Public outcry delays large Kalispell housing project

At the behest of a packed crowd Tuesday, the Kalispell Planning Board delayed a decision on annexing a 15-acre parcel of property and approving plans to convert its zoning designation to RA-2 and build a 324-unit apartment complex on that property off Two Mile Drive.

The board, meeting in the City Council chambers, heard approximately two hours of public comment, where every speaker except the developer had issues with the proposal. The development would replace what is now a vacant field with a configuration of approximately 15 residential buildings and over 600 parking spots. None of the apartments would be designated as affordable housing or eligible to receive U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds. They would all be market rate.

Though the commission seemed inclined toward improving the project, the tide of negative public comment led them to vote for a continuation, allowing them to consider the motion at the next meeting on Jan. 9. Most members of the public in attendance agreed Kalispell needed more housing, but they all lamented that it was coming in the form of a large apartment complex near the homes they bought before it was proposed.

Council members acknowledged the changes coming to the neighborhood may not be loved by everyone, but one member, Rory Young, also said the project may not be as bad as many residents think it will be and could be much better than an alternative project proposed down the road.

“The devil they don’t know may not be significantly better than the one standing before them,” Young said.

The project had received a recommendation of approval from the Planning Department staff because it meshed well with the city’s growth policy and there were regulations in place to make sure the existing traffic, stormwater and floodplain impacts were minimal.

Many members of the public were against the complex altogether, and others simply claimed they didn’t think the developer, Whipple Consulting Inc., had provided enough answers to address impacts to traffic, safety and stormwater drainage in the area.

Planning Director Tom Jentz said projects of this size are required to have traffic impact studies performed, but it was something that wasn’t typically done until later in the approval process. Developers are required to make sure the neighborhood has the same level of service after the project as they had before, which means if their project is deemed to require infrastructure upgrades, then those improvements fall on their plate.

That would be true regardless of whether the board were to approve the project before or after the traffic impact study, but many in the public said that they would like to fully understand the impact of the 2,155 additional average daily trips the project would generate before they saw their representatives give a stamp of approval.

Young said he spoke with a traffic engineer earlier in the day and he was told traffic increases don’t usually create huge headaches in residential neighborhoods until the number hits about 3,000, so he thought this might not be as bad as residents suspected.

Jentz also mentioned that traffic impact studies are often not performed after Black Friday through much of the winter months because traffic flows in atypical patterns and the length of time it takes cars to accelerate through intersections is largely dependent on fluctuating road conditions. The developer concurred, and cited that as a reason they planned on doing the impact study later in the process.

The result is the complex may not be discussed in depth at the next meeting. Jentz said it would be clearly designated on the Planning Department website whether or not the item would be ready for consideration at the Jan. 9 meeting, and otherwise the council would likely vote for another continuation to the February meeting while data was collected and analyzed.

Some members of the public were concerned about safety, and cited the site design when they said they thought it would be a crime magnet. Currently, the developer has proposed to have the property surrounded by covered parking garages that he said would stand about 16 to 18 feet tall and some speakers expressed concern they would become targets for muggings or if the apartments were designated as affordable they might attract “a certain type of people.”

Whipple reiterated that the apartments were all market rate, and said the garage configuration on the border of the property was actually intended to provide some security and screening for people who lived there. He also said they had included plans for a basketball court, pickle ball court and swimming pool as amenities for the folks who live there.

Dan Savage, a member of the public who was there expressing disdain on behalf of his 82-year-old mother who lives on Teton Street, said he thought pickle ball was a bad idea because it was just a fad.

“If pickle ball is still popular in five years I will quit my job and volunteer as a referee,” Savage said.

He was also upset because he said that his mother lived just outside the range that neighbors are notified, but the project still affected her greatly.

Another man, Earl Holst, said he had lived on Two Mile Drive since he moved there in 1965 and he didn’t want to see another field turn to more houses, and if he did he wanted them to be single-family homes.

He said when he moved in, there was pasture across the street, and now everyone was moving in and he liked Kalispell the way it was.

“They don’t even process milk at the dairy anymore,” Holst said.

Reporter Peregrine Frissell may be reached at (406) 758-4438 or pfrissell@dailyinterlake.com.