Columbia Falls planning board recommends Railroad Park Homes despite neighbors’ objections over ball field

At a public hearing the Columbia Falls planning board voted to recommend City Council approval for Railroad Park Homes, a six‑lot, 1.3‑acre infill development at 394 Railroad Street, despite repeated neighborhood objections that the project will eliminate a long‑used local baseball field.

Planner Eric told the board the project requires three approvals: a growth‑policy map amendment, a zone change to R‑5 residential, and a preliminary plat. He described the parcel as a former Montana Department of Transportation surplus that now sits as a community ball field and said the proposal includes a roughly 15,000‑square‑foot pocket park and six residential lots. Eric noted growth‑policy guidance allowing two to eight units per acre and cited regional housing pressure: “median home price increase from $310,000 in 2019 to $574,000 in 2024,” which he said supports the amendment to allow additional housing supply.

Why it matters: Planning staff recommended the change as infill that better matches surrounding homes and helps meet the city’s stated housing goals. Board members repeatedly said they empathized with neighbors’ loss of open space but also referenced council direction and recent housing analyses that favor using this city‑owned parcel for residential development.

Neighbors at the public hearing urged a different outcome. Resident Donna McCann said she appreciated efforts to add housing but added, “I also am so upset that you would wanna take a little tiny baseball field and turn it into 6 houses...It just makes me sad.” Mike Nagel, who lives across the street, described frequent use of the field and asked whether he would be forced into an HOA or required to pay dues; he said removing the field without a replacement would be unfair to long‑time residents.

An applicant representative, identified in the hearing record as “Sam, Mike Bridal, David Jamboree, 4 3 1 for Stephanie West, Kalispell,” said the pocket park was intended to be open to the public and that the lot layout was designed to be “congruent with some of the existing development surrounding it.” Eric and other board members acknowledged there is no finalized agreement with the baseball association or school district to replace the field and that no guarantee of a replacement site exists.

Formal action: The board voted on three separate motions to adopt staff findings and to recommend approval to City Council for the growth‑policy amendment (GP 2501), the zone change (references in the record to CDC 15‑01/CPT 15‑01 or C2501), and the preliminary plat (CPP 2501). Each motion was seconded and approved by voice vote with no recorded opposition; the board recorded the outcomes as recommendations to the City Council.

Next steps: The board will forward its recommendations to the City Council, which is scheduled to consider the project on May 19 at 7 p.m. Residents were urged to address the council if they want the final decision body to hear their concerns. The planning board noted a planning meeting on June 12 and adjourned the session.

What remains unresolved: There is no written, binding agreement in the hearing record committing the city, the baseball association or the school district to provide an alternate baseball facility. The project approval before City Council will determine whether the board’s recommendations become final.