City staff presented a detailed work session on June 24 focused on tools to manage building mass and scale in the draft Uniform Development Code (UDC). Community Development Director Erin George and Community Development Manager Chris Saunders led the discussion and solicited commissioner direction on which tools to advance in the next draft.

Staff framed the topic: "Scale is the relationship of one thing to another and mass is more of an objective unitary measure of volume," Community Development Manager Chris Saunders said, setting the distinction the session used throughout.

Why it matters: The UDC rewrite implements the city’s 2020 community plan and will reshape what types of buildings are permitted, and where. Changes to mass-and-scale rules affect how large buildings can be, how new development interfaces with older neighborhoods, and the types of housing that get built.

Key tools discussed
- Stories vs. feet for height: Staff explained methods for measuring building height by a fixed number of feet or by vertical "stories," and said the draft currently uses a mix (stories for some commercial districts). Commissioners were split: some favored retaining feet for clarity while others supported stories if accompanied by clear maximum heights in feet for public transparency.

- Wall-plate height: The draft includes a 25-foot wall-plate-height concept (measuring wall to roof intersection) intended to limit bulk adjacent to property lines. Commissioners asked staff to evaluate whether 25 feet is appropriate for the RA district and whether RB should carry a higher wall-plate limit or different approach.

- Stepbacks and planes: Staff recommended stepbacks (setbacks at higher floors) as a tool to constrain mass above a given height and to soften transitions. Commissioners agreed stepbacks make sense at district edges—where a taller district abuts a lower-density district—but did not support applying stepbacks uniformly within an entire district.

- Lot aggregation and building-size caps: Staff advised against a broad prohibition on parcel aggregation, noting state subdivision-exemption processes and practical constraints. Commissioners generally agreed: they preferred direct envelope controls (width, height, stepback) over a lot-aggregation ban.

- Floor-area-ratio (FAR) and lot-area standards: Staff proposed removing FAR and minimum lot-area standards from the draft, saying they were duplicative of other tools. Most commissioners supported removing FAR and similar duplicative standards.

- Graduated square-foot cap ("GRAMA"-style): Several public speakers and some commissioners urged staff to explore a graduated maximum per-unit square footage (a policy inspired by Portland) that limits the size of single-unit houses and encourages smaller multiunit buildings. Staff said Portland’s experience warrants further review; commissioners asked legal staff to analyze whether a cash-in-lieu option or payment in exchange for additional size would be lawful in Montana. At least three commissioners asked staff to research the concept further.

Public comment
Dozens of residents and stakeholders spoke during the work session. Renter and housing advocates emphasized the role of larger multifamily developments in increasing supply. Speakers advocating for more gentle infill and protecting existing "naturally occurring affordable housing" urged tools that keep smaller rental homes from being scraped and replaced by single large houses.

Examples of public testimony included: renter Maya Gautje: "We need housing at all price points." Architect Eric Monnet urged retention of midrise/mid-rise "RB" capacity and recommended a zone focused on missing-middle housing types. Several neighborhood representatives asked the commission to preserve small-scale housing stock and to craft transitions between commercial nodes and adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Commissioner direction and staff follow-up
Commissioners gave staff specific direction to pursue additional research in several areas: legal analysis of a graduated square-foot cap and any cash-in-lieu option; consultation with architects/structural engineers about stepback amounts and structural cost impacts; additional data and examples to set appropriate wall-plate heights (including whether 25 feet fits RA); and an updated matrix showing how stepbacks, transitions, and street widths would interact across districts.

No formal code changes were adopted tonight; the session was advisory. Staff said the draft UDC will be revised and subsequent work sessions will address zoning districts, permitted uses and environmental considerations.