[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6557476,"mediaKeyId","3292951-8db1e236631eeaf1757f23cdce8a2a38","parentId",3292951,"title","Planning commission reviews Anderson Ranch annexation, PUD and traffic study ahead of public hearing","audioSeconds",1968,"startMs",278000,"endMs",2246000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3292951-8db1e236631eeaf1757f23cdce8a2a38&start=278&end=2246","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3292951-8db1e236631eeaf1757f23cdce8a2a38/thumbnail_278000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6557476/Kalispell/Flathead-County/Montana/Planning-commission-reviews-Anderson-Ranch-annexation-PUD-and-traffic-study-ahead-of-public-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557476-2e408fe6f5f768141d38358d61d9999b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445424&Signature=G27TvnAdOwUKdZVQ1QMBo9eCV0khlnFweOk6Cqhzd1mnFMQevpl-IJ5LIXTSxpVKULiI9gR0OQCzO7Qv8FJnP9YYEj6zCU~ls1fCcdvhsyCBulBq1Eqs57mWAinTOzbtwW6QQWnPKwjYXPauCz60DANVlY4p338-3QadTiHdOd43EQqDzuf~LkU6GDON~LgMrmxErjvX1-pjewloX9QjCyvS86PXEFi~pqkjzYHd6weYY8QZItYnxZzN9SG~Ew98W0dZYI66EGjN49~I580ax9OdtaR3TT6DEXHDumFu3yQSW0vBvyqLkCr1BZ5bE79U0nfN4uPboWuzWQWwCRUL-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Kalispell, MT","date","2025-05-14T14:13:14Z","article","The Kalispell City Planning Commission held a work session May 13 where staff and the applicant outlined a proposed annexation, initial R‑3 zoning with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay, and a preliminary plat for a residential portion of the Anderson Ranch project.

The proposal by Colton Bear seeks annexation of about 11.7 acres and preliminary plat approval for residential development described in staff materials as 66 residential lots on about 42.5 acres; staff said the Anderson/Gardner overall PUD covers roughly 94.5 acres and ties the residential portion to a larger commercial/industrial area that includes an Amazon site. Planning staff said the residential portion would mostly be zoned R‑3 (suburban residential) and meet the city’s suburban density (staff noted about 3.9 units per acre where the growth policy allows up to 4 units per acre).

Planning staff explained the application bundles annexation, initial zoning and preliminary plat because much of the infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, a lift station and stormwater) will be shared between the commercial and residential components. The applicant and staff said the development is expected to be built in multiple phases; staff described three phases for the residential portion (presented as phase 1: 40 lots; phase 2: 63 lots; phase 3: 54 lots) and said the project team is seeking three deviations from standard R‑3 rules, chiefly smaller lots and narrower frontages than the standard R‑3 lot size and width.

Staff and the applicant described design details and constraints. The developer is proposing minimum lots down to about 4,161 square feet (most lots shown around 4,500 square feet) and a reduction in required lot frontage from the standard 50 feet to 45 feet. Staff noted that when lot frontages fall below 50 feet for single‑family frontage, city rules typically trigger an alley requirement; the applicant proposes alternatives already used in other Kalispell projects, such as shared driveways, to avoid alleys on some blocks. Staff also pointed to corner‑lot setback tightness and said the team may present adjustments at the public hearing.

Wetlands and floodplain influenced the layout. Staff said the plan maintains a 100‑foot setback from the delineated wetland to any property line and that the lower portion of the site that abuts wetlands and floodplain is proposed as park and stormwater area rather than residential lots. Staff noted a regulatory detail in subdivision parkland accounting: the subdivision regulations permit counting only 50% of floodplain area toward parkland acreage, so the applicant requested a clarification about how parts of that open area will be counted in the parkland requirement.

Traffic, signals and phasing were focal points. Keith, the city’s traffic reviewer, summarized the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) submitted for the combined commercial (about 56 acres) and residential (about 42.5 acres) development. He said the TIS examined numerous intersections near the site (including US‑93 intersections, Cemetery Road, Willow Glen, Lower Valley Road, United Drive and the planned Bar H/US‑93 connection). The TIS assumes a roughly five‑year buildout horizon and used a 2.6% background growth rate; it also used conservative traffic counts (favoring higher counts rather than seasonal‑adjusted reductions).

