Loading...
Proposed North Meadows Annexation and Apartment Complex - Oppose Public Comment from Sage Drury Aimee Brunckhorst From: Sage Drury <slenwa1194@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:21 PM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment Subject: EXTERNAL Proposed North Meadows Annexation and Apartment Complex - Oppose Dear Council President Graham and Fellow Council Members, I hope this message finds you well. First, I want to express my sincere appreciation for your service and your willingness to listen to the community you represent. I know that serving on the City Council is not an easy job, and I recognize that your work often requires balancing competing priorities.That said, many members of our community-your constituents -attended the meeting to share thoughtful, sincere concerns about how this project will directly and negatively impact our daily lives. I write to you with urgency, as the proposed multi-family development in our neighborhood continues to raise serious and,frankly, unresolved concerns that deserve deeper examination. We have spoken at length about infrastructure limitations, compatibility, and major safety concerns, but additional issues must be considered and they cannot be dismissed as merely emotional or speculative.These are grounded,firsthand realities. To my understanding,the area in question is being proposed for zone RA-1,which is defined as: "A district to provide areas for multi-family use and for non-residential uses,which support or are compatible with the primarily residential character.This district is intended as a buffer between residential districts and other non-residential districts." Based on this definition, I'm struggling to see how the proposed multi-story apartment development fits within the intent of this zoning designation.This is a well-established,fully residential neighborhood composed of single-family homes and a few duplexes/townhomes.The project does not act as a buffer;there are no non-residential districts to buffer from. It introduces a scale, density, and traffic impact that is simply not in line with the surrounding community. A multi-story apartment complex is not a contextual fit—it alters the core character of the neighborhood, undermines the intent of the zoning, and raises the question:what is being prioritized - compatibility or density? There is also the issue of misrepresentation in the Staff Report. Under Section 3 of the staff report, regarding the availability of sidewalks,the development claims: "These sidewalks will connect... and will also link to the existing sidewalk network along South Meadows Drive." "These improvements will enhance walkability within the neighborhood... and establish seamless connections to the surrounding community." I must correct this on record:there is no existing sidewalk network on South Meadows Drive, nor on Bluestone Drive where they intersect.This is not a minor oversight, it's a misrepresentation that gives the false impression of thoughtful integration with existing infrastructure.This statement is misleading and creates the illusion of connectivity and pedestrian safety that simply does not 1 exist. We area neighborhood without sidewalks,where children and pedestrians already walk in the street.Adding an estimated 150+vehicles into this mix without meaningful infrastructure improvements is not just an inconvenience, it's a serious safety risk.There is no clear or feasible way to retrofit our neighborhood with safe sidewalk infrastructure, certainly not without extensive costs and property buyouts. We must also take into account the strain on public facilities, particularly our elementary school, which was built to alleviate crowding, but fills to capacity almost immediately each year.As a resident and a parent, I can say firsthand that many families already living in this neighborhood struggle to enroll their children in the very school assigned to their area.This is a huge frustration for many of us already living here, as we paid a premium for our home and the proximity to the elementary was a significant selling point(it certainly added more to the overall price tag).And yet, when this concern is raised, even by public school educators,we are told it's not a capacity issue or a metric worth evaluating. I respectfully disagree. Additionally,with heavy construction vehicles and increased traffic comes the question:who pays for the wear and tear to our already aging roads? Bluestone Drive will bear the brunt of the impact, yet the residents,those who didn't ask for this project and won't benefit from it, could end up footing the bill through taxes or assessments.Will the developers be held financially responsible for these damages, or will it fall on the very taxpayers who opposed the development?These are not small concerns;they have real fiscal and infrastructural implications. Let's also acknowledge the very real and measurable risk to home values. I paid a premium for my home because of the quiet, single-family character of this neighborhood,the view of the field behind my house, and the proximity to a respected school.These weren't just aesthetic preferences,they were the very reasons I chose this location and believed it was the right place to raise a family. If a large apartment complex had been proposed then, I would not have bought here. I say that with complete honesty.This development will inevitably affect property values and deter potential buyers seeking the same quality of life we once saw.This project threatens not only property values, but the sense of investment, safety, and hope that homeowners like myself have worked so hard to build. Another critical concern is the added strain on already limited emergency services. Our police