[0:02] Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the Kalispell
[0:07] City Planning Commission. Today is Tuesday, July 14th, 2026. Can we get a roll call,
[0:13] please? Dustin Lethbridge here. Kate Walker here. Brett Huff.
[0:21] Cody Hunter here Doug Kaufman. Emmett Van Allen here. Rory Young.
[0:31] We have a quorum for tonight's meeting. Uh, with that, I would look to our next order
[0:38] to be um motion from the board regarding last month's minutes.
[0:48] I moved to approve the minutes from June. 9th, 20262. We
[0:56] have motion in a second. Uh, all those in favor of approving the minutes signify
[1:00] by stating aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Seeing none, those minutes are approved.
[1:12] Moving on, uh, we move into hear the public. This is an opportunity for anyone to
[1:18] speak on any items that are not on our agenda tonight. Um, we have 3 agenda items
[1:25] tonight. 2 of them relate to MAC development and the third one is to the Habitat
[1:33] for Humanity application. So, if you have comments on either of those 3 agenda items.
[1:47] Any of the public
[1:51] Seeing none. I'm gonna close. I hear the public for this evening and move into our
[1:56] public hearing. As I said, there are um 3 agenda items tonight. First is an application
[2:03] from Mac Development, um, Who are proposing to acquire and rehabilitate an existing
[2:10] HUD-assisted senior rental located at 333rd Avenue West in Carlspell. The second
[2:18] item is from MAC Development as well. They are looking to um Do a
[2:26] Low-income rental housing community, 24 units at 40 Appleway Drive. Our third item
[2:34] is a request from Habitat for Humanity of VAT Head Valley. For uh.
[2:43] An annexation and initial zoning and planned unit development.
[2:49] Uh, let's start with our first item. I believe we have representatives from Mac Development
[2:57] to tell us about what they have going on on 3rd Avenue.
[3:03] And just a reminder, sorry, Grant, before you start, there is no action required
[3:07] from the board. This is just an opportunity for Mac Development to present to the
[3:11] public and gather any um input.
[3:16] Grant Schnell Mack Development, 180 Fonner Road, Whitefish, Montana. Uh, we're in
[3:21] the process of doing an acquisition rehab at the Elms at 333rd Avenue West. It's
[3:27] an existing senior community that has 41 project-based vouchers on it. We recently
[3:32] got awarded by the Montana Board of Housing for 4% LTTEX, LTTE tax credits to layer
[3:36] in there. Um, targeting closing in September. Uh, we're doing the public notice just
[3:43] because we will be property tax exempt. So as part of that process, we had to notify
[3:48] the public through this. Um, but we're gonna extend the further life of the property
[3:52] as affordable and keep it at 60% AMI across the board. So, thank you.
[4:00] Thank you. Uh, any public comment on, um, item number one of our public hearing?
[4:11] Any public comment?
[4:15] Seeing none, I'm going to close the first item on our agenda and move straight into
[4:19] the second item. Uh, same Mac development, looking to develop at 40 Appleway Drive.
[4:29] Do you want me to say the name again? Grant Schnell Mack Development, 180 Funner
[4:33] Road, Whitefish, Montana. Similar to this one, this is a 24 unit project we were
[4:39] awarded 9% tax credits on last year. We will start construction in the next couple
[4:43] of weeks, uh, also doing public notice just because we will be property tax exempt
[4:47] here as well. The property will range between 50 and 60% of the area median income,
[4:53] and it is a family product. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, any public comment
[5:00] on item number 2, the Apple Way Drive development.
[5:10] Any public comment? Anyone online? Nope. OK. Seeing no comment. I'm gonna close
[5:18] item number 2 on our agenda. And move into item number 3. this is file
[5:25] KA 26-01 and file KPUD 26-01. Habitat for Humanity of Flathead
[5:33] Valley has submitted a request for annexation, initial zoning of R3 residential with
[5:39] a planned unit development overlay. And planned unit development approval for the
[5:44] Birchwood PUD. The proposed development consists of approximately 95 residential
[5:49] units, including townhomes, cottages, and detached single-family residences on approximately
[5:55] 21.32 acres of real property, generally located west of Northland Drive.
[6:03] Staff report, please. Good evening, Commissioner Donnie McBath planner too. Tonight
[6:08] I will be presenting Staff Report K 26-02 for Birchwood annexation and initial zoning
[6:14] applications and a staff report KPUD 26-01 for the Birchwood plan unit development
[6:21] application. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the proposal,
[6:26] summarize staff's review, and present the findings and recommendations contained
[6:30] in staff report. The subject property consists of approximately 21.32 acres located
[6:35] east of US Highway 93 alternative, south of Four Mile Drive, west of Northland Drive,
[6:40] and north of Northridge Way. The applicant is Habitat for Humanity of Flathead Valley
[6:45] Incorporated. The applicant is requesting annexation into the city of Kalispell,
[6:51] initial zoning to R3 residential with a planned unit development overlay, and approval
[6:56] of a planned unit development for approximately 95 residential dwelling units, including
[7:02] detached single-family homes, cottage homes, and town homes. During this presentation,
[7:07] I'll summarize the applicable review criteria, discuss the technical information
[7:11] submitted in the report of the applications. Present staff analysis and findings,
[7:16] and conclude with staff recommendation to the planning commission.
[7:22] The review of this application is governed by the Montana Land Use Planning Act,
[7:25] MALUUIPA and the city's adopted Kalispell Land Use Plan Planet 2045. Together, these
[7:31] establish the applicable review process and approval criteria. Under MALUUIPA, each
[7:36] land use application must be evaluated independently using its own statutory and
[7:41] local approval criteria. Even when multiple applications are considered concurrently.
[7:47] This evening, the commission is considering three related applications, annexation,
[7:52] initial zoning, plan unit development. Although a preliminary subdivision plat has
[7:56] been submitted, it is reviewed through a separate process. It is not before the planning
[8:00] commission this evening. If these applications are approved, detailed engineering
[8:04] plans, utility design, public infrastructure improvements, and pre preliminary subdivision
[8:09] plat will continue through the city's subdivision and engineering review process.
[8:14] Throughout this presentation, I will identify the applicable review criteria, summarize
[8:18] the technical information submitted by the applicant, and explain how staff applied
[8:22] those standards in reaching its recommendation.