Keith said the TIS indicates the Bar H connection to US‑93 will be built with earlier phases but that a traffic signal at that intersection likely will be required only after later phases; MDT’s preference, staff said, is to require a separate warrant analysis for each phase of development so the department can evaluate whether a signal is warranted when each phase applies for permit or final plat. Staff and commission members discussed the timing risk that warrants are based on existing plus proposed traffic rather than waiting for full buildout, and staff noted that the developer would typically fund the signal and that MDT sometimes requires funds to be held or paid before a signal is installed.

Staff said a third‑party review of the TIS concurred with the amended TIS findings. City staff also noted other required TIS improvements that may be phased: turn lanes at Willow Glen/Lower Valley, a right‑turn lane at Cemetery Road/US‑93, and a restriction on certain turning movements at the existing United Drive/US‑93 connection. Staff said a lift station will be installed on a utility lot to service the new residential area and some surrounding parcels.

Applicant comments and cost‑sharing: Eric Mulcahy, a surveyor representing Colton Bear, told the commission that the applicant has entered written cost‑share agreements with the Anderson family and the adjacent commercial developer to share the cost of off‑site and on‑site improvements, including the lift station and the future signal if MDT requires payment in advance. Mulcahy said the applicant expected the commercial first phase to include the Amazon site and that subsequent phases would add lots and road extensions north or south along United Drive.

Commission questions focused on connectivity, street alignment and long‑term implications of a PUD. Commissioners asked why some proposed half‑streets do not continue to the north; staff explained that existing neighboring parcels (including a mini‑storage facility) limit a northward connection now but said the layout preserves future connections where possible. Commissioners asked how the PUD overlay will operate if ownership changes; staff said the PUD is a zoning overlay recorded by ordinance and remains in effect regardless of owners, and any future change of use would require a PUD amendment.

What’s next: Staff said the matter will go to a public hearing (anticipated June 10 if schedule holds) and that the council had already approved annexation of a nearby MDT facility at a prior meeting with second reading of initial zoning scheduled later in May. Staff also said they would attempt to provide refined drawings and responses to the commission’s comments at the public hearing.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","5/13/25 City of Kalispell Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Kalispell City Planning Commission held a work session May 13 where staff and the applicant outlined a proposed annexation, initial R‑3 zoning with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay, and a preliminary plat for a residential portion of the Anderson Ranch project.","taxTitle","Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana","taxId",61441,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6557470,"Kalispell planners review housing options under Montana Land Use Planning Act; parking rule flagged as imminent state change",2302,2302000,-1,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3292951-8db1e236631eeaf1757f23cdce8a2a38&start=2302&end=0","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3292951-8db1e236631eeaf1757f23cdce8a2a38/thumbnail_2302000.jpg","/articles/6557470/Kalispell/Flathead-County/Montana/Kalispell-planners-review-housing-options-under-Montana-Land-Use-Planning-Act-parking-rule-flagged-as-imminent-state-change","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557470-42ef2eb0e9153a05f233b50915a78fa2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445424&Signature=mnrYxop7q6rm7GHrOdhN2Izn8mpdNCk2Ro-3NI1WH-vyX-E665wChGrkXD0no2UOFQBtrRsEpJxakaz5zshFU1ksLzD6D4Q9FPP5Hv98uG8Nnt3bCzpFXPUtEMd4raPtEWeaWOzDTy1sInM8wcSi1TFVHZs7AJfeRU8R9z7i8zSrrnrW0iJAVYzNLhxE03hB01WQHhFfGDHEePZKluYa-SFwCn18CydBTyE2DLkTZhMFZ6B9WCrzetlIYfbF4YmpoY9Knc4Y5WHQTFQUuVTXY~74j31wc1FQ0hSOpacveqhgu4Jv1Cphh2G434miTsnxNB7WZksKedFy5dsh027V8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kalispell planning staff led a work session May 13 to continue implementing the Montana Land Use Planning Act (SB 382) and to review the preliminary draft land use plan’s Chapter 4 on housing.

Donnie McVaugh, planner II, and other staff presented housing data and outlined the choices the city must make under MLUPA, including selecting at least five strategies from a state list of 14 housing approaches. McVaugh told the commission that Kalispell’s population is projected to grow by roughly 63% by 2045 (to over 45,000 residents) and that the city will need on the order of 8,800–10,000 new housing units to meet that growth, given current vacancy and price data in the staff presentation.

