Kalispell council annexes North Meadows site but rejects 99-unit apartment CUP after residents raise safety and flooding concerns

The Kalispell City Council voted to annex the North Meadows parcel into the city but stopped short of allowing the proposed 99‑unit apartment complex, amending zoning and denying the project’s conditional‑use permit after sustained public opposition.

Staff presented the proposal as an annexation with initial R‑A‑1 zoning and a conditional‑use permit for a 99‑unit, two‑story apartment complex at 1859 South Meadows Drive. Planner Donnie Macbeth told the council the project included seven two‑story buildings, a central clubhouse, 174 parking spaces and design measures intended to protect Ashley Creek, including a riparian buffer that staff described as designed around geotechnical recommendations. "The North Meadows multifamily project includes seven two‑story apartment buildings, a central clubhouse," Macbeth said during the presentation.

The council’s decision came after more than two hours of public comment. Neighbors repeatedly raised concerns about drainage and a long history of flooding along Bluestone Drive and adjacent properties, the lack of sidewalks and pedestrian safety, single‑point ingress/egress for a dense development, and strain on local schools. Jessica Chance, a Bluestone Drive resident, summarized a common theme: "Bluestone has no curbs, no sidewalks," and said adding hundreds of daily trips would worsen safety for children and cyclists.

Public‑works staff and the applicant’s consultants defended the technical studies supporting the project. Keith from Public Works summarized the traffic analysis, saying the project was projected to generate 667 trips per day and that, given distribution, the volumes would remain within roadway capacity standards. The applicant’s consultant and city traffic staff said the traffic impact study followed industry practice and that an MDT (Montana Department of Transportation) approval would be required for some mitigation measures, such as a right‑turn lane at Highway 93 ramps.

Council debate focused on compatibility with the surrounding R‑4 neighborhood, the 200‑foot riparian buffer used in subdivision regulations (and how geotechnical studies might justify a reduced setback), and safety concerns tied to missing sidewalks on Bluestone Drive. Several councilors said they could not support approving a high‑density project without clearer assurance on pedestrian safety and buffer protections.

Councilor Graham moved to approve the annexation, which passed 6–2 (Dahlmann and Fisher opposed). When council took up the zoning ordinance, members moved to amend the proposed RA‑1 zoning to R‑4 (single‑family/duplex) language. The amendment passed; the ordinance as amended carried. Because multifamily development is not permitted in R‑4, the council then voted to deny the conditional‑use permit for the multifamily project; the motion to deny passed by roll‑call vote.

The council framed the actions as a stepwise process: annexation advances municipal jurisdiction and service extension, while zoning and permit decisions reflect neighborhood compatibility and safety. Council members and staff noted that annexation does not predetermine a final development outcome and that the owner could reapply with different plans compatible with R‑4 zoning.

The council’s votes leave the property annexed into Kalispell with R‑4 zoning; the proposed 99‑unit multifamily development will not proceed under the denied conditional‑use permit. The record shows residents urged the council to require more robust pedestrian and drainage mitigations for any future project on the site.