Planning commission reviews Anderson Ranch annexation, PUD amendment and preliminary plat for eastern parcel

The Kalispell City Planning Commission on May 13 reviewed applications from Colton Baer to annex about 11.7 acres of the Anderson Ranch property, request R‑3 initial zoning with a plan unit development (PUD) overlay, and seek preliminary plat approval for a residential phase of the overall Anderson Ranch development.

Planning staff presented the application and said the submission covers the eastern portion of the previously approved Anderson Ranch PUD and would add a residential component to an overall 94.5‑acre PUD. Staff described engineering and infrastructure ties between the residential area and the commercial/industrial portion to the west (including an Amazon site), noting sewer, water and a lift station would serve both sides and that a stormwater facility will be relocated to the southern area of the annexation. The commission did not take a formal vote; staff said a public hearing is anticipated at the June 10 meeting.

Why it matters: Commission discussion and staff review show the residential and commercial pieces are engineered as an integrated development. That linkage affects infrastructure timing, who pays for improvements such as a traffic signal, and whether the residential phase can function independently.

Planning staff walked commissioners through the preliminary plat and PUD amendment, describing three construction phases for the residential portion and several requested deviations from zoning standards. The presentation listed three deviations: reduced minimum lot size (applicants proposed lots as small as 4,161 square feet versus the standard 6,000), reduced lot frontage from 50 feet to 45 feet, and a local roadway section built initially with a 20‑foot paved surface and improvements on one side to allow future extension.

Staff noted a delineated wetland and adjacent floodplain on the property and said the plan includes a roughly 100‑foot buffer from the delineated wetland; the wetland/floodplain area is proposed as park and stormwater open space. The applicant proposes to count a portion of the floodplain toward parkland; staff explained subdivision rules typically limit counting floodplain toward park acreage and said the applicant requested a 50% counting allowance in the parkland calculation (the applicant described the low historical frequency of inundation).

Commissioners and staff discussed roadway connections, including extensions of Bar H Road to U.S. Highway 93, the proposed Bar H/Highway 93 intersection (which will require a future traffic signal when warrants are met), and multiple intersections evaluated in the traffic impact study (TIS). City traffic staff (Keith) described the TIS as covering both the commercial and residential halves of the overall development, said the Amazon build‑out is a major traffic generator, and explained that the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) prefers a warrant analysis with each phase. Staff said the TIS and a third‑party review concurred on required mitigation and that the signal at Bar H/Highway 93 is expected to be warranted as combined phases advance; MDT would typically require the developer to fund the improvement and hold funds until warrants are met.

In public comment, Eric Mulcahy of Sand Surveying, representing applicant Colton Baer and landowner Todd Gardner, said the applicants have a written cost‑sharing agreement to fund shared infrastructure, including the signal if required in advance, and that they will work to resolve the remaining design items before the public hearing. Mulcahy said the eastern residential portion being proposed generally follows the concept submitted with last year’s PUD and that the additional annexation would bring in about 11.7 acres along a wetlands area.

What the commission asked staff to clarify: commissioners pressed on the practical effects of the requested deviations (lot sizes, alley/shared driveway and corner setback issues), flagged the flag‑lot configuration in the northern corner, and asked for clearer mapping of road connections to adjacent parcels (utilities and future collector/connector streets). Commissioners also raised the policy issue that the PUD overlay runs with the land and would remain in place regardless of changes in ownership.

Next steps: staff said they will refine the plat and PUD language, work with the applicant on flag‑lot and corner lot designs, incorporate MDT’s requirements for phase‑by‑phase warrant analyses, and prepare the item for the June 10 public hearing. No motion or formal commission decision was made at the May 13 work session.

Ending: The commission moved on to a separate work session item on the Montana Land Use Planning Act and a draft housing chapter after the Anderson Ranch discussion.