During public comment, speakers raised concerns about East Missoula’s designation as Urban Residential High, arguing it does not align with county zoning or infrastructure and requesting a change to Limited Urban Residential. Others urged focusing density on underutilized commercial corridors rather than historic neighborhoods. Many emphasized preserving green space and landscaping for climate resilience, stormwater management, and community character, opposing further reductions. Commenters also stressed that housing affordability and green space are not competing priorities, called for stronger riparian protections, and supported walkability and bike infrastructure over car parking. Overall, most expressed appreciation for staff’s work and urged adoption of staff-recommended amendments as a balanced compromise.
Council reviewed six staff-recommended amendments to the land use plan, which included clarifying airport hazard language for a potential second runway, updating place types to reflect larger apartment buildings allowed under recent zoning changes, correcting a typo in building height guidance for urban mixed-use high areas, and revising language for urban mixed-use low to align with changes to design standards and parking requirements. After discussion, Council agreed to adopt these amendments, with a friendly change to reference the second runway as “planned” rather than “potential” for accuracy. Staff confirmed no concerns with this adjustment and will update the language accordingly.
Council addressed a minor staff-recommended cleanup amendment related to apartment building standards in Article 4.7. The current language requires a street-facing entrance but mistakenly included the word “shared,” which could imply mandatory internal shared corridors. Staff requested removing “shared” so that apartment buildings with individual exterior entrances can comply, as long as at least one entrance faces the street. Council agreed to adopt this correction as proposed.
Council considered an amendment to increase the maximum building height in the UR3 zoning district from 35 feet to 45 feet. The intent was to provide greater flexibility for development, allow for multi-story projects with features like elevators, and support more efficient land use by building upward, which could preserve ground space for landscaping and activity areas. Supporters highlighted climate benefits of increased density, such as reducing car travel and promoting energy-efficient construction. Opponents expressed concern about adding more density beyond previous changes, noting that Council had already eliminated unit caps and increased floor area ratios, which significantly expanded development potential. Some members emphasized the need for gradual implementation to avoid overwhelming neighborhoods. The amendment sparked debate between those prioritizing housing flexibility and climate goals and those advocating caution due to existing density increases.
Council reviewed Planning Board landscaping recommendations alongside staff responses, noting that many suggestions were already incorporated into the proposed Unified Development Code. Staff highlighted major changes from current zoning, including reducing landscaping requirements from 35% to 20%, counting activity areas toward that total, and applying requirements only to projects with seven or more units instead of three. Staff explained why certain Planning Board proposals—such as exempting mixed-use projects, removing tree size flexibility, and eliminating green roof incentives—were not recommended, emphasizing the need for flexibility and tree canopy goals. Questions focused on tree mitigation fees, patios as activity areas, and cash-in-lieu calculations, with staff confirming fees will be set by Council resolution and aligned with parkland dedication. Council also discussed increasing the threshold for triggering landscaping on building additions from 15% to 30%, expressing concern about impacts on large buildings and requesting staff to return with tiered options. This kicked off the amendments being moved to the floor which began with the amendment to simplify playground language by removing age-specific references and using “children” for greater flexibility.
Council discussed whether private patios and balconies should count toward required activity areas. The current code excludes them to prioritize communal spaces, but some members argued that private outdoor areas provide meaningful usability for residents and should be an option. Staff noted that Title 20 includes minimum size requirements and landscaping buffers for patios and balconies, and Council agreed these standards should apply if added. The motion proposed counting balconies and patios at a one-to-one ratio toward activity area requirements, with existing size and barrier standards retained. Staff will draft language to reflect this guidance for final review.
Council considered adding flexibility to the cash-in-lieu provision for activity areas. The proposal was to include a new subsection allowing City Council to adopt an alternative formula for calculating the cash-in-lieu fee by simple resolution, rather than requiring a full code amendment. This change aims to streamline future adjustments if a better approach is identified in collaboration with Parks and Recreation. The motion does not include any changes to the existing formula in subsection B.
Council concluded its review of landscaping-related amendments. Members confirmed that most Planning Board recommendations had already been addressed through staff proposals, with only a few specific changes advanced for consideration. Staff clarified that the active recreation lawn slope adjustment to 3% was already included in prior amendments. Council expressed appreciation for staff’s detailed responses and the opportunity to clarify what was adopted versus what was not, noting this will help address public concerns. Additional proposed amendments related to cumulative impacts were withdrawn, as members agreed the discussion had sufficiently addressed core community priorities. The conversation emphasized balancing housing needs with green space and maintaining transparency in the process.
