Kalispell planning commission backs annexation, delays decision on 99‑unit North Meadows apartments after hours of public comment

The Kalispell City Planning Commission on July 8 recommended annexation and initial RA‑1 zoning for a proposed 99‑unit apartment development at 1859 South Meadows Drive, but the commission rejected the conditional use permit at the meeting and then voted to table further action on the permit to Aug. 12 for additional information and developer follow‑up.

The project, presented to commissioners by city staff as the North Meadows multifamily development, would annex about 12.13 acres into the city and build seven two‑story apartment buildings, a clubhouse and associated parking and amenities. The planning staff said municipal water, sewer and road infrastructure would be extended to the site and recommended approval of annexation, initial zoning and the conditional use permit with conditions. After public comment and commission discussion, the body recommended annexation and zoning be forwarded to city council but did not approve the CUP; members later voted to table the CUP to the Aug. 12 planning commission meeting.

Staff overview and proposal

Donnie Baff, a city planner (Planner II), described the proposal as an infill project that supports Kalispell’s growth policy goals for compact growth and housing diversity. Baff said the applicant, Roger Foley represented by Jacola Engineering and Architecture, proposes 99 units in seven buildings on about 12.13 acres, preserving roughly 4.8 acres of open space along the northern boundary adjacent to Ashley Creek. The site plan shows a 200‑foot variable buffer from the top of bank at Ashley Creek, a stormwater treatment system on site, 26‑foot private drive aisles for two‑way emergency access, and building heights limited to approximately 33 feet (staff noted the RA‑1 district allows greater heights but the proposal was limited to improve neighborhood compatibility).

"This proposal supports the city's goals for compact growth, housing diversity, and responsible infill, and is designed to integrate well with the surrounding neighborhood," Baff said during the presentation.

Public comments: traffic, safety, slope stability, schools

More than three dozen residents spoke during the public‑comment period, nearly all urging the commission to deny or delay the project. Speakers living on Bluestone Drive, Rimrock Court, Denver Avenue and surrounding streets said existing neighborhood streets lack sidewalks and are narrow, and they raised safety concerns for children, pedestrians and emergency access.

Rhonda Hawkins, who gave her address as 1731 Bluestone Drive, said: "My concern is primarily with this project, all of the vehicles and the safety hazard that will happen with all of those vehicles coming in and out of ... Bluestone Drive."

Several speakers cited prior slope failures and ongoing bank erosion along Ashley Creek. Ricky Moffitt (147 Rimrock Court) recounted documented landslides near the creek and said the site includes stream banks classified by the Montana Department of Transportation as eroding. "Approving construction of a 99 unit complex on such a fragile terrain increases the risk to current and future residences," Moffitt said.

Others cited school capacity and public services. A number of commenters said neighborhood schools are at or near capacity and that adding residents from 99 units would further strain local schools and emergency services.

Developer, staff and technical responses

Toby McIntosh of Jacola Engineering and Architecture, speaking for the applicant, said the conditional use permit process and the written conditions allow city departments to review detailed design and permit submissions and address the technical issues raised. "A lot of the concerns this evening are captured in the conditions for the conditional use permit that allow city staff and the departments that regulate the rules that the city has adopted to allow for review of the project as the permits are being submitted for the actual design," McIntosh said.

Staff and the applicant also discussed the project’s traffic impact study (TIS). The city project manager said counts for the TIS were taken in May 2025 and that the study estimated about 667 average daily vehicle trips at full build‑out. The planner said peak hour volumes were projected to be within acceptable thresholds and that the TIS recommends mitigation where intersections would fall below the city’s level‑of‑service criteria; an anticipated traffic control at the South Meadows Drive/Bluestone Drive intersection was discussed but had no final design at the meeting.

Commission debate and votes

After public comment, commissioners discussed infrastructure, single‑access concerns and whether a CUP should be approved with conditions. The commission voted to recommend annexation and initial RA‑1 zoning to the Kalispell City Council; staff told the commission that, if forwarded, the council meeting on the matter would be Aug. 4.

On the conditional use permit, a motion to recommend approval was put forward but failed on a recorded vote (yes: 2; no: 4). Recorded votes on the CUP show Commissioner Doug Kaufman voting yes and Commissioner Pip Burke voting yes; Commissioners Joshua Borgart, Kate Walker, Shelby Lecron and Chad Graham recorded no votes. After the failed approval, the commission then voted to table further action on the CUP to the Aug. 12 planning commission meeting so the applicant and staff could address concerns raised by residents and commissioners.

What happens next

The annexation and initial zoning recommendation will be forwarded to the Kalispell City Council for its consideration (staff indicated an Aug. 4 council meeting on the calendar). The conditional use permit remains unresolved and will return to the planning commission on Aug. 12 for additional review and possible action. The commission and staff noted that the CUP process requires subsequent technical submittals (geotechnical reports, final traffic mitigation designs, engineered utility extensions and right‑of‑way permits) before building permits could be issued.

Community reaction and context

Speakers stressed that their objections were not only about density but about where the development would access the street network and how construction and long‑term traffic would affect a neighborhood with limited sidewalks, a ball field that draws episodic high traffic, and sections of stream bank with historic instability. Residents urged the commission to seek more detailed geotechnical and traffic data during the baseball season and asked staff and the developer to consider smaller‑scale housing types that better match the adjacent single‑family pattern.

The commission’s decision to table the CUP reflects the tension between the city’s adopted growth objectives for infill housing and the neighborhood’s concerns about site suitability, safety and infrastructure capacity. The project sponsor and staff will return with additional materials and messaging to the Aug. 12 planning commission meeting.

For those tracking next steps, the planning commission forwarded annexation and initial RA‑1 zoning to the city council and scheduled the conditional use permit for further consideration on Aug. 12. Members of the public may submit written comments to the planning department or attend the Aug. 12 meeting to provide additional testimony.