Public comment was heard prior to the committees discussion and motions for amendments. Several community members provided input on proposed zoning amendments and the Unified Development Code (UDC). Comments included support for an amendment to zone the Ben Hughes subdivision as LUR-1 for consistency with the land use plan, and opposition to a proposed amendment for Fort Missoula that would allow residential development, citing misalignment with amenities and land use goals. Other speakers raised concerns about East Missoula’s place type designation and Aspire Subdivision zoning, questioned riparian setback standards, and urged adherence to planning methodology. Additional comments advocated for increased housing density near the university and along high-frequency transit routes, while others cautioned against excessive height and density changes. Concerns were also expressed about historic overlay regulations at Fort Missoula, glazing and build-to requirements in mixed-use zones, and reduced protections in the Airport Hazard Overlay. Speakers requested clarity on staff decisions and encouraged Council to consider amendments that balance growth with safety, environmental, and neighborhood character considerations.
The committee began its work session focused on reviewing staff-recommended amendments to the UDC. The committee talked adopting staff-recommended amendments as a package, while allowing individual items to be pulled for separate discussion. Council members clarified that adopting the package does not prevent future amendments. Specific items flagged for separate review included:
- Item #6 – Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
- Map amendments along Orange Street (UMU-1 and UMU-2 zoning).
- Westside zoning designations.
Staff provided an overview of the process behind the updated recommendations, noting that changes were based on Planning Commission input, public comments, and corrections of staff errors. Examples included adjustments for building reuse and commercial zone expansions. After discussion, a motion was made to adopt the updated staff-recommended amendments (dated January 5, 2026), excluding Item #6.
The first amendment discussed was to remove maximum unit caps for apartment buildings in UR-1, UR-2, and UR-3 districts. Discussion focused on balancing housing flexibility with neighborhood compatibility, considering factors like FAR , height limits, and parcel size diversity. Council members raised concerns about potential impacts on neighborhood character, affordability, and infill development feasibility. Staff explained the intent behind unit caps and FAR as tools to manage building scale and referenced the land use plan as a guiding framework. Additional related amendments were previewed, including proposals to adjust FAR limits and increase height allowances in UR-3 and UR-4. Visual examples were shared to illustrate how FAR and height changes affect building size. The conversation highlighted the interconnected nature of amendments and the need to consider policy goals for housing equity, climate, and growth management.
The meeting was adjourned for a recess at 12:01 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 12:51 p.m.
Another round of public comment was heard. During this portion of public comment, several speakers expressed support for zoning reform and emphasized the importance of flexibility in mixed-use districts to accommodate affordable housing and dense development. Multiple commenters advocated for increasing the FAR to around 1.6, noting it aligns with successful apartment projects and promotes housing choice. Affordable housing providers, such as Front Step Community Land Trust and Homeward, highlighted concerns that overly restrictive rules could prevent well-loved apartment buildings from being built and urged adoption of amendments related to unit caps, FAR, and building heights. They also cautioned against overly prescriptive design requirements, such as build-to zones and transparency standards, which could limit staff’s ability to adapt projects to site-specific needs. Architects stressed that FAR is a new and complex concept for Missoula and recommended aligning any changes with the land use plan for clarity. Additional comments related to the need for higher building height limits to reduce long-term costs and improve affordability, as well as clarifying historic preservation definitions to avoid confusion. While other commenters reiterated opposition to residential overlays and requested zoning changes to reflect their preferences.
Council members discussed how to proceed with multiple residential district amendments, including those related to FAR, building heights, and unit caps. There was debate over whether to withdraw or table certain amendments to allow time for collaboration and potentially combine related proposals into a single package. Some members suggested voting on building height first, as it could influence decisions on FAR and other standards. Others emphasized the importance of making progress now rather than delaying, noting that amendments could be revisited or modified later if needed. Staff assured the Council they would help identify conflicts between amendments.
An amendment to increase the FAR in UR-4 zones from 1.2 to 1.6 to allow greater flexibility for infill development was discussed. The sponsor of the motion emphasized the need to preserve the ability to build projects similar to existing examples and avoid overly restrictive standards. Staff clarified current recommendations, planning board input, and provided real-world examples of buildings at FAR 1.2 and 1.6, noting that higher FAR primarily affects upper-story square footage and overall density. Discussion highlighted that increasing FAR could raise unit counts significantly (e.g., from 12 units at 1.2 FAR to 17 units at 1.6 FAR on a typical parcel), and members debated impacts on corridors versus neighborhoods like the Westside. Some councilors expressed concern about density increases in areas already zoned UR-4 and preferred a more holistic approach to mapping and related amendments before making changes. Others supported the amendment as a way to promote housing equity and connectivity.
The committee addressed how to proceed with competing proposals for the FAR table in residential districts. Before considering a second motion on density, members agreed to vote on staff’s recommended FAR table (Item #6) to clarify what would be in place if no changes were made. Staff explained that the current adoption draft includes FAR values that exceed land use plan recommendations for UR-1 and UR-4, and their updated recommendation adjusts those high-end ranges to better align with policy and maintain compatibility. Specifically, the staff table sets UR-4 at 1.2 FAR for seven or more units and lowers UR-1 for three or more units to .6 FAR.