[8:26] The subject property consists of approximately 21.32 acres located east of US Highway
[8:31] 93 alternative, south of Four Mile Drive, west of Northland Drive, and north of Northridge
[8:37] Way. The property is currently within unincorporated Flathead County and is proposed
[8:41] for annexation into the city of Kalispell. The site is concurrently undeveloped and
[8:46] was previously owned by the Montana Department of Transportation in association with
[8:50] construction of the US Highway 93 alternative corridor. The surrounding area includes
[8:55] existing and developing residential neighborhoods to the east and south, vacant land
[8:59] to the north, and the US Highway 93 alternative corridor to the west. The future
[9:04] land use map shown on the left, designates the property as a medium density residential
[9:09] under the Kalispell Land Use Plan Planet 2045. The vicinity map shown on the right
[9:15] illustrates the property's relationship to the surrounding transportation network
[9:18] and adjacent neighborhoods. The medium density residential designation provides the
[9:23] policy framework for evaluating the proposed annexation, initial zoning, and plan
[9:27] unit development applications and serves as the basis for the staff's consistency
[9:31] analysis.
[9:34] Before discussing the traffic impact study, I'd like to orient the commission to
[9:38] the proposed access and circulation patterns serving the development. As shown on
[9:42] the aerial photograph, the property does not have direct vehicular access to US Highway
[9:47] 93, alternative or 4-mile drive. Access to the development is provided through the
[9:52] existing local street network. The proposed primary access is from the Northland
[9:57] Drive, located along the southeastern portion, which is right here. I'm sorry, right,
[10:03] right over here. And a secondary access is proposed from North Ridge Way, providing
[10:08] an additional connection from the neighborhood circulation, which would be right
[10:11] over in this way.
[10:15] Additional connect connection from the neighborhood, circulation, emergency services,
[10:19] and overall network connectivity. The proposed street network also includes a future
[10:24] street connection to the north. Which would be right in this area, which connects.
[10:31] Allowing for connectivity should the adjacent property develop and supporting the
[10:35] city's long-term transportation planning objectives. These proposed access points
[10:40] formed the basis of the traffic impact study and were evaluated by the applicant's
[10:44] traffic engineer, the city's independent third-party traffic engineering consultant
[10:48] and public works as part of the overall transportation review.
[10:55] The conceptual development plan establishes the overall framework for the proposed
[11:00] neighborhood, including 95 residential dwelling units consisting of detached single-family
[11:05] homes, cottage homes, and town homes. The plan also illustrates the internal street
[11:11] network, residential lot layout, pedestrian connections, common open space, landscaping,
[11:17] and stormwater facilities. The overall residential density is approximately 4.46
[11:22] dwelling units per gross acre, which is considered the medium density residential
[11:27] designation in Kalispell land use plan, plant 45, and remains below the maximum density
[11:32] anticipated for that designation. As part of its review, staff evaluated the conceptual
[11:37] development plan for consistency with the plan unit development regulations, the
[11:41] Kalispell land use plan, and the applicable review criteria contained in the Kalispell
[11:45] zoning ordinance. It is important to note that this application establishes the overall
[11:51] development framework for the site. Detailed engineering plans, utility infrastructure,
[11:56] subdivision improvements, and construction plans will be reviewed separately through
[12:00] the subdivision engineering and building permit processes if applications are approved.
[12:05] The conceptual development plan shown on the slide serves as the basis for the staff's
[12:08] evaluation of the plan unit development application.
[12:13] As part of the plan unit development application, the applicant is requesting several
[12:17] deviations from the development standards contained in the Kalispell zoning ordinance
[12:22] and the Kalispell subdivision regulations. The plan unit development process provides
[12:26] flexibility in the site design while ensuring the overall development remains consistent
[12:31] with the intent of the zoning ordinance. The Kalispell land use plan and the applicable
[12:36] approval criteria contained in section 27.19.020 of the Kalispell zoning ordinance.
[12:43] For this application, the requested deviations include the absence of an east-west
[12:47] street connection, the use of private alleys to serve certain residential lots. Reduced
[12:53] minimum lot sizes, and reduced minimum lot widths. The exhibit shown on the slide
[12:58] illustrates the proposed street layout, lot configuration, and access patterns associated
[13:03] with the request. Staff evaluated each requested deviation using the Abaco plan unit
[13:08] development and subdivision review criteria. The analysis considered whether the
[13:12] deviations are supported by the overall site design, remain consistent with the intent
[13:16] of the Applicable regulations, and satisfy the required approval criteria. The applicant's
[13:21] justification, staff's analysis, and the recommended findings for each deviation
[13:27] are discussed within the greater detail within the staff report.
[13:32] The applicant submitted a geotechnical investigation prepared by Alpine Geotechnical,
[13:37] dated August 19, 2025, to evaluate sub-service conditions and provide recommendations
[13:44] for the proposed development. The investigation identifies the property as a known
[13:49] fill site associated with the construction of the US Highway 93 alternative corridor.
[13:53] Fill depths generally range from approximately 5 ft to more than 17 ft across portions
[13:58] of the site. Beneath the fill, the investigation primary encountered native silt
[14:03] soils, a native gravel identified only in isolated areas. This, the investigation
[14:08] identifies several geotechnical considerations for future development, including
[14:12] grading, roadway construction, utility installation, foundation design, and long-term
[14:18] settlement. Because subsurface conditions vary across the site, foundation recommends,
[14:24] recommendations may also vary depending on conditions encountered during construction.
[14:29] Recommended engineering measures include engineered fill placement, removal and recompaction
[14:34] of unsuitable materials where necessary, geotextile, stabilization fabric, triaxial
[14:41] geogrid reinforcement beneath roadway sections, and geotechnical observation and
[14:46] testing during grading and construction. The geotechnical investigation concludes
[14:50] that the property can be developed provided its recommendations are incorporated
[14:55] into the project's design and construction. Staff's review did not identify information
[15:00] inconsistent with those conclusions. Accordingly, the recommended condition of approval
[15:05] require compliance with the geotechnical investigation during future engineering
[15:09] review. Subdivision improvements, infrastructure construction. And building permit
[15:15] review to ensure those recommendations are implemented throughout subsequent phases
[15:20] of development.
