Residents Express Opposition to Montarise Subdivision

For more than three hours on Sept. 7, members of the public and developers shared their views on a planned subdivision off KM Ranch Road and U.S. Highway 93. The hearing over the property’s zone change request brought hundreds of residents to the Flathead County Fairgrounds, the third time a crowd had gathered to discuss the issue.

The disputed zone change proposal would convert around 155 acres of land on KM Ranch Road from SAG-5 Suburban Agricultural to R-1 Suburban Residential, shrinking the minimum lot size and paving the way for a major residential and commercial development by Montarise Developments and its partner APEC Engineering. Under the land’s current zoning status, developers are constrained by a 5-acre density requirement, allowing for a maximum of 31 units to be constructed on the three parcels. An approved zone change by the county would reduce the density requirement to 1 acre, allowing for the construction of about 150 units.

Moreover, Montarise intends to use a planned unit development (PUD) design, which will increase construction allowances even further. If approved, the PUD will grant Montarise the ability to use about 20 acres of the land for commercial development and the remaining 135 acres for the construction of 268 housing units. The developers plan on building “a mixed density of single-family dwellings with multi-family and a small percentage of compatible commercial use.”

The developers stated to the congregated members of the public that the proposal is necessary to provide enough housing in the Flathead Valley to meet a sharp increase in demand.

“We believe that as much as the community needs anything at this time, it’s quality, affordable housing,” Glen Edwards, vice president of Montarise Developments, said. “In a rapidly growing community like the Flathead County, there are a variety of interests that need to be expressed and it is a considerable challenge to balance those of the existing community while also recognizing the need for new families who come and contribute their talents.”

Almost all of the nearly 50 public comments were in opposition to the proposed zone change and subsequent development, as were a majority of the 100 written comments. Many opponents were allied with Friends for Responsible Rural Growth, a 501(c)3 nonprofit formed in response to the potential KM Ranch Road development.

Those in opposition cited concerns including traffic, development size, environmental issues, wildlife hazards, and the increased impact to local schools and emergency services.

An initial traffic survey conducted by the applicants indicated that KM Ranch Road would see an increase of more than 3,000 vehicle trips a day. Mike Pierson, who lives near the property along U.S. Highway 93, was one of many voices concerned about the increased traffic turning off the highway.

“There’s a need for a traffic light,” Pierson said. “If you want to know what it’s going to look like, go watch one of the baseball games and see the traffic that’s backed up along Highway 93. That’s what it’s going to look like.”

In addition, longtime KM Ranch Road resident Heather Hodges expressed her concerns that the road would be paved in its entirety with the new subdivision. Currently, KM Ranch Road is dirt for most of its length, and many residents spoke about the already high traffic volume of not just cars, but horses, bikers and pedestrians.

“Something would fundamentally change if that road were no longer dirt,” Hodges said. “I can tell you now that if you approve this rezone, there will be no option other than to pave KM Ranch Road in the future. You will be making that decision for everybody that lives on that road, thereby increasing northbound and southbound through traffic, fundamentally reshaping every single home along that route.”

Marc Leichti, owner of APEC Engineering, spoke up during the public comment to push back against what he said was a misrepresentation of the project.

“This project as proposed hits all the spots that are constantly asked for in this county from either existing residents or new potential residents,” Leichti said.

“What is easily forgotten when considering new projects is that others before us accepted the change required to make a place for us,” Montarise VP Edwards added. “Resistance to a new housing development has contributed to significant shortages in the Flathead Valley and will lead to greater imbalances in the life of the community.”

Due to the high volume of written and spoken comments, planning board chair Jeff Larsen requested the board table a decision on the zoning change to allow for adequate time to consider the public input. The board unanimously voted to take up the decision at its October meeting, drawing disapproval from many in the audience. The hearing was initially scheduled to come before the planning board in June, but was postponed twice due to the high number of attendees.

“We heard tonight that developers are here to help with the valley’s housing crisis. There isn’t a crisis for the current residents, only for those who live elsewhere,” Happy Valley resident Rob Bruce told the board. “You represent us, our community, not them. Your responsibility is to those people who live here now.”