Kalispell Council Approves Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Development
Officials green-lit the scaled-down 355 single-family housing development on Tronstad Road after council rejected the original proposal’s zone change last June
By Maggie Dresser
The Kalispell City Council on Monday night approved a proposal for the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing development located off of U.S. Highway 93 – greenlighting a new, scaled-down version of the proposal after the council previously rejected a zone change for the original project last June.
In a 5-2 vote, councilors approved the preliminary plat, planned unit development and the re-zoning to R-2, which allows for higher density, with councilors Jed Fisher and Ryan Hunter voting in opposition. The council also approved an annexation bringing the property into city limits in a separate 6-1 vote, with Fisher voting in opposition. Councilors Sid Daoud and Jessica Dahlman were absent during the vote.
Last month, the Kalispell Planning Commission approved the scaled-down proposal after it was brought forward again following the council’s denial of the original proposal’s zone change last June.
Following the council’s rejection five months ago, developers Frank Garner and Jon Sonju – both former Republican lawmakers – returned with a project that reduced the density from 380 lots to 355. Minimum lot sizes would be 6,000 square feet with the largest lot at 19,878 square feet. The original proposal included a maximum lot size of 10,000 square feet.
Developers also adjusted the proposed subdivision’s layout to include buffering along its borders, placing smaller lots in the interior and beginning the initial phases on the southeast corner to provide the least amount of impact to neighbors. Accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals would be prohibited in the development to prevent further congestion.
City councilors at the June meeting approved a growth policy change.
Some councilors felt the changes introduced by the developers significantly improved the project and addressed concerns of density, layout, construction timing and infrastructure upgrades.
“There’s a lot of changes here that I’ve seen, and some of them are big,” Council President Chad Graham said. “Some of them are huge concessions.”
The project also entails a collaboration with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) to install right and left turn lanes on Tronstad Road and Silverbrook Drive, traffic signals at the intersection with U.S. Highway 93 and a deceleration lane, which officials said would not be possible without the development.
“Montana is a backwards state,” Mayor Mark Johnson said. “As we’ve said, to improve anything on the highway system, we have to have developers. What we’re seeing is an opportunity where we can have a win – not on the taxpayers’ dime – but dare I say on the developer’s.”
Other councilors, however, were not convinced the scaled-back proposal would address concerns raised over the project’s earlier iteration.
“I think it’s a safety issue on this road,” Fisher said.
Councilor Hunter was also concerned with safety issues, and he was unsupportive of a sprawling development without a mixture of housing options to meet a variety of needs.
“It’s a development pattern that doesn’t work – it’s broken – and I don’t want to see that same mistake made in my community,” Hunter said. “With this, it’s going in the wrong direction.”
The approval ended the saga that began last April when the original proposal was introduced to the planning commission, which drew widespread criticism from neighbors. Public members have cited issues like a lack of emergency services, traffic congestion, safety and a transformation of the area’s rural character.
Dozens of neighbors at the Nov. 4 meeting provided hours of public testimony and comments opposing the development, reiterating concerns and casting doubt that the revamped proposal would address concerns.
“For those of you who might remember the Joni Mitchell song ‘Big Yellow Taxi,’ don’t pave paradise,” Amy Vanderbilt said. “Think about where it should be and think about the long-range planning of this valley that we all so love, and others have shared. We don’t want it to be destroyed.”
A handful of proponents spoke in support of the project, saying it would fill a need for the local workforce and would help address the housing shortage with smaller lots and higher density.
“We’ve rejected the notion that we should have a bunch of mansions on septics and wells out there on this piece of ground and that there is a better use for people who live and work here,” Garner said.