[15:24] The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by WGM Group to evaluate
[15:29] the transportation impacts associated with the proposed development. The study evaluates
[15:33] a residential development consisting of 95 dwelling units and estimates the project
[15:38] will generate approximately 1,014 average daily vehicle trips at full buildout using
[15:44] the Institute of Transportation, Engineering, ITE trip generation methodology. The
[15:50] analysis evaluates traffic operations under both existing and projected future conditions,
[15:55] including the surrounding roadway network and intersections anticipated to experience
[15:59] traffic generated by the proposed development. The study assumes primary access from
[16:05] Northland Drive, secondary access from North Ridge Way, and a future street connection
[16:11] to the north as adjacent properties develop. The plan unit development application
[16:16] also includes requests for deviations from the city's standard street connectivity
[16:20] requirements, including the absence of the east-west street connection and the use
[16:24] of private alleys serving portions of the development. Those requests were evaluated
[16:29] independently under the applicable planned unit development review criteria. The
[16:32] traffic impact study identifies a reduction in level of service for one intersection
[16:37] movement under the future conditions. However, that movement is projected to continue
[16:41] operating at an acceptable level of service. Based on the analysis, the study does
[16:46] not identify transportation improvements attributable to proposed development. At
[16:51] the city's request, the traffic impact study was also reviewed by an independent
[16:56] third-party traffic engineering consultant in coordination with public works department.
[17:01] Together, those reviews evaluated projected traffic operations, access circulation,
[17:06] connectivity, and traffic distribution to determine whether the surrounding transportation
[17:10] network could accommodate the projected traffic volumes. Detailed roadway design,
[17:15] intersection, geometry, alley design, parking layout, emergency access, drainage,
[17:20] utilities, and subdivision improvements will be reviewed through this, the subsequent
[17:25] engineering and subdivision review processes in the applications if the applications
[17:30] are approved.
[17:33] Because the property is located adjacent to the US Highway 93 alternative corridor,
[17:37] the applicant submitted an acoustical analysis prepared by Big Sky Acoustics to evaluate
[17:42] the traffic noise impacts associated with the proposed residential development. The
[17:46] study evaluated projected traffic volumes and noise levels throughout the site and
[17:50] identified portions of the western edge of the development that would exceed the
[17:54] city's 60 decibels exterior residential noise standard. Without mitigation. To address
[18:01] those impacts, the study recommends a sound.
[18:06] Attenuation, sorry, I can't pronounce that word. System consisting of 6-foot sound
[18:12] wall constructed on top of 2-foot berm, providing a total mitigation height of approximately
[18:17] 8 ft. According to the analysis, these measures would reduce projected noise levels
[18:22] to the city's exterior residential noise standard for the affected portions of the
[18:26] development. The conceptual development plan includes open space along the western
[18:31] property. Adjacent to the bypass corridor, providing an area where the recommended
[18:37] mitigation measures could be located. Final design, location, landscaping, ownership,
[18:42] maintenance responsibilities, and construction details will be addressed during subsequent
[18:46] engineering and subdivision review if the application is approved. The acoustical
[18:51] analysis concludes that the projected traffic noise impacts can be mitigated through
[18:55] implementation of the recommended measures. According to the recommended conditions
[18:59] of approval require those recommendations to be incorporated into future engineering
[19:03] and subdivision review.
[19:06] And here are two examples of pictures. Figure 3 shows. Uh, the year 2046 with
[19:14] no barrier, and then figure 4, 2046 with an eight-foot barrier, and you can see.
[19:22] The distances
[19:26] In each decibel there.
[19:32] Throughout the review process, staff evaluated the applications for consistency with
[19:36] the Montana Land Use Planning Act, the Kalispell Land Use Plan planned at 2045, the
[19:40] Kalispell zoning ordinance, and the applicable provisions of the Kalispell subdivision
[19:44] regulations. As part of that review, the applications were circulated to the appropriate
[19:49] city departments and reviewing agencies including public works, engineering, Parks
[19:53] and recreation, the Kalispell Fire Department, and other affected agencies. Staff
[19:57] also evaluated the technical information submitted by the applicant, including the
[20:01] traffic impact study, geotechnical investigation, acoustical analysis, utility information,
[20:07] and other supporting documentation. Public comment has been submitted and is attached
[20:11] in the packet. Based on the information contained in the record and staff's evaluation
[20:16] on the applicable approval criteria, staff finds that the applications satisfy the
[20:21] required standards for approval subject to the recommended findings and conditions
[20:26] contained in the staff reports. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the planning commission
[20:31] for the recommendation of approval to the city council for the annexation, initial
[20:35] zoning, and plan unit development applications, subject to the findings and conditions
[20:40] presented in the staff reports. This concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to
[20:43] answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Johnny. Any questions from the commission
[20:49] for staff? Um, I just wanted to touch on the traffic impact
[20:57] study. We do not know what it, like, how the roads may be.
[21:05] Altered or adjusted in order to address the increased traffic in that area? At this
[21:12] point Yeah, the, the analysis that was completed really showed that there's only
[21:18] one level of service drop that per our standards requires um mitigation and that
[21:25] was by 1 2nd. So, you know, that level of service drop, I can't remember if it took
[21:30] it from an A to a B or a B to a C, but anyways, B to a C. Um, and with the third-party
[21:37] analysis, what was determined was that, uh, our standards require that they do a,
[21:43] um, uh, an analysis where you would look at the term of the, the period which is
[21:51] I think 5 years and look at the background growth without the development versus
[21:55] with the development. And likely when that analysis is completed, which will be um
[22:01] upcoming. Um, I don't think a level of service drop will actually be, uh, identified.
[22:06] Um, so when they, when they did it, they just did it from today to the future, and
[22:12] that shows, uh, level of service drop, but that doesn't, um, that isn't quite per
[22:17] our requirements, um, and then as far as the, the capacity of the roadway, um, yeah,
[22:23] the, the local streets, um, typically I think. If you do a uh um volume to
[22:30] capacity uh analysis, you can look at a level of service that way, that wasn't completed
[22:36] as part of this TIS it's something that we could ask for in, in the, um The addendum
[22:43] to the, the TIS, but a local street has quite a bit of capacity for the amount of
[22:49] traffic that we're gonna be pulling out of this. OK, thank you.
[22:58] Any other questions?
