Conditional Use Interim Zoning Ordinance

Please extend the interim zoning ordinance. Mountain Home Montana has recently purchased a building at 4720 23rd Ave, the old Hillside manor building. Our goal with this space is to open and provide shelter beds for approximately 35 families, with a focus on birthing or parenting mothers. Additionally, we hope to open a daycare center for children between the ages of 6 months to 4 years of age. These services were identified by our clients, staff, and the Missoula community as an acute need. The interim zoning ordinance will allow us to more flexibly provide comprehensive support for our clients in this Hillside space: which in turn helps those individuals build a safe and stable home in the greater Missoula community.

I agree with others that the current rules are in effect for a reason. Everyone seems to be in a frenzy to react to the lack of housing in Missoula. It's a long term problem that isn't going to be solved by fast-tracking proposals. As someone who is about to be highly impacted by a new major subdivision I want city staff to have time to thoroughly review the proposal, not just rubber-stamp it. The city council seems to alway allow variances which are in place for a reason. Slow down Missoula!

I would advocate for reconsideration of density & commercial zoning in areas with close proximity to downtown - the university district should be allowed to have smaller lots, higher density apartments & row houses, additional small businesses, etc. It's a joke to call it a "historic" district when people whom the land was stolen from still live in our community today. Either give it back, or let it become what Missoula needs - higher density development near the urban core. Don't fast-track projects on the outskirts of town and cause more sprawl.

I believe the current rules are in effect for a reason. I'm not against a review of rules to streamline and make more efficient the process for folks but if they staff is overwhelmed maybe we need more staff to conduct the business at hand in the meantime. Thanks.

Hi there. Thank you for taking our comments. I support this urgency ordinance especially if it supports the city of Missoula staff as well as local businesses. I am currently the Managing Director of Westside Theater, a nonprofit performance and studio space in the Westside neighborhood.

We are in the process of applying for a MT state Nonprofit Venue Beer & Wine License, which is extremely delayed due to the city's backlog review process and the required conditional use approval we need (our last step in gaining the license). With this delay, adds quite a bit more time, work and finances to maintain a part of our operations that will be simplified once our license is granted.

We as a nonprofit arts organization constantly struggle to maintain a business, create relevant artistic work for and by the community with minimal staff and financial resources. For better or worse, a limited beer/wine nonprofit venue license is an integral revenue stream for our dance company and subsequent brick and mortar home base. We are here to serve the arts community and Missoula as a whole.

Thank you for continually trying to make processes more efficient and beneficial for all.

I do not support this. The process was established for a reason. Changing the rules now will be fair to past participants and the results of cutting corners will not be fully realized until it is too late to correct. Fast tracking construction is not an emergency that meets MCA 76-2-306.

There are good reasons certain uses are considered conditional. Primarily, such uses are deemed a significant enough deviation from the permitted uses that additional review is warranted. As such there are good reasons for additional review. An important one is that adjacent property owners are notified and can provide on-the-ground information to staff and council regarding a proposal that would otherwise not be considered. Another is that staff can review impacts to a neighborhood associated with a host of potential factors including traffic, noise, lighting, pedestrian circulation, hours of operation, and parking. Last, having certain projects go through conditional use review allows staff and council the flexibility to work with the applicant and neighborhood to craft solutions that are sensitive to the specifics of a given situation. Changing "C" to "P" doesn't address any of these items. A staffing shortage doesn't obviate the need for this kind of review -- it negligently turns a blind eye to these issues and/or kicks the responsibility of dealing with them down to neighbors with no professional and/or political mediation. Specifically, I recommend retaining conditional use status for Residential, Public/Civic, and Commercial designations in table 20.05-1.

Hey MCC could you please allow a "Tavern or Nightclub" to be a permitted use in C1 and M1R zones. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

As a former small business owner, I found it frustrating when it seemed easier for outsiders to open businesses than for locals. I'd like the council to consider ways to make it easier for local entrepreneurs to get their business started and successful. One way would be to look at the beer/wine licensing/zoning issue and make reasonable, fair decisions that don't discourage job creation.

Removed by moderator.

Our small local owned business has been asked to complete the special exception process to obtain a city beer and wine license. When I initially applied for the license, I stated that our space was an “Event space with beer, wine and limited food service” but I was told that the only available classification for us was “Tavern/Nightclub” and that the use was not permitted in our location. Prior to our use, the space was a restaurant that served beer and wine. Our current zoning would also permit us to bring caterers in to serve beer and wine. But, because there is no classification between “restaurant” and “tavern/nightclub”, we need to go through a six month to a year long process in order to hold our own beer and wine license. This will make it very difficult (if not impossible) for us to keep the lights on for the next year. I hope that you can take my story into consideration (and I know that there are other locally owned businesses that are in the same exact boat as us) and make “Tavern/Nightclub” a permitted use in C1 and M1R zones. Or, create an alternative designation for spaces like ours that would be more accurate to our intended purpose. Thank you!

Hey MCC could you please allow a "Tavern or Nightclub" to be a permitted use in C1 and M1R zones so we can get the local shoes going again and take some of Nick Chipotle's monopoly away please and thanks

I am curious where public engagement happens per project if the Conditional Use Interim Zoning Ordinance. And, does the interim ordinance lessen community input in any way? Thank you.

I would make "Tavern or Nightclub" Conditional uses permitted in C1and M1R zones as these are both intensive commercial and industrial zones. The Zoning department, in my view, has an absurd and overly restrictive interpretation of where alcohol can be consumed. A restaurant can serve wine and beer in these zones but a meeting house or entertainment or theater venue cannot without being labelled a "Tavern or Nightclub," which they are not. A catering company can serve beer and wine in these locations but the business operating on the parcel cannot. It is just ridiculous and not at all following Montana alcohol laws. It is an anti business interpretation in Zoning harming businesses in Missoula. Hard Liquor licenses which allow gambling in a bar or casino are not the same type of use as a meeting house or entertainment or theater venue. I think this should be addressed in this change as it is hurting existing businesses, right now, in Missoula.