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

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.