Council introduced an amendment to remove mandated parking requirements for commercial and industrial properties. The intent is to allow businesses to determine their own parking needs rather than following prescriptive standards, reducing development costs and freeing space for other uses. The proposal aligns with trends in other cities moving away from parking mandates to support affordability and flexibility. Members noted related amendments on the agenda, clarifying that some are duplicative and others contingent on this discussion. The item was paused until after a break.
A recess was called at 12:59 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 1:45 p.m.
During the afternoon public comment session, speakers focused on mixed-use development, landscaping, and zoning concerns. Several commenters supported reinstating the previous exemption for mixed-use projects from activity area requirements, arguing that it encourages dense, walkable housing and helps overcome site constraints. Another commenter emphasized the importance of maintaining perimeter parking lot buffers for infill projects, suggesting that fences can provide adequate screening, and raised concerns about zoning map inconsistencies, particularly advocating for UR4 designation at Grant Creek Village to align with the land use plan. An East Missoula resident reiterated concerns about incorrect place type assignments for non-annexed areas, warning that these could lead to immediate impacts if island annexations occur, creating mismatched density and height allowances compared to surrounding county properties. Overall, commenters urged flexibility in design standards and careful review of zoning and place type assignments before final adoption.
Council returned to the proposed amendment to eliminate minimum parking requirements for commercial and industrial properties. Staff noted this is a policy decision, explaining that while current code reduces parking requirements, it does not remove them entirely. They emphasized that ADA parking standards are governed by building code and based on the number of spaces provided, not zoning requirements. Supporters of the amendment cited benefits such as reducing development costs, mitigating heat island effects, and promoting climate-friendly practices, arguing that businesses will still provide parking based on market demand. Opponents expressed concerns about accessibility, lack of public transit in some areas, and the need for a more incremental approach, suggesting that infrastructure improvements should precede major changes. Several members favored maintaining staff’s proposed reductions rather than full elimination, while others supported moving toward a market-driven approach. The discussion concluded with acknowledgment that future phases could revisit parking policy for further refinement.
Council had a healthy discussion regarding the amendments related to ADA parking requirements following the removal of commercial parking mandates. The primary concern was ensuring accessibility for individuals with mobility challenges while balancing feasibility and cost. Proposals included requiring at least one ADA space per block or per new commercial development, and ensuring connectivity to business entrances. Staff cautioned that implementing ADA spaces citywide would be complex and costly, often requiring curb ramps and sidewalk reconstruction. Members discussed whether to apply requirements to residential areas, neighborhood commercial zones, and how to handle developments without on-site parking. Ultimately, Council agreed the issue needs more detailed planning, community engagement, and cost analysis. Both proposed amendments were withdrawn, with consensus to address ADA parking comprehensively in Phase Two, alongside an ADA transition plan integrated with sidewalk improvements.
Council revisited the landscaping amendment related to building additions. Staff presented revised language creating a tiered approach based on building size: structures under 20,000 square feet could add up to 30% without triggering full landscaping compliance; structures between 20,000 and 100,000 square feet could add 15%; and very large structures over 100,000 square feet (e.g., big-box stores) would be limited to a 10% addition. Council agreed this approach better addresses concerns about large-scale developments while supporting flexibility for smaller projects. A motion was made to adopt the staff-recommended language.
Council clarified recent public comments regarding mixed-use projects. One comment referenced a landscaping incentive for vertical mixed-use developments that allowed exceptions if right-of-way improvements were provided; staff noted this concept will be revisited in Phase Two for better integration with new street standards. The other comment concerned activity area exemptions for mixed-use projects, which currently exist in code but have not effectively encouraged true mixed-use development. Staff explained that some applicants have used minimal office space to avoid activity area requirements, and their stance is that residents in mixed-use buildings still need access to communal spaces. Council expressed support for revisiting these issues in Phase Two.
Council considered an amendment to clarify sign regulations by affirming that enforcement cannot be based on the content of a sign, in compliance with First Amendment protections and the Supreme Court case Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Staff explained that current practice already aligns with this principle, regulating signs only by type (e.g., commercial vs. non-commercial) rather than message content. The amendment’s placement was discussed, with staff recommending it be included under the general sign regulations section for stronger regulatory weight rather than in the purpose statement. The sponsor agreed to allow staff to integrate the language in a way that maintains clarity and consistency within the code.