[23:02] Oh, I did have one more. Did, um. And maybe Mike is going to address this, but did
[23:09] we get a map of this development adjacent to phase of uh Northland subdivision that
[23:17] we were going to look at? We requested it during the work session.
[23:26] So you're requesting a map for the, the, the development in relation to the phase
[23:32] that's being built of Northland subdivision adjacent to the east. So a map like
[23:39] what's on here, well, showing the actual road infrastructure of that that phase of
[23:45] Northland that is currently being built. Because we had a question about connecting
[23:50] east and west and why that wasn't able to be accomplished. And I know through and
[23:55] then kind of looping up towards the north in the situation right through there with
[23:58] another connection coming through here. There's quite a bit of topography that slopes
[24:02] down towards um these homes in this area, um, as well as through here. When that
[24:08] subdivision went through, there weren't any provisions for any connections there
[24:11] because of that topography made it. Not impossible, but next to impossible, uh, to
[24:17] make a road connection that would come down. So there are no provisions for a connection
[24:21] to be there. Uh, and that's why you would see that with the, uh, Good.
[24:29] Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with it personally, but my Fellow commissioners may not
[24:36] be. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, sure, it's hard to bounce back and forth. Um,
[24:44] the other thing that they wound up doing with this too is had quite a bit of buffering
[24:48] along this area, um, which is a second reason why there wasn't, uh, a provision for
[24:53] connection through there. Um, and they were doing that partly because of the Difficulty
[24:59] in getting some of the building sites on that slope, but uh it did open up the area
[25:03] for quite a bit of green space and buffering between those adjoining areas. That's
[25:07] another reason why that connection didn't go through. So hopefully that gives you
[25:10] a little bit of a picture of what was going on.
[25:18] Questions. Um, I am curious, looking at page 74 of the PUD,
[25:25] um, there is some reliance on future road network changes, um, uh, attaching to 4
[25:32] Mile Drive over that hill, um, and that's reliant on that property to the north developing.
[25:40] Should that not come to pass, is there some. Uh, way to mitigate the traffic through
[25:45] this area, or is that just hanging?
[25:50] If, if that connection were made, it would actually help the level of service drop
[25:55] that um is is indicated in the current TIS um so I mean that would actually mitigate
[26:02] that my question is if it were not to be developed, yeah, if it were not to be developed,
[26:09] then it, it actually it appears once they update the TIS report that it's, it's already
[26:17] meeting our standard.
[26:23] Any questions? I had one question. There's a number of conditions related to the
[26:29] geotechnical and I'm sure there will be questions on that. Um, I haven't seen the
[26:36] condition before about a geotechnical compliance plan. Um, I don't know, uh, Keith,
[26:42] if that came from Public Works or Donnie, if you can just give us a high-level review
[26:47] of what, what you're expecting. That's a little different in this subdivision because
[26:52] of the geotech issues, right? It is a little bit different in some senses. It's there
[26:56] because there isn't a specific plan in place and how to mitigate it, and the geotech
[27:00] called out a lot of different options. So there was helical peers or, you know, do
[27:04] you excavate things out. Um, I know they were looking at putting together a potential
[27:09] plan to, um, excavate out building sites and then come back and, and compact those
[27:14] areas to address that. Um, public works and building department both looked at the,
[27:18] uh, geotech that came in, but because there was a broad range that would come in
[27:22] there without a specific plan on what was going on, that was essentially what was
[27:25] being called out is, uh, you know, before it moved to any type of development of
[27:29] the property, having a, you know, a specific engineering plan on how to deal with
[27:33] some of those findings in the geotech report. OK, thank you. Last chance questions?
[27:41] No? OK. Um, with that, I will open this up for public comment. Uh, if you have
[27:49] anything to Uh, present to the commission this evening. Please step to the microphone,
[27:54] state your name and address, and give us your thoughts.
[28:08] Good evening. I'm Jeff Wilson, um, 196 Fairway Boulevard in Kalispell. I'm the real
[28:14] estate broker representing the Kalispell Public Schools Student Built Home program.
[28:20] And we just completed our 11th home, uh, directly south. Of this development, and
[28:26] we've got one lot left to build on, and one of the unique situations for our program
[28:32] is that each year we have to establish a lot, Adjoining our project to put the classroom
[28:40] and all of our equipment on while we build. And Westcraft has been very great to
[28:45] us over the last 6 years that we've built in that development south of this, and
[28:50] now we're going to be out of room, uh, going forward, so we're actually in progress
[28:55] of leasing space directly on this property for next year's build, while we build
[29:02] the very last home. And our intent and, and discussions with Habitat are to potentially
[29:08] pivot the program into this development in the future. So, we have a really deep
[29:14] interest in hoping this goes through, because this location suits the program very
[29:19] well from bussing students from Flathead and Glacier, it's very central and minimizes
[29:24] travel time for the kids. We've been averaging 25 to 40 kids per year that are in
[29:29] our program. And we have a new teacher actually that we're excited to kind of pivot
[29:34] from right now. So, again, we have a very deep interest in hoping this goes through
[29:39] because this would be a really good project for our program to pivot into, and we
[29:44] would have enough adjoining lots next to each project each year to be able to stage
[29:49] our equipment on. So I would encourage the commission to accept the annexation on
[29:54] the proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
[30:07] Um, Mike Brody, WGM Group, um, representing the applicant tonight, um, 4 through
[30:12] 1 1st Avenue West. I actually didn't know about the student-built homes, which is
[30:16] kind of cool, but, um, I'm really excited about this development and kind of the
[30:20] format that we're trying to do here. Um, I appreciate the thorough staff report from,
[30:25] um, Donnie and PJ and, um, Keith for having that third party review too. Um. Ms.
