Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missoula council OKs 3‑year extension for Aspire subdivision phasing amid safety concerns
Summary
The Missoula City Council voted 10–1 on Nov. 17 to approve a three‑year delay to the final plat schedule for the Aspire Subdivision (phases 1–6), while adding a condition tying lot owners to a waiver of protest for future improvement districts after public testimony raised traffic and safety concerns following the loss of federal grant funding.
The Missoula City Council on Nov. 17 approved a staff‑recommended amendment to the phasing plan for the Aspire Subdivision, a 35‑acre development in East Missoula that would create about 182 lots (roughly 250 dwelling units). The motion, made by Councilor Nugent, passed by roll call 10–1; Councilor Jordan cast the sole no vote.
City planner Dave DeGrandpre told council the developer requested a three‑year postponement to the final plat filing schedule to allow pending litigation over an overlay zoning tool to proceed. DeGrandpre said staff found “minimal new or changed primary review criteria impacts” and recommended a single modification to Condition No. 3 requiring lot owners to waive the right to protest formation of future improvement districts that fund transportation improvements.
The public hearing produced extended comment from East Missoula residents and nearby property owners who said circumstances have changed since the subdivision’s 2024 approval. Speakers and neighbors argued that the rescission of roughly $24 million in federal funding for Highway 200 safety improvements, plus recent nearby multifamily construction, amount to a material change that increases safety risk at the Summer Street/Highway 200 intersection. Public‑health and long‑time residents described near misses and a pattern of growth that, in their view, makes earlier traffic modeling outdated.
City attorney Ryan Sudbury and staff emphasized the narrow legal question before council: state law allows an amendment to a phasing schedule provided it does not negate conditions of approval or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare; council may impose or change conditions only if new facts demonstrate inadequacy of existing conditions. Sudbury and DeGrandpre said none of the existing conditions were explicitly predicated on the lost federal grant, though several residents and the petitioner’s counsel argued the grant’s revocation undercuts mitigations relied upon at the time of approval.
Developer representative Brent Throckmorton told council the extension’s purpose was to avoid filing final plats while litigation is pending and to allow the project to proceed at a time when no lawsuit is unresolved.
Council members stressed the vote was procedural: a yes preserved the preliminary plat’s validity while litigation continues and does not constitute a fresh approval of the development’s design. Nevertheless, several councilors acknowledged residents’ safety concerns and asked staff to continue coordination on traffic mitigation and related conditions. The action keeps the subdivision’s approvals active while the parties await court resolution and possible adjustment under the coming Unified Development Code.
Next steps: the amendment extends final plat deadlines for the project; any future final plat filings will trigger building‑permit and engineering reviews, and staff said required conditions and infrastructure obligations remain enforceable.