department,fire department, and ambulance services are stretched thin.What happens if there's a fire in a multi-unit building? Or a medical emergency during winter weather?There is only one road in and out of this neighborhood. In the case of an evacuation, howwould fire trucks, ambulances, and residents navigate a narrow, congested street that's already overburdened and unmaintained? Let's not forget snow removal. South Meadows is a city-maintained road, but the proposed apartment complex's cul-de-sac and parking lots will be privately owned and maintained. Snow removal responsibility will fall on private management, but what guarantee is there that it will be consistent,timely, or coordinated with city plows?Without a clear, enforceable maintenance plan, this becomes a logistical and safety hazard, not only for apartment residents, but for the surrounding neighborhood. I also urge the Council to consider what life will look like in this neighborhood during high-traffic, high-risk holidays, particularly if this development is approved. Our neighborhood has no sidewalks, and during holidays like Halloween,the streets are filled with children walking door to 2 door in the roadway. It's a tradition we cherish, but one that already requires extra caution.Add 150+additional vehicles, some potentially operated by people celebrating or impaired, and this turns into a serious public safety hazard.The same concerns apply to holidays like New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and St. Patrick's Day; all of which are associated with gatherings, drinking, and late- night activity.With apartment residents coming and going during those times, often through the same narrow street shared by kids and families, I'm left wondering:What will the city do to protect us?Will there be increased patrols?Traffic enforcement? Public safety planning? Right now,we haven't heard a thing.And that silence doesn't inspire confidence, it sparks fear. I also want to raise concern about the vehicle estimate used in planning this development.The projected 150 additional vehicles assumes an average of 1.5 cars per unit for a 99-unit apartment complex.That might be reasonable if every unit were a 1-bedroom, but that's not the case here. These are 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom apartments,which opens the door to families, roommates, and multi-driver households. It's entirely plausible, if not likely,that many units will house two to four vehicles, and in some cases even more.While six vehicles per unit would be the extreme, it's not unrealistic in a shared-living situation. Unfortunately,the development does not provide adequate on-site parking to support those potential volumes.And since our streets, like Bluestone,do not have public street parking or overflow options,where exactly are these additional vehicles supposed to go?This lack of foresight will not only result in congested streets and unsafe conditions for pedestrians and drivers alike, but it will almost certainly create daily conflict between existing residents and tenants of the complex. Knowing that our public resources are already strained,that our infrastructure can't absorb this growth, and that the surrounding community does not want this, makes this proposal even harder to understand, especially when the existing neighborhood has been so vocal, united, and clear in opposition. This is a neighborhood of people who are invested. Not just financially, but emotionally, physically, and socially.We bought our homes.We plant gardens, build fences, patch walls, and mow the lawn - not because a landlord told us to, but because we care. Because this place is ours. Because we chose to put down roots here,to raise our families here, and to be part of something shared and stable.That sense of pride and ownership is the foundation of our community.Apartment complexes, by nature, don't bring that same level of investment.They are temporary places for most- stepping stones, not destinations. People don't replace rotting fence posts or reseed patches of grass in a place they don't own.And that's the core issue:this project just doesn't fit. Not in character, not in culture, and not in values.And to force it in, over the clear and vocal objection of the people who actually live here,would feel like a betrayal of what it means to be a community. City Council, I ask you plainly: How does this project align with the RA-1 intent,with the real infrastructure we have, and with the community you were elected to serve? Please help us understand.And please advocate with us - not around us.This is not about being anti-growth, it's about appropriate, community-conscious growth. Development should enhance a community, not overwhelm it or disregard its character.This project, as currently designed, does not align with the intent of its zoning,the limitations of our infrastructure, or the values of the people who live here. City Council, I'm asking for your support in rejecting this proposal in its current form. I also ask, respectfully,for clarification: How does this development not conflict with the stated intent of RA-1 3 zoning? How are concerns about school capacity, emergency response, and public safety being weighed, if at all? We may not fully understand the process,the unspoken rules, or the planning jargon, but we are engaged,we're paying attention, and we're advocating from a place of shared concern.After all, we're all on the same side here.We all want a Kalispell that's safe, livable,and well-planned.This is our neighborhood. Our lives. Our investment.We've put our faith in this community, and in your leadership. Please help us protect what we've worked so hard to build. With gratitude for your time and service, Sage Drury 1951 Bluestone Dr 4