Council considered an amendment to remove the prohibition on “human signs” (individuals holding or wearing signs, such as sandwich boards). The sponsor argued that banning human signs restricts free speech and unnecessarily limits people’s ability to earn income, noting it does not pose a significant public safety hazard. Questions were raised about potential impacts on visual clutter and accessibility for pedestrians and ADA users. Staff clarified that the prohibition was carried over from the existing code and originally intended to reduce driver distraction, but they were unaware of any complaints or enforcement issues. The city attorney advised that prohibiting human signs would likely be unconstitutional under recent Supreme Court rulings, supporting the recommendation to remove this restriction.
Council reviewed an amendment to establish a decision-making hierarchy for right-of-way improvement exceptions under Chapter 6. The intent is to provide staff with clear guidance when full compliance with infrastructure standards is not feasible, particularly for infill projects with space or cost constraints. The proposed framework prioritizes housing and sidewalk connectivity first, while allowing flexibility for other elements—such as bike lanes, parking, street trees, and boulevards—based on the street type and context outlined in the land use plan. Staff explained that this approach aligns with multimodal goals and context-sensitive design, while reducing overly prescriptive standards that have caused challenges in the past. Questions focused on whether this limits Council’s future authority, how it applies across zoning districts, and how often exceptions occur. Staff clarified that Council retains the ability to revise policies and that exceptions are most common in infill areas, not new developments. The amendment was generally supported as a way to balance priorities and streamline decision-making.
Council considered an amendment to update sidewalk installation triggers under right-of-way improvement requirements. The proposal aimed to strengthen walkability by requiring sidewalks for new construction based on street typologies and development size. Initially, the threshold was set at seven dwelling units, but members expressed concern that this would miss opportunities for connectivity, especially in older neighborhoods with missing sidewalks. After discussion, a friendly amendment lowered the threshold to three units, aligning with current practice and ensuring more consistent sidewalk installation. Staff clarified implementation details, including how to count units and apply the rule to common plan developments. Council emphasized that sidewalks are a critical public good and essential for achieving true walkability, while noting that costs and feasibility will need ongoing monitoring.
Council addressed two infrastructure-related items. First, an amendment regarding curbside sidewalks on low-impact local streets was withdrawn after staff confirmed flexibility could be addressed in the design manual. The intent was to allow curbside sidewalks where they align with existing neighborhood patterns, particularly in Wards 4 and 5. Second, Council reviewed a minor fix to driveway access standards, adding language to grant the city engineer discretion for variances when alley access is not feasible. This change aims to maintain alley access as the preferred option while ensuring flexibility for infill projects, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), so that access challenges do not prevent development.
A recess was called at 3:48 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 3:57 p.m.
Council advanced the Aspire Subdivision item to address ongoing community concerns before the final vote. The subdivision was annexed at the property owner’s request, has an approved phasing plan, and could pull building permits under current approvals; changing land use or zoning does not undo the subdivision. Staff reiterated that the subdivision’s approved density is ~7.1 dwelling units per acre, with required sidewalk connections to Hwy 200. The city attorney noted that while court challenges to annexation and subdivision were dismissed, claims about zoning procedures and public participation remain; adoption of the new land use plan/zoning map could moot the zoning-procedure claim.
A pair of motions were introduced to change the place type for the Aspire parcel to Limited Urban Residential and rezone it to LUR-2, arguing the current Urban Residential High designation does not align with on-the-ground amenities, transit frequency, or county planning context. Staff explained how the land use plan mapping used street pattern, corridor context, and prior future land use (not existing zoning) and that urban residential high was applied beyond the Hwy 200 corridor after community input reduced mixed-use frontage. Staff clarified impacts: LUR-2 would cap apartment building size (e.g., fourplexes) yet still allows more total units than the former RT 5.4, meaning smaller buildings but potentially higher unit counts if redeveloped under new zoning. Council emphasized the change applies only to the annexed Aspire parcel, not to the rest of East Missoula, which remains under county jurisdiction. After questions on equity, infrastructure, and regional consistency, Council proceeded to a combined vote on the two motions (8A & 8B).
