Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unified Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missoula adopts Unified Development Code amid East Missoula objections over Aspire annexation
Summary
Missoula's council adopted a new Unified Development Code after amendments that staff say balance infill, parks and urban form; East Missoula residents and developers clashed over the Aspire annexation and place-type changes, and a proposed billboard-removal amendment was tabled for further review.
Missoula on Feb. 6 moved forward with a revised Unified Development Code (UDC) meant to streamline land-use rules and encourage an urban street-front form for commercial areas while creating new options for parks and green space, city officials and community speakers said.
Supporters described the UDC as a years-in-the-making effort to replace a contradictory code and give developers and staff a clearer permitting path, while opponents from East Missoula said the code's application to the Aspire annexation appeared to drive a place-type change that disadvantages their neighborhood.
"Our fear and the appearance is that the zoning applied to Aspire has driven staff's place type decisions for the rest of East Missoula," Andrew Hurst said, urging councilmembers to stand by earlier decisions and respect the neighborhood's constrained infrastructure, including limited road access, few sidewalks and natural barriers.
Developer representatives pushed back. Brian Throckmorton of Foresex Engineering told the council the Aspire site "meets urban residential high to a tee," and explained how floor-area-ratio (FAR) calculations and building configurations could produce the project's proposed housing while still fitting alternative LUR designations. He said building types such as clustered tenplexes were proposed partly to buffer highway noise.
City staff and the city attorney described technical and legal limits. A staff presenter noted the council removed numeric "units-per-building" limits and instead relied on FAR and lot-coverage tools to manage density. Ryan Sudsberry, identified in the program as the city attorney, explained subdivisions can be approved with long-phasing permits and that zoning may still be changed before projects obtain building permits, meaning vested rights typically attach only after permitting steps are completed.
The program also captured a business-sector concern: Eric Sweden, representing local billboard interests, asked the council to strike an amendment (Article 4 / 4.14) that would have required removal of billboards on properties annexed into the city or rezoned to certain designations, calling the change effectively a taking of private property. Scott Raff reported the council tabled that amendment for further consideration.
Why it matters: the UDC rewrites how Missoula manages growth, balancing goals to protect neighborhood character with state planning requirements and pressure for infill. East Missoula residents argued the Aspire annexation and resulting place-type shift create a mismatch between local infrastructure constraints and higher-density designations, a point developers and staff disputed.
What's next: program speakers said the UDC passed at the meeting; no detailed council vote tally or motion text was provided on air. City staff and community groups are expected to continue working on site-specific implementation, and the billboard amendment was held for additional review.
Sources: excerpts of public comments and remarks carried by the Feb. 6 Wake Up Missoula program; statements quoted in this article are attributed to program speakers Scott Raff (host), Andrew Hurst (East Missoula), Brian Throckmorton (Foresex Engineering), Eric Sweden (billboard interests) and Ryan Sudsberry (city attorney).