[30:32] Walker, I, I was gonna address some of the level of service elements there, um, that
[30:37] I heard. Um, I, I do want to just define what this level of service that we're talking
[30:41] about here is, is out at um Northland Drive and Four Mile Drive is the only area
[30:46] that is potentially impacted. Um, Mr. Van Allen, you pointed out too that if it does
[30:51] go through to the north, which it's clearly planned for, um, That to potentially
[30:59] happen, should it happen. Um, it, it, all that goes away, um, but as the third-party
[31:06] reviewer seemed to concur with our agreement that you really may not have an issue
[31:11] at that intersection when we're talking about level of service, we're talking about
[31:14] delay time at a, at an intersection, so. A level of service B is 10 to 15 seconds
[31:20] of wait and a level of service C is 15 to 25 seconds of waiting at a stop light or
[31:27] a stop sign or whatever. And in this case, it's going from, in the no build condition,
[31:32] it goes from a level of service B of 14 seconds of wait to a level of service C of
[31:37] 15 seconds of wait. So it's really not uh a notable impact, right? Um. It is just
[31:45] right on that cusp between those two levels of services, which is why I believe the
[31:48] third party agreed with our study as well. Um, As far as the exhibits
[31:56] that you requested as well, Ms. Walker, I did just forward those to Mr. McBath and
[32:01] uh PJ as well. Um, we talked about them in person, we didn't send them in, so I apologize
[32:08] for not bringing those with me tonight. Um, I don't know if they're able to access
[32:12] their email, um, but, um, we can definitely provide those after, but it indicates
[32:19] what you're describing. It's probably about 50 to 60 ft of grade that goes from one
[32:22] side to the other. Um, and then as far as the geotech, as you mentioned, I'm not
[32:28] really sure what a. Geotech compliance report, it looks like either. I assume it's
[32:33] gonna be a plan of how we're addressing those thoughts and making sure that I don't
[32:36] think Habitat or anyone else wants to be responsible for homes that settle and um
[32:42] end up with a bad problem and it truly, it's a really challenging scenario to deal
[32:47] with, right? Um So, what we are tentatively proposing is to essentially dig out through
[32:53] those lot lines. Um, I had an exhibit that I also forward in that same email with
[32:58] this, but it's, um, essentially they run a strip to take that down and then rebuild
[33:04] it back up. Um, and I imagine in that compliance report, we would be looking at,
[33:10] uh, testing frequencies that either lifts or, um, Different areas so that we can
[33:16] verify that this actually does get put back in a good place. So, um, if there are
[33:21] any other questions, I'm happy to answer, but I appreciate uh everyone's time. Thank
[33:25] you. Thank you, Mr. Brodie.
[33:43] Get this one. Hi, I'm Naomi Valentine, uh, 197 Cottage Drive. I live near the site
[33:50] of the proposed Birchwood mixed-income residential development. I'm here today both
[33:55] as a nearby resident and as someone who works for NeighborWorks Montana, a statewide
[33:59] nonprofit focused on expanding access to safe, stable, and affordable housing. From
[34:03] both perspectives, I strongly support this project. Kalispell needs more attainable
[34:08] homes for working families, and Habitat for Humanity has a long proven track record
[34:13] of delivering permanently affordable housing that strengthens neighborhoods over
[34:16] generations. Their mixed-use proposal adds thoughtfully designed homes and community
[34:20] space in a location that already has nearby infrastructure, services, and connectivity.
[34:25] As someone born and raised in Kalispell, I want to emphasize how important infill
[34:29] development is for Kalispell's long-term health. Annexing and zoning this development
[34:33] into the existing footprint is more sustainable, more fiscally responsible, and far
[34:37] better for preserving the farmland and open spaces that surround our community. Infill
[34:42] uses existing roads and utilities, reduces sprawl, and keeps us growing in a way
[34:46] that still protects the character and agricultural heritage of our valley. As someone
[34:51] who lives close by and someone who works everyday on housing solutions for Montana,
[34:55] I believe this project is exactly the kind of responsible community-focused development
[34:59] Kalispell needs. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Aldentine.
[35:15] James Thompson, 144 Northland Drive. Are you kidding me? 1000
[35:23] more vehicle trips per day on Northland Drive. And that does not include construction
[35:29] traffic. Based on the phasing plan, this is going to go on for years. This subdivision
[35:37] should not be approved without a northern connection to Four Mile Drive. The amount
[35:42] of construction traffic for development will be staggering. The amount of soil that
[35:50] needs to be hauled in and out is probably going to be 3 times that of a normal subdivision
[35:56] based on. Digging out, recompacting. The load of the trucks will destroy Northland
[36:03] Drive, let alone the dust and dirt created by the construction traffic. I just lived,
[36:08] I'm living through phase 5 of Northland right now, and I can assure you the dirt
[36:14] and the filth of that development has been awful, and this is going to go on all
[36:19] the way up Northland Drive.
[36:23] The connection only requires an additional 250 ft of roadway if the proposed second
[36:29] access is deleted. There's no topographic constraint to the north for a connection
[36:35] to 4 Mile Drive, and the connection should only be about 500 ft. The phasing plan
[36:41] could be adjusted to accommodate the connection.
[36:48] The property owner to the north. His Touchmark LLC of of Beaverton, Oregon.
[36:55] This access would also benefit their property for future development. Habitat should
[37:01] at least pursue this opportunity, as it would be of great benefit to both properties.
[37:07] Habitat's nonprofit status could be a great advantage to both parties in creating
[37:12] the connection. The intersection of 4 Mile Drive and Northland Drive also needs to
[37:18] be improved, as is as an initial requirement for a left turn lane, improved right-turn
[37:24] lane. When turning right off a 4-mile Drive, you need to swing way right because
[37:29] of the way the road was constructed several years ago. City of Kalispell should not
[37:36] just roll over and approve this subdivision because it's habitat for humanity. These
[37:42] are critical conditions and are essential to protect property values, safety, and
[37:47] livability of all existing and new property owners.
[37:54] At the very least. Kalispell should require Habitat for Humanity to secure access
[38:01] from Four Mile Drive for all site improvement construction traffic. This is not an
[38:08] impossibility, and it has not even been discussed and should be pursued. Finally,
[38:14] I would like to say that this application makes no sense when you're trying to build
[38:18] affordable housing. Even if the property was purchased at a discounted amount, all
[38:24] of the development costs will be significantly higher due to the adverse soil conditions.