Staff review and community outreach: Planning staff summarized current housing stock (15,847 units citywide, about 60% single‑family) and recent approvals (staff said roughly 7,500 recently approved units, of which about 2,000 are built and 5,500 remain permitted but unbuilt). Staff described outreach to date (pop‑ups, in‑person boards, an online survey at engagekalispell.com) and said the commission’s feedback would inform which strategies to carry forward.

Staff then stepped through the 14 MLUPA strategies and summarized existing local conditions and preliminary community support levels collected during outreach. Key strategy discussions included:

- Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and duplexes: Staff noted the state requires ADU allowance but cities may opt out; Kalispell has permitted ADUs in most of the city since 2021 (with limited issuance — staff reported only five ADU permits issued citywide since the zoning change). The commission discussed HOA covenant limits (staff said covenants can still prohibit ADUs) and community support levels from outreach.

- Higher density near nodes/transit corridors: Staff said Kalispell would interpret “public transit” broadly (as transportation corridors and neighborhood commercial nodes) because the city lacks extensive fixed‑route transit; this strategy had among the highest public support in outreach.

- Parking reductions: Staff explained a state statute adopted in the current legislative session effectively prohibits cities that adopt a land use plan under MLUPA from requiring more than one off‑street parking space per residential unit and exempts certain small units and deed‑restricted housing from parking minimums; the statute’s effective date was described in the meeting as October 2026. Staff recommended acknowledging this as a likely required strategy even if local implementation details need refinement; commissioners discussed practical consequences (on‑street parking pressure, snow removal, emergency access).

- Triplex/quadplex and multifamily allowances: Staff walked through options that would allow 3–4 unit buildings or higher‑density multifamily in areas currently zoned single family or in commercial zones. Commissioners expressed concern about utilities and public‑works capacity (undersized sewer mains and older infrastructure in historic neighborhoods) and discussed whether redevelopment should require additional public‑works review (for example, a will‑serve or site review for projects above a certain unit count).

- Tiny houses and cottage developments: Staff said building code Appendix Q defines tiny houses (under 400 sq ft) and that zoning does not currently prohibit tiny houses, but utility, parking and site costs make standalone tiny‑house construction challenging; outreach showed notable support for allowing tiny houses in appropriate contexts, such as ADUs or cottage‑style PUDs.

- Setbacks, heights and design standards: Staff reviewed options to reduce setbacks, increase allowable building heights, or relax aesthetic standards for multifamily; outreach results varied, with reduced setbacks and relaxed aesthetics receiving comparatively low support and increases in height receiving moderate support.

Staff also discussed the practical effect of several state bills already enacted or proposed: for example, the 2023 statute that expanded permitted multifamily uses in certain commercial zones and a 2025 parking statute that sets new parking minimum rules for cities operating under MLUPA. Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer ranked recommendations (staff said they would provide further analysis based on ongoing outreach and an upcoming city‑funded housing study).

Public comment: Cameron Dexter of Citizens for a Better Flathead urged prioritizing linear parks and open space, stronger measurable goals for environmental mitigation (stormwater and creek sediment), and clearer public participation steps for plan adoption under MLUPA. Staff replied that the parks master plan will be integrated by reference into the land use plan and that the city plans a consultant‑led housing study to provide more detailed breakdowns by unit type and income level in a subsequent phase.

Next steps: Staff said the commission would continue work sessions through the summer, that they expect to return a recommendation to council later in the summer (staff mentioned targeting August for a recommendation), and that a consultant housing study is budgeted for the next fiscal cycle to refine unit‑type and income‑level needs. Staff asked the commission for feedback on chapter format (narrative followed by issues, goals and recommendations), and commissioners were generally supportive of the proposed format.

","Kalispell planning staff led a May 13 work session on the Montana Land Use Planning Act and the draft land use plan’s housing chapter, reviewing 14 state‑listed housing strategies and summarizing outreach and data that staff say point to a substantial need for new housing through 2045.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission reviews Anderson Ranch annexation, PUD and traffic study ahead of public hearing

Kalispell planners review housing options under Montana Land Use Planning Act; parking rule flagged as imminent state change