Our Missoula 2045 Land Use Plan

I attended the Public Hearing on November 19. I had prepared a statement to read at the meeting, but the meeting ran longer than I anticipated and so I ran out of time. The following statement is what I was planning to read at the meeting:
******** statement:
Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am a resident of Missoula and an active member of the Missoula cycling community. I co-founded the Zootown Ebike Club as a mechanism to facilitate the bi-directional communication between the cycling community and land use planners. I offer these comments in that context.
I first want to acknowledge the work by City staff and the advisory boards in creating the "Our Missoula Draft Land Use Plan" I agree with the selected emphasis on urban infill as opposed to sprawl. I complement city staff and the leadership in the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation office and the Our Missoula office. The draft Land Use Plan is a statement of principles and goals that must now be realized with revision of the Uniform Development Code. I am speaking in support of the Specific Implementation Actions (page 118 of the draft land use plan) and I look forward to the new code requirements that will achieve these plans; I am particularly interested in code revisions to implement two of the action items:
• Action # 26, "Through the Place Type Map and Zoning Map Update, increase housing opportunities in residential areas that have good access to services and amenities by walking, biking, and transit."
• Action #50, to "Develop street standards that prioritize safety, multi-modal level of service, and enhanced placemaking."
From a cyclists' perspective these implementation actions must include:
• More cycling infrastructure (wider bike paths, secure bike parking, and better street design - with protected bike lanes). I think about some personal examples that I hope will be addressed with revision of the UDC:
o I have Friends who describes years of bike commuting to work along Reserve Street as "Combat cycling." It is reassuring to see that the city is planning for a major safety redesign. I hope that code revision will eliminate the need for 'combat cycling elsewhere in the city.
o Most cyclists must ride while staying aware of driver frustration as they ride the "tightrope of a thin white line separating traffic from a crumbling road edge. Again, I hope that code revision will add cycling lanes to improve safety and designs that reduce traffic conflicts with cyclists.
• I understand that the goals of the Land Use Plan must be accomplished within the constraints of construction costs and budgets. However, in that environment we need to think of bikes and ebikes as part of the solution:
o Bike commuting reduces car traffic and demand for car parking.
o Bike paths and bike lanes should be treated the same as roads: they are not a good place to pile leaves or snow.
o City expenditures on roads and parking can be offset with bike commuting and effective implementation of the Land Use Plan.
I am looking forward the future work to achieve the vision of the Land Use Plan in the revised uniform development code.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Dear Planning Board Members:

I am submitting the following comments as a long-time resident (45+ years), and design professional with 30 years’ experience in Missoula. The 2045 Long-Range Plan should be the guiding visionary document of what our city wants for the next 20 years of growth. It will define our future zoning code and subdivision expansion over the remaining undeveloped land that surrounds the city. The plan will contribute to remaking existing neighborhoods as the homes and commercial buildings are reaching their useful life in the oldest portions of town. The past zoning policies have been those of exclusion taking away equity and affordability from our children and grandchildren as laid out in the Our Missoula Equity and Land Use Report. The lessons learned from the report are hard earned as our city’s policies have enforced exclusion, over inclusion, of all economic classes or the needs of the residents to live sustainably.
The 2045 Land Use Plan should meet what is needed on a day-to-day basis, in ten years from its adoption, for development policy. It should exceed the needs of current development demands for more housing and sustainable development as it is our long-term vision for the future. It will start to be overly restrictive after much of its term has passed with no guarantees the City leaders will make updates to it, which has occurred under current planning. Citizens who participated in the public meetings and left comments on previous drafts wanted more density throughout the city and mixed-use development, so neighborhoods were not dependent on driving to work, stores, and other city services. The draft of this plan falls short of meeting those citizens’ desired needs in several aspects. The draft does have many good concepts concerning annexation goals, habitat preservation and urban interface. I hope the considerable public input will allow the board to make the needed changes to this plan to ensure that future generations have an equitable and affordable place to call home.
1. Terminology: There is a new term for inequity, in zoning parlance, and it is called “Form”. Form does not create good land use planning, it is a new trend in zoning policy, which is avoided by many municipalities due to development potential it takes away. Form rules are what will stop future affordability in city regulation, much like single-family-zoning policy did for the past 70 years. The term “Form” in this draft will be used to create tools for zoning codes to drive up the cost of future construction through overly restrictive and lengthy bureaucratic processes. It lowers density by taking away buildable volume on redeveloped land. Form policy will limit affordable housing by requiring more expensive construction to make increased density of housing fit in a small volume similar to a single-family home. For Commercial development it would drive up cost in a similar manner as the volume and area will be limited by form policy but the need for more space, to serve a growing community, in the city core will be reduced on the land available for redevelopment. “Our Code Diagnostics” page 90 shows how Form removes volume in Form based codes lowering potential density from a development. This is a loss of volume that does not exist in the current codes. I suggest references to “Form” be struck from the plan and replaced with built environment or similar adjectives.