Staff then presented a series of proposed zoning map amendments aimed at smoothing inconsistencies, maintaining transition zones, and adjusting designations based on neighborhood characteristics and infrastructure constraints. Council members discussed specific amendments, requesting that certain items be separated for individual consideration to preserve appropriate transition zones and neighborhood character. The meeting concluded with a voice vote on the staff-recommended amendments, excluding two items for separate discussion.
The discussion focused on staff-recommended amendment #13, which proposed shifting density to create a transition zone. One council member stated their voting approach would defer to representatives familiar with the affected neighborhoods. Another member sought clarification on the rationale for the amendment and its relationship to other proposed changes, noting potential conflicts with their own forthcoming amendment. Staff explained that approving #13 would not prevent later adjustments, as subsequent amendments could override it. Ultimately, the council voted to approve amendment #13, with the understanding that it may be modified later.
The council revisited amendment #1, which had been pulled for separate consideration. Staff clarified that a “no” vote would keep the original zoning proposal, while a “yes” vote would adopt the staff-recommended changes. The staff explained that their recommendation aimed to reduce zoning inconsistencies and smooth transitions along the corridor by applying urban mixed-use designations based on design excellence overlays. The discussion confirmed the intent behind the amendment and voting implications before proceeding to a vote.
The council discussed two proposed amendments affecting small triangular blocks near the intersection of Mount and Brooks. The suggested changes would downzone these parcels from mixed-use 3 (85-foot height limit) to mixed-use 1 (50-foot height limit) to provide a better transition to adjacent residential areas. The rationale emphasized preserving neighborhood character and mitigating impacts of tall structures next to single-family homes. Council members expressed general support for deferring to ward representatives on localized changes, though opinions varied on the necessity of downzoning one parcel due to its current commercial use and limited development potential. Both amendments will be voted on separately.
The council discussed a proposed amendment to shift transition zones from streets to alleys, aiming to create clearer separations between high- and low-intensity areas. Staff explained that this change would affect hundreds of parcels citywide, requiring significant remapping and additional public review, and could impact long-term housing goals by reducing density along transit corridors. While some members supported the concept in principle, most agreed it was too large and complex to implement at this stage. The consensus was to defer the idea for future consideration, and the item was withdrawn.
The council considered amendment #5, which proposed adding step-down transitions in areas where alleys run parallel to major corridors. The intent was to reduce building heights from 45 feet to 35 feet in select blocks to create a smoother transition between high-density and residential areas, improve neighborhood compatibility, and encourage acceptance of increased density. The proposer focused on specific locations in multiple wards where alley configurations made this feasible. Staff noted one mapping correction, and the amendment was adjusted accordingly. Council members expressed mixed views, balancing the desire for transitions with concerns about reducing housing capacity. The item proceeded toward a vote.
The council reviewed item #6 concerning an MCPS property on Rimel Road. At the property owner’s request, the proposal was to zone it LU UR1 to match adjacent parcels. Staff supported the change, explaining that previous downzoning was due to infrastructure constraints, which have since improved. Questions were raised about consistency with other amendments, but staff clarified the methodology was applied correctly given updated conditions. The council proceeded with a vote on the amendment.
The council discussed amendment #7, which proposed increasing zoning density in a neighborhood currently designated as urban residential low. The rationale was its proximity to services, transportation, and major corridors, making it an ideal location for higher density. Supporters noted that existing multi-unit buildings would become nonconforming under the current designation and argued for equitable distribution of growth across neighborhoods. Opponents expressed concerns about large lot sizes leading to potential redevelopment and significant character changes, as well as the complexity of the area’s layout. Opinions were divided, and the amendment moved forward for a vote.
The council discussed an amendment related to the Peace Farm property in the upper Rattlesnake, which is owned by the school district under a long-term lease with the city and partners. Concerns were raised about how zoning could affect its future use or sale. After researching similar leased properties and consulting with stakeholders, the proposer decided to withdraw the amendment for further discussion in a future phase. Staff clarified that current zoning designations for leased lands serve primarily as communication tools rather than protections. Additional context was provided about the school district’s property planning process, its intent to maintain flexibility for assets, and the community’s interest in preserving the Peace Farm, potentially through a dedicated working group and funding strategies. The item was pulled for now.
Final discussion and votes will commence at the closing of the public hearing scheduled for the City Council meeting on February 2, 2026.