City of MissoulaLand Use and Planning Committee AgendaMeeting #:Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 12:45 P.m. - 3:45 P.m.Location:Council Chambers (in person) or TEAMS (virtually)Attend in person: City Council Chambers, 140 W Pine, Missoula MTMembers:Stacie Anderson, Mirtha Becerra, Daniel Carlino, Bob Campbell, Betsy Craske, Sierra Farmer, Gwen Jones, Kristen Jordan, Sean McCoy, Eric Melson, Mike Nugent, and Amber Sherrill Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app*: Click here to join the meeting * You may be prompted to download the Teams app Or call in (audio only) 406-384-6960 Phone Conference ID: 148 259 295# Press *5 to raise your hand to be recognized for public comment, *6 to mute and unmute Watch the meeting only: Web stream (live or on demand) Open this meeting on the calendar and select "View Live Stream" or "Video." For more ways to watch the meeting and submit public comment, see the Citizen Participation Guide. Issues? Call the City Clerk 406-552-6078. If anyone attending this meeting needs special assistance, please provide 48 hours advance notice by calling the City Clerk Office at 406-552-6073.1.ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Public Comments: 1.1Roll Call Public Comments: 1.2Approval of the Minutes Public Comments: 1.2.1Minutes from December 10, 2025 Attachments | Public Comments1.Post-Meeting Minutes - LUP_Dec10_2025 - English.pdf2.PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comments: 3.COMMITTEE BUSINESS Public Comments: 3.1Conditional Use Request for Wireless Communication Facility at 5425 Gharrett StreetZoe Walters Attachments | Public Comments1.Staff Report_5425 Gharrett St Conditional Use.pdf2.Application_5425 Gharrett St Conditional Use.pdf3.John Ottman_Public Comment.pdf4.Kari Ottman_Public Comment.pdf5.William Kostelecky_Public Comment.pdf6.Michael Lee_Public Comment.pdf7.Kurt McGrane_Public Comment.pdf8.Brian Krick_Public Comment.pdfStaff presentation.3.2Our Missoula Project – Unified Development CodeJen Gress Attachments | Public Comments1.Our Missoula Project - UDC informational item.pdf2.UDC and Land Use Plan Amendments_11.12.25_LUP Committee Info Pres.pdf3.UDC Chapter 6_11.12.25_LUP Committee Info Pres.pdf4.12.03 LUP Policy to Zoning Mapping.pdf5.Mixed Use Standards_12.17.25.pdfBen Hughes Homeowners AssociationWe have the following questions as to Attachment 4 - “Policy to Implementation Mapping.” 1) How does the "Developed Park" amenity apply to Ben Hughes when Ben Hughes Park is not shown on the "Developed Parks" map page 7 (nor in other City planning documents)? 2) How does the "Commuter Trail" amenity apply to Ben Hughes when the only Community Trail that exists serves as a walkway behind the Cobblestone development, is less than 1/2 mile long, and has never in 40 years been connected to any trail system allowing for commuting. (Figure 26, PROST). And, why does the Commuter Trails map (page 8) include only the "proposed trail” from the Cobblestones to Van Buren and not the “proposed trails” throughout the City and particularly those in the Upper Rattlesnake (Figure 26, PROST)? 3) How was the scope of the Transit Stop amenity determined for Ben Hughes in terms of distance? Specifically, the mapping on page 6 for appears inconsistent with the radius circles which are otherwise applied.Larry ChaseWhat does Multi-Modal options mean in relation to the amenities? Pg 5 of the 12.03 LUP Policy to Zoning Mapping document lists 6 amenity data layers that are used for amenity based-zoning. Absent from this list is Multi-Modal options. Then on pg 25 of the same document the Easy Street neighborhood is shown with 3 amenities, 1 of which is Multi-Modal options. Yet Multi-Modal options are not an amenity as defined earlier in the document. So it seems that the Easy Street neighborhood has at most 2 amenities: Transit Stop and Developed Park(?). About the park - Pg 7 shows that the Easy St neighborhood is NOT within a 15-min walk of a developed park. Plus, the 2040 PROST Plan clearly shows Ben Hughes Park designated as conservation land, not a developed park. You're now down to only 1 amenity - a transit stop - because multi-modal options are not a defined amenity and there is not a developed park. What am I missing that the planning staff sees?Q&A on the Unified Development Code; Sidewalks, Rights of Way, Bike Storage, and Urban Mixed Use Form Regulations.4.ADJOURNMENT Public Comments: No Item Selected Attachments (0) | Public Comments (0)This item has no attachments.1.Staff Report_5425 Gharrett St Conditional Use.pdf2.Application_5425 Gharrett St Conditional Use.pdf3.John Ottman_Public Comment.pdf4.Kari Ottman_Public Comment.pdf5.William Kostelecky_Public Comment.pdf6.Michael Lee_Public Comment.pdf7.Kurt McGrane_Public Comment.pdf8.Brian Krick_Public Comment.pdf1.Our Missoula Project - UDC informational item.pdf2.UDC and Land Use Plan Amendments_11.12.25_LUP Committee Info Pres.pdf3.UDC Chapter 6_11.12.25_LUP Committee Info Pres.pdf4.12.03 LUP Policy to Zoning Mapping.pdf5.Mixed Use Standards_12.17.25.pdf1.Post-Meeting Minutes - LUP_Dec10_2025 - English.pdfThis item has no public commentBen Hughes Homeowners AssociationWe have the following questions as to Attachment 4 - “Policy to Implementation Mapping.” 1) How does the "Developed Park" amenity apply to Ben Hughes when Ben Hughes Park is not shown on the "Developed Parks" map page 7 (nor in other City planning documents)? 2) How does the "Commuter Trail" amenity apply to Ben Hughes when the only Community Trail that exists serves as a walkway behind the Cobblestone development, is less than 1/2 mile long, and has never in 40 years been connected to any trail system allowing for commuting. (Figure 26, PROST). And, why does the Commuter Trails map (page 8) include only the "proposed trail” from the Cobblestones to Van Buren and not the “proposed trails” throughout the City and particularly those in the Upper Rattlesnake (Figure 26, PROST)? 3) How was the scope of the Transit Stop amenity determined for Ben Hughes in terms of distance? Specifically, the mapping on page 6 for appears inconsistent with the radius circles which are otherwise applied.Larry ChaseWhat does Multi-Modal options mean in relation to the amenities? Pg 5 of the 12.03 LUP Policy to Zoning Mapping document lists 6 amenity data layers that are used for amenity based-zoning. Absent from this list is Multi-Modal options. Then on pg 25 of the same document the Easy Street neighborhood is shown with 3 amenities, 1 of which is Multi-Modal options. Yet Multi-Modal options are not an amenity as defined earlier in the document. So it seems that the Easy Street neighborhood has at most 2 amenities: Transit Stop and Developed Park(?). About the park - Pg 7 shows that the Easy St neighborhood is NOT within a 15-min walk of a developed park. Plus, the 2040 PROST Plan clearly shows Ben Hughes Park designated as conservation land, not a developed park. You're now down to only 1 amenity - a transit stop - because multi-modal options are not a defined amenity and there is not a developed park. What am I missing that the planning staff sees?