Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Council rezones three Missoula Development Park parcels to M1-2 limited industrial; vote 10–1

5452231 · July 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City Council approved an ordinance rezoning three vacant parcels in Missoula Development Park (Parks 4, 6 and 8) from OP-3 (public lands and institutional) to M1-2 (limited industrial) with the Missoula Development Park overlay; the motion passed 10–1 after staff and applicant presentations and public hearing.

Missoula City Council voted on July 21 to rezone three parcels in the Missoula Development Park — referred to in the staff report as Parks 4, 6 and 8 — from OP‑3 (public lands and institutional) with the Missoula Development Park overlay to M1‑2 limited industrial with the same overlay. Councilor Becerra made the motion to adopt the ordinance; the council approved the rezoning in a roll-call vote that resulted in 10 in favor and 1 opposed.

Claire Lovelace, assistant planner in the city’s Community Planning, Development & Innovation department, presented the staff report. She said the three parcels total 367,210 square feet, are currently vacant and are surrounded by commercial and industrial uses adjacent to Expressway, south of Interstate 90. Lovelace said the Missoula 2045 Land Use Plan designates the area for "industrial and employment" and that M1‑2 is a compatible standard zoning district for that place type. She noted that M1‑2 allows a range of civic, commercial and industrial uses but does not permit residential building types other than caretaker apartments subject to overlay standards.

Joe Dehnert, an engineer with IMEG representing the applicant, and county economic development staff provided additional context: the parcels were originally open space/stormwater parcels within an industrial subdivision and remained under county ownership after annexation. Dehnert said a property-owners association historically maintained common facilities but lacked the membership and funds to continue maintenance; an interlocal agreement provided for land sales of some unused open-space parcels to fund park improvements…

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to keep reading

Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.

  • Unlimited articles
  • AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
  • Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
  • Follow topics and more locations
  • 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
30-day money-back on paid plans