views or preferences on developers or landowners.

The commissioners, on the other hand, apparently want the board to do just that.

In a move that still rankles several board members, Commissioner Hall blasted the board in a letter earlier this year, saying it "needs to take a more active role" in processing growth policy amendments and other applications.

"To hear a member say, 'Let's let the commissioners deal with it' upsets me to the point of wanting to reappoint the whole board," Hall wrote. "If any board member doesn't want to serve the county in this capacity, I would ask that you step down immediately."

During the past 18 months, the commissioners have sent two major growth policy amendments back to the planning board for further review, and almost remanded a third. They also agreed to reconsider at least three subdivisions - even after they denied the projects - which returned those proposals to the board as well.

After remanding the 3,800-acre Riverdale Neighborhood Plan in May, Hall said if he isn't happy with what the board sends back, "then we'll send it back to them again. I want them to work on it until they get it right."

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com