They also discussed whether or not to adopt maximum density limits for residential districts using staff-calculated numbers based on the Land Use Plan. The sponsor explained that their intent was to keep zoning aligned with the plans principles. Staff clarified that maximum density was not part of their official recommendation, but they provided suggested numbers in response to the Planning Board’s prior proposal. Members confirmed that the earlier vote adopted staff’s FAR table but left the maximum density boxes blank, meaning this motion would fill those with staff-calculated values.
The meeting was adjourned for a recess at 2:29 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 2:44 p.m.
An amendment was considered to increase the FAR exemption lot size from 3,250 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., meaning lots under 4,000 sq. ft. would be exempt from FAR restrictions. The sponsor explained this change would allow slightly larger homes or duplexes on small lots without penalizing historic lot patterns and reduce administrative burden. Examples of existing housing that would benefit from this adjustment were shown, including townhomes and single-family homes that currently exceed FAR by a small margin. Staff clarified that this amendment would not change the FAR table itself but would modify the exemption threshold, providing more flexibility for small parcels while having minimal impact on compatibility. They noted that parcels under 4,000 sq. ft. are relatively rare and that the change could allow slightly larger unit sizes (e.g., two- or three-bedroom units) rather than forcing smaller layouts. Council members discussed whether this would weaken FAR’s role as a scale regulator and concluded the impact would be limited.
Council deliberated over an amendment to create a FAR exemption for residential units located above neighborhood commercial spaces. The sponsor explained the intent was to encourage mixed-use development in established neighborhoods, adding housing diversity and supporting neighborhood commercial viability. Under the proposal, residential square footage above commercial space would not count toward FAR, while all other code requirements—such as height limits and setbacks—would still apply. Members discussed potential unintended consequences, such as developers exploiting the exemption by creating very small commercial spaces to unlock additional residential FAR. Staff noted that the footprint of the commercial space and height limits would naturally constrain the scale of residential units above, and suggested that overall size caps on neighborhood commercial parcels could serve as an additional safeguard. The City Attorney, Ryan Sudbury, clarified that if loopholes emerged, Council could act quickly through emergency ordinances or temporary permit restrictions to prevent abuse. Several members expressed general support for the concept, recognizing its potential to promote housing diversity and incentivize neighborhood commercial uses.
Council debated height limits for UR-3 and UR-4 zones, considering an amendment to raise maximum heights from 35 to 45 feet in UR-3 and from 45 to 50 feet in UR-4. Supporters argued the change aligns with housing goals, provides flexibility for infill, and helps projects pencil out without mandating taller buildings. Opponents favored retaining staff’s recommendation of 35 and 45 feet, citing concerns about neighborhood compatibility, visual impacts, and shadowing. Staff clarified that height increases would not affect FAR but allow vertical stacking, and shared shadow calculations to illustrate impacts. The discussion highlighted trade-offs between housing needs, accessibility benefits at four stories, and preserving neighborhood character.
The Councilmembers discussed clarification on density methodology and amenities mapping, particularly on the Westside, and a proposed amendment regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The sponsor noted lingering questions about how amenities influenced density increases but did not propose an amendment at this time. On ADUs, staff confirmed that current code already guarantees one additional unit by right regardless of FAR, and upcoming staff amendments will clarify transitional provisions and definitions to address public concerns.
Additionally, the committee considered a motion to remove the staff-recommended restriction prohibiting driveway access on lots with less than 40 feet of street frontage. The sponsor argued the rule was overly prescriptive and could limit housing opportunities, especially for infill projects without alley access. Staff explained the original intent was to preserve space for street trees, utilities, and on-street parking, noting that multiple narrow lots with front driveways can eliminate street parking and tree planting. Public Works confirmed driveway widths (12 ft for single, up to 25 ft for double) and parking space dimensions, illustrating challenges on narrow lots. Alternatives such as shared driveways with easements were discussed as a potential compromise. Staff indicated they could manage design issues through the design manual if the hard 40-ft rule was removed. Council members generally supported flexibility, emphasizing that developers could still choose to include driveways based on resident needs.
Lastly, the Councilmembers began preliminary discussion on mixed-use district design standards, focusing on whether to retain or relax elements carried over from the Design Excellence overlay, such as build-to zones, transparency, street-facing entrances, and parking restrictions. Members expressed concern that strict requirements could discourage essential neighborhood uses like grocery stores or medical facilities, potentially pushing them to more car-centric areas. Staff clarified that these standards aim to promote walkability and vibrant streetscapes, aligning with land use and mobility goals, but acknowledged they may require design adjustments rather than prohibit uses. Ideas discussed included graduated requirements by zone, menu-based compliance options, and exemptions for privacy-sensitive uses. The group agreed to hold major decisions for next week, while moving forward on a simple amendment to exempt hospitals, healthcare facilities, and medical offices from transparency requirements.