[38:30] The cost of roads, utilities, structural foundations will all be considerably a higher
[38:36] price. It just doesn't make sense to move on to a seventeen-foot landfill and try
[38:43] to build affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
[38:55] My name is Wayne Priest. I live at 453 Northridge Drive. Been there for 14 years,
[39:00] and there wasn't anybody else there when we got there in that area. So I watched
[39:04] it all grow, all develop over these last 14 years. Um, Just where the, the
[39:12] state started dumping all of the dugout dirt, what was, that was removed to build
[39:19] the bypass. That, that whole land, everything on that land that was on that map was
[39:26] marshy, swampy, boggy area. From my house that's just uh 3 houses away
[39:34] from where uh 4 mile or where uh uh Northridge Drive ended, those houses flooded
[39:41] out or not, there were no houses there, but the land was flooding out every year
[39:46] with just mild snow melt and, and rain. So when they built those last 3 houses before
[39:53] Northland, Uh, went past and around it. They had to haul in all kinds of dirt to
[40:00] bring that up to, so at least those houses in their basements and crawl spaces wouldn't
[40:05] flood out. I watched almost uh every day, all the dirt being hauled in from where
[40:13] they were digging out the bypass. There was no compaction there at all. They just
[40:18] dumped the dirt, rolled on, dumped the dirt, rolled on for months and months. So
[40:23] that was being dumped on top of the boggy. Uh, marshy, swampy land that's underneath
[40:29] there. So there is some, you know, I didn't understand any of this technological,
[40:34] geological stuff, but it sounded pretty important. And I'm assuming that there's
[40:39] gonna be a lot of trouble and a lot of work to get that land buildable because it's
[40:45] just, I mean, there's what? He said 17 ft of fill that they put in there, and underneath
[40:52] there, it was bogged way down to fill in. And uh that would be a, a considerable,
[40:58] uh Uh, project to undertake, I'm sure. The traffic that goes
[41:05] around there. Uh, of course, that road wasn't even there, and there was no road that
[41:11] went up and over the hill to meet up with Four Mile Drive. Uh, but now that that
[41:16] traffic was opened up and that, what used to be a dead-end cul-de-sac at the time,
[41:21] the traffic that's driving that now is just insane because people come up the hill
[41:27] heading south, they come down into what used to be that old cul-de-sac and turn west
[41:31] to come down the little round hill. People drive that like it's uh the Grand Prix.
[41:36] And they come screeching around that old cul-de-sac. They come down right past where
[41:40] this big, big primary road, access road to this whole development's going to be.
[41:47] And uh they're driving 35, 45 miles an hour. Now, I'm not sure just because there's
[41:53] a lot more houses and a lot more traffic, people are gonna slow down to make room
[41:58] for all of that. The second approach down closer to the bypass there, uh, that's
[42:05] just going into an alley and, and a walk path for the bypass. And uh to have that
[42:11] connected and become one of the principal. Uh, secondary access and egress for that,
[42:18] uh, seems to me to be not well thought through because there's not gonna be any room
[42:23] or space to provide room for that kind of traffic coming down through that far western
[42:28] approach. So neither one of those approaches really are uh ideal for this kind of
[42:34] larger project. Um, glad to see, uh, Habitat for Humanity reaching out and building,
[42:40] and I hope they can solve some of these problems in order to accomplish their goals
[42:46] and purposes.
[42:49] Thank you.
[43:03] Hi. My name is Mary Beth Morand. I'm the director of Habitat for Humanity of Flathead
[43:10] Valley, 2535 Highway 93 South. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
[43:18] Um, although tonight's discussion is largely a technical review, I would like to
[43:23] take this opportunity to make public comment on the purpose and intent of Birchwood,
[43:28] our proposed development, especially in the news of the day, uh, the two articles
[43:33] in The Daily Interlake, one being that, uh, Kalispell leads Montana in population
[43:39] growth. And secondly, um, the article that couples Habitat for Humanity with the
[43:46] Mack Development Project. Um, the first article points to something that we all know,
[43:51] we need more housing because we're growing very fast. Or the second article points
[43:56] to the fact that there are very different types of housing that the community needs.
[44:02] Thus, I feel compelled to remind the community and the commission that Birchwood,
[44:07] the proposed housing subdivision for Habitat Flathead, is developing something that
[44:13] is not at all similar to the low-income project on Appleway Drive. Birchwood is a
[44:19] mixed-income homeowner-occupied only. Development and it is in compliance as you
[44:26] saw tonight with all of the land use regulations and it is below the maximum density
[44:31] reg regulations and none of those properties will be tax exempt. Birchwood is being
[44:38] co-built with two of the current neighboring builders in Northridge, Westcraft Homes,
[44:43] Iron Star Construction, and Student-Built Homes, who are all deeply staked in this
[44:50] area of Kalispell and will protect their current investment by ensuring that Birchwood
[44:55] is the most attractive, livable, and viable subdivision possible. In other words,
[45:01] our business partners are amongst the last people who want to bring down the comps
[45:06] or livability of this neighborhood at large. I also just want to remind people about
[45:14] the reasons why Habitat Flat has, has chosen to co-build with private sector partners.
[45:21] Habitat only serves households at 80% of area median income. And currently, that
[45:28] means for a two-person household, uh, a household income of about $65,000 or a four-person
[45:35] household of about $82,000. We realize that the need for affordable housing goes
[45:41] beyond people at 80% of area median income, AMI. In fact, even households making
[45:48] as much as 200% of AMI are having a really hard time getting into homes because of
[45:53] high home prices, because wages have not kept up with housing prices, and because
[45:59] it has become almost impossible for aspiring homeowners to save for down payments
[46:04] at today's home prices. And because of relatively high interest rates, that mean
[46:09] a lot of people aren't being qualified at 6.5% or 7%, whereas they would have easily
[46:15] been qualified at 4 or 5%.
[46:19] Habitat Flathead has worked out a way for our private sector partners to afford to
[46:24] build by affordably selling them lots on a property that we bought at a discount.
[46:30] We are dedicated to the idea of making affordable housing affordable to build with
[46:36] our partners. Also, we see housing as a socioeconomic problem that has affected the
[46:42] stability of our community and our valley's households. Habitat Flathead believes
[46:47] the answer to that problem would be the creation of an integrated neighborhood where
[46:51] homeowners are not stigmatized or labeled, but instead have found affordable homeownership
[46:57] near schools, parks and recreation, bike paths, and other well-established safe neighborhoods.
[47:06] Thirdly, Habitat can only build about 20 houses a year because of the sweat equity
[47:12] requirements of our homeowners and a volunteer-based model. So As the
[47:20] first article in the paper about Kalispell's growth points to, we need more than
[47:25] 20 houses a year, and that's all we can provide as habitat. We need to scale up rapidly
[47:32] and that's why we are building with private sector builders so that this doesn't
[47:36] go on for years and years, but that we can actually build it out and that it's an
[47:41] integrated neighborhood, mixed income and considered. Um, there are 3 last things
[47:48] that I'd like to remind you of. One is, and I don't know if I've brought this up
[47:52] before, but we've always wanted access to Four Mile. We've asked the landowner. I
[47:58] have documentation of it. If there's any way we could get it, we would love to have
[48:02] it. Um, secondly, we already have indications that we will continue to have
[48:10] significant in-kind donations that make it affordable for us to develop this property.
[48:17] Frankly, only a nonprofit can, that can get significant donations can afford to develop
[48:23] this property. Other than that, you, the only ones who have deep enough pockets to
[48:28] develop a property like that is someone like, who's in an apartment building. Builder.
[48:35] They're the only other ones. Uh, a normal developer probably could not develop this.
[48:41] And thirdly, I would like to say that. Habitat for Humanity is in large part fueled
[48:49] by contributions that come from this community. And as executive director of Habitat
[48:54] for Humanity, I take that very seriously. And I would not squander or waste any donation.
[49:02] That has been given to us. And when people give us money, I always know that they
[49:08] may be giving us that money so their household does without other things, either
[49:13] their kids or their grandkids. And I take the stewardship of all of those donations
[49:18] for the development of this property and anything that Habitat does very seriously.
[49:24] So, thank you for reviewing our application and thank you for helping us develop
[49:30] it responsibly and economically.
[49:35] Thank you.
[49:44] Kim Morisaki, um, executive Director of Northwest Montana Community Land Trust. I
[49:49] live at 1329 Bald Eagle Loop in Kalispell. Excuse me, I just want to give a brief,
[49:56] uh, support for this project. Um, Northwest Montana Community Land Trust and Habitat
[50:03] have been in partnership for Nearly 2 years now, I believe. Excuse me. We are
[50:11] working together to build some uh habitat homes on property that was donated to the
[50:17] land trust in Columbia Falls. We've worked together here in Kalispell. We're very
[50:22] excited about this as well. One of the extra benefits of this project, once it is
[50:27] actually built, is the MOU between The land trust and habitat, that the homes that
[50:33] are built by Habitat will in fact continue to be affordable in perpetuity because
[50:40] the land trust will have first right of refusal to purchase them and put them into
[50:44] the land trust. And for those of you who don't understand how the land trust works,
[50:48] um, it's an organization. That was actually started by the city of Kalispell and
[50:54] um the way that we are able to make homes affordable is we take the land price out
[50:59] of the purchase of the home, so people can own the home, lease the land underneath
[51:04] it for $25 with a 75 year transferable and renewable lease. The homes are their homes,
[51:12] they're not renters. And um They have to get a mortgage just like anybody else, and
[51:19] their children can inherit the home or they can sell it. Um, so, the homes have a,
[51:24] have a way of, um, being retaining affordability. We actually go up to 140% area
[51:31] median income. So, any homes that are built in habitat by habitat in this neighborhood
[51:37] are likely to remain affordable forever. Um, also, the land trust would be very interested
[51:43] in purchasing land and having private developers build a few land trust houses mixed
[51:49] into this neighborhood as well, further diversifying the mixed income housing, which,
[51:55] I mean, we have to admit that mixed-income housing is, is the best option. It's what
[52:00] the east and west side of Kalispell is, is mixed income housing and um And that's
[52:06] makes for healthy neighborhoods and healthy uh communities. So, I just wanna say,
[52:12] I'm um very confident in the engineering abilities of, of our engineers in this valley
[52:18] to work out the geotechnical situation. The parking in the neighborhood looks just
[52:23] like The neighborhoods that we already own homes in on Barren Avenue or Barren Way
[52:28] and um over in Empire Loop looks very similar and we'd be happy to be neighbors there
[52:34] with other people there. So, I hope you support it. Thank you.
[52:39] Thank you.
[52:51] Ryan Soika, I'm currently homeless. My last uh physical address was 820 East Idaho,
[52:58] which is known as Parkline Apartments, which I know is a great measure of your current
[53:03] growth program uh with the city. And uh so, I'm just gonna plead the first here,
[53:10] uh, and give you a little bit of peace of my mind. Um, I had a very bad experience
[53:16] when I moved in that apartment. I was the 2nd tenant at the 820 location. And they
[53:23] played the race card on me. They hung me up on the 4th floor of this apartment. And
[53:30] Sitting there waiting, they weren't doing any work, it was like no good, you know,
[53:34] the whole apartment wasn't changing. Um, until they played the race card on me, so
[53:39] I ended up paying off my lease and getting out of there. I moved here in Montana
[53:44] after being born and raised in Central Minnesota, Saint Cloud. I watched a lot of
[53:49] things change in that state, uh, during my life there. Um,
[53:57] Moved south for Texas for 7 years, came back up and had enough of the, the uh. Endless
[54:04] road construction and litter everywhere in Texas, so I thought this would be a good
[54:08] place for me to start life, got a job, uh, apartment lasted for about a month. Uh,
[54:14] so I do have a little bit of, uh, heat on my mind. I'm just gonna share a little
[54:20] bit of it if you could, uh, bear with me for a second. Uh, first, I think common
[54:26] sense just says to me that building these houses does not accomplish anything. What
[54:32] it's doing is setting an agenda. Uh, the people who in Kalispell now who are poor
[54:38] can't afford any of these houses. When you look at what, how much they're going to
[54:42] be charging for these houses, and you look at the actual state that they weren't
[54:46] taking. Into account when they made these figures, these houses are not going to
[54:52] be for poor people, they're going to be for foreigners. That's just the way it is.
[54:57] Uh, so,
[55:01] Uh, as far as uh. And like I say, it's not about racism, it's not about class warfare,
[55:08] it's about culture and right from wrong. Uh.
[55:14] I did do a little bit of investigation and all I can say is don't let the Habitat
[55:18] for Humanity website or the uh Whitefish Credit Union website fool you. Uh, these
[55:25] organizations have an agenda. Uh, and, uh, Like I say, when you look at Minnesota,
[55:31] the state's upside down. I left before they changed their state flag. There's 20
[55:36] city councils that are approved flying the old state flag in Minnesota. And when
[55:43] you look at that flag, it looks just like Montana's flag does now. That state is
[55:49] upside down just like their flag is, and I recommend that Kalispell, Montana not
[55:54] go the same route that they did because I went through it. Nobody said anything.
[55:59] They just watched it happen or they thought somebody else is, is dealing with the
[56:03] details. There's nobody else dealing with the details. These, these organizations
[56:08] are like wolves in sheep's clothing coming in here and they're, what they're, they're
[56:13] selling your face down the river is what they're doing. You should know that. Uh
[56:20] So Um, Like I say, I'll just reiterate, reiterate.
[56:27] These programs are not about giving the serving the poor in Calisville. They're about
[56:34] importing an agenda of cultural change, and it should be known, um. Just say no
[56:41] way, not in my backyard. It's all I can say. Thank you, sir.
[57:02] Hello. My name is Kesa Davison. I live at 312 6th Avenue East in Kalispell. Um, I'm
[57:08] also the owner operator of Iron Star Construction, which is one of Habitat's private
[57:13] sector partners in Birchwood. Um, Jeff Wilson, thank you so much for your comments
[57:18] and also Kim and uh Marybeth also explained why these partnerships matter so much
[57:24] in our community. I want to briefly explain what makes this model workable for a
[57:29] private builder. The answer is predictable lot inventory. My family and I have been
[57:34] building homes in Kalispell for 19 years. Um, to produce those home those homes consistently,
[57:41] we have to know three things. How many lots will be available, when they will be
[57:45] ready, and what they will cost. And that certainty allows us to not only plan the
[57:50] home designs and the pricing, retain our subcontractors, make commitments on supplies,
[57:56] and coordinate those suppliers, but we also can then create a steady pipeline of
[58:01] homes for this community. The benefit to Ironstar and to the other private partners
[58:07] in this uh development is not ever a guaranteed profit as much as I would like for
[58:12] that to be true. It is the opportunity to participate in a multi-year pipeline of
[58:18] lots within a mixed-income homeowner occupied neighborhood. That's the kind of neighborhood
[58:23] that is good for my business, it's good for our community, and it's good for the
[58:27] future of that neighborhood. Existing homes included. I've built 8, we're working
[58:34] on 6 more of the town homes just down the road on Northridge Drive. But predictable
[58:41] inventory does require a predictable approval process. We heard very helpful clarification
[58:47] tonight about traffic studies and we also heard that the independent third-party
[58:52] review generally agrees with WTM's initial analysis. As Birchwood moves into subdivision
[58:58] and then. Engineering review, we ask that this kind of clarity carried forward. Builders
[59:03] can engineer and price known requirements. We cannot responsibly plan around substantial
[59:08] obligations that remain undefined until after the fundraising, after the preliminary
[59:13] approvals, after the pricing, and all those construction commitments can be made.
[59:18] Something will be built on this property. It's included in the footprint where Kalispell
[59:22] as a city has agreed it will grow. The question is what kind of housing will be,
[59:28] will this process make possible. A higher density project can spread infrastructure
[59:32] costs across many more units. This 95 home ownership model cannot do that without
[59:38] increasing the cost of each lot in home and thereby jeopardizing the feasibility
[59:44] of this project. Predictable lot inventory requires predictable housing production.
[59:50] Certainty gives Habitat and us as one of the partners, the ability to control those
[59:54] costs and deliver more attainable homes. I strongly support the approval of Birchwood
[59:59] PUD and a clear predictable path into the next stage. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Davidson.
[1:00:12] Any more public comment?
[1:00:19] One more time. Anyone online?
[1:00:25] No comment. Uh, with that, I'm gonna close public comment on this agenda item and
[1:00:32] look to the board for a motion on the annexation first. Correct, PJ.
[1:00:40] Motion on the annexation first.
[1:00:52] my dog.
[1:00:57] I move to approve file KA 26-01 uh
[1:01:05] for request for annexation and initial zoning to R3.
[1:01:12] Seconded. It's been moved and seconded. Uh, any discussion from the board on annexation?
[1:01:26] Seems pretty straightforward to me. Yeah, it's within the growth boundary.
[1:01:37] No more discussion. Rocco, please.
[1:01:44] Emmett Van Allen Yeah. Cody Hunter, yes, Kate Walker, Dustin
[1:01:52] Leftridge, yes, Rory Young, hi. Motion passes. I would look to the commission for
[1:01:59] a motion on the PUD.
[1:02:09] gonna make me do everything.
[1:02:13] I move to approve application KPUD 26-01 for planned unit development
[1:02:21] overlay and planned unit development approval for the Birchwood PUD. Second.
[1:02:30] We have motion in a second. Any discussion from the board on the PUD.
[1:02:39] Um.
[1:02:45] Seeing none, ready to move forward. Morocco, please.
[1:02:54] Dustin Lethbridge, yes, Emmett Van Allen, yes, Kate Walker, yes, Cody Hunter, no,
[1:03:02] Rory Young, all right.
[1:03:05] Motion passes, uh, so both of those items will go to City council. August 3rd, August
[1:03:13] 3rd, if you. Um. Still have things on your mind, you're welcome to
[1:03:21] bring them to City council, August 3rd. Uh, with that, I'm gonna close our public
[1:03:27] hearing for this evening and move into old business. So, old business, the only item
[1:03:33] we had at the last meeting was the work session on this project. Uh, so nothing had
[1:03:37] gone to council, uh, so nothing to report on that end. OK. New business. So
[1:03:45] new business. We hadn't received any applications in this month. Um, and so because
[1:03:51] of that, we won't be having a meeting, um, in August, uh, so you can take that as
[1:03:56] part of your summer break, I guess. Um, so right now, the next scheduled meeting
[1:04:00] would be actually Wednesday, September 9th, uh, because it comes at the end of Labor
[1:04:05] Day and City council bumps Tuesday and you guys will move to Wednesday. So, uh, next
[1:04:10] scheduled meeting would be Wednesday, September 9th. Assuming we get an application
[1:04:16] in during the month.
[1:04:21] Anything from the board, commission? I'll get it right one day.
[1:04:28] No, nothing. OK. We adjourn.