2. Housing Choice and Access - Policy objective #1 and Residential Place Types: This policy desires smaller dwelling units as the missing middle, regardless of what the market supports for residential development. It highlights the misunderstanding of development costs, construction costs and affordability of residential construction within the document. Small is not a viable solution in constructing affordable freestanding single-family homes. The land costs are similar for a small home as a large single-family home. Small single-family homes have as many trades involved as larger homes but with far less area to spread out costs per square foot. New 600 s.f. single-family homes are selling for $750 per s.f.. Larger multifamily developments on the other hand could be built for far less cost per square foot, plus less land costs per unit. That savings is passed onto buyers as new small condominiums are selling for around $407 per s.f. but the buildings are larger and taller than older single-family buildings. Promising a building’s scale for new development being compatible with existing-single-family homes scale is not possible as the new development needed, to meet the housing goals set by the city, are much denser per area of land. References to new construction being similar to single-family-home size and area should be removed from the draft.
3. Industrial Place Types: Historically Missoula’s industrial areas allowed residential housing and where known as “D” zoning districts. The 2045 Long Range Plan does not allow residential work force housing or support services in the Industrial Place Type. This will cause many employees to commute to their industrial jobs, increasing congestion and vehicle pollution. This should be changed back to the principles that Missoula was founded on and that is Mixed-use neighborhoods throughout. Industrial zones need housing for the employees that work in them. Proximity of housing to manufacturing allows for multi-modal transportation to work and home. The building codes require separation of hazardous uses from less hazardous uses such as office, retail and dwelling units. It is not really a zoning safety issue, but a building codes and environmental law concern.
4. Civil, Open and Resource, Parks and Conservation lands Place types: These Place Types should remove Historical Sites from their building types. Historical sites exist across all Place types in Missoula with multiple historic districts and buildings. Historic homes, farms, ranches, community centers, educational institutions and commercial buildings occur all over the Land Use map. Civic and Public place types should only be placed on land that is publicly owned or has a publicly owned conservation easement upon them. No privately owned land should be included that has no public ownership included in its ownership title.
5. Street Type modifications should include public parking on both sides of the street for all street types. This parking is central to creating community streets for neighborhood business. Street parking acts as a protection barrier for pedestrians, psychologically and physically. The parking provides a lively interaction zone for the community to participate with the built environment in front of the building. Within the urban core no street should have on street parking removed for vehicle efficiency, automobile, bike or multimodal, as the street will become a pedestrian wall across the town such as The Strip on Brooks. If streets do not have on street parking commercial development will turn inwards away from streets towards parking lots as the streets will be devoid of pedestrian activity and the Parking lot is where customers will arrive to a building.
Sincerely
David V. Gray LEED Green Associate
Principal Architect

Dear Planning Board Members:

I am submitting the following comments as a long-time resident (45+ years), and design professional with 30 years’ experience in Missoula. The 2045 Long-Range Plan should be the guiding visionary document of what our city wants for the next 20 years of growth. It will define our future zoning code and subdivision expansion over the remaining undeveloped land that surrounds the city. The plan will contribute to remaking existing neighborhoods as the homes and commercial buildings are reaching their useful life in the oldest portions of town. The past zoning policies have been those of exclusion taking away equity and affordability from our children and grandchildren as laid out in the Our Missoula Equity and Land Use Report. The lessons learned from the report are hard earned as our city’s policies have enforced exclusion, over inclusion, of all economic classes or the needs of the residents to live sustainably.
The 2045 Land Use Plan should meet what is needed on a day-to-day basis, in ten years from its adoption, for development policy. It should exceed the needs of current development demands for more housing and sustainable development as it is our long-term vision for the future. It will start to be overly restrictive after much of its term has passed with no guarantees the City leaders will make updates to it, which has occurred under current planning. Citizens who participated in the public meetings and left comments on previous drafts wanted more density throughout the city and mixed-use development, so neighborhoods were not dependent on driving to work, stores, and other city services. The draft of this plan falls short of meeting those citizens’ desired needs in several aspects. The draft does have many good concepts concerning annexation goals, habitat preservation and urban interface. I hope the considerable public input will allow the board to make the needed changes to this plan to ensure that future generations have an equitable and affordable place to call home.
1. Terminology: There is a new term for inequity, in zoning parlance, and it is called “Form”. Form does not create good land use planning, it is a new trend in zoning policy, which is avoided by many municipalities due to development potential it takes away. Form rules are what will stop future affordability in city regulation, much like single-family-zoning policy did for the past 70 years. The term “Form” in this draft will be used to create tools for zoning codes to drive up the cost of future construction through overly restrictive and lengthy bureaucratic processes. It lowers density by taking away buildable volume on redeveloped land. Form policy will limit affordable housing by requiring more expensive construction to make increased density of housing fit in a small volume similar to a single-family home. For Commercial development it would drive up cost in a similar manner as the volume and area will be limited by form policy but the need for more space, to serve a growing community, in the city core will be reduced on the land available for redevelopment. “Our Code Diagnostics” page 90 shows how Form removes volume in Form based codes lowering potential density from a development. This is a loss of volume that does not exist in the current codes. I suggest references to “Form” be struck from the plan and replaced with built environment or similar adjectives.

2. Housing Choice and Access - Policy objective #1 and Residential Place Types: This policy desires smaller dwelling units as the missing middle, regardless of what the market supports for residential development. It highlights the misunderstanding of development costs, construction costs and affordability of residential construction within the document. Small is not a viable solution in constructing affordable freestanding single-family homes. The land costs are similar for a small home as a large single-family home. Small single-family homes have as many trades involved as larger homes but with far less area to spread out costs per square foot. New 600 s.f. single-family homes are selling for $750 per s.f.. Larger multifamily developments on the other hand could be built for far less cost per square foot, plus less land costs per unit. That savings is passed onto buyers as new small condominiums are selling for around $407 per s.f. but the buildings are larger and taller than older single-family buildings. Promising a building’s scale for new development being compatible with existing-single-family homes scale is not possible as the new development needed, to meet the housing goals set by the city, are much denser per area of land. References to new construction being similar to single-family-home size and area should be removed from the draft.
3. Industrial Place Types: Historically Missoula’s industrial areas allowed residential housing and where known as “D” zoning districts. The 2045 Long Range Plan does not allow residential work force housing or support services in the Industrial Place Type. This will cause many employees to commute to their industrial jobs, increasing congestion and vehicle pollution. This should be changed back to the principles that Missoula was founded on and that is Mixed-use neighborhoods throughout. Industrial zones need housing for the employees that work in them. Proximity of housing to manufacturing allows for multi-modal transportation to work and home. The building codes require separation of hazardous uses from less hazardous uses such as office, retail and dwelling units. It is not really a zoning safety issue, but a building codes and environmental law concern.
4. Civil, Open and Resource, Parks and Conservation lands Place types: These Place Types should remove Historical Sites from their building types. Historical sites exist across all Place types in Missoula with multiple historic districts and buildings. Historic homes, farms, ranches, community centers, educational institutions and commercial buildings occur all over the Land Use map. Civic and Public place types should only be placed on land that is publicly owned or has a publicly owned conservation easement upon them. No privately owned land should be included that has no public ownership included in its ownership title.
5. Street Type modifications should include public parking on both sides of the street for all street types. This parking is central to creating community streets for neighborhood business. Street parking acts as a protection barrier for pedestrians, psychologically and physically. The parking provides a lively interaction zone for the community to participate with the built environment in front of the building. Within the urban core no street should have on street parking removed for vehicle efficiency, automobile, bike or multimodal, as the street will become a pedestrian wall across the town such as The Strip on Brooks. If streets do not have on street parking commercial development will turn inwards away from streets towards parking lots as the streets will be devoid of pedestrian activity and the Parking lot is where customers will arrive to a building.
Sincerely
David V. Gray LEED Green Associate
Principal Architect

Dear Planning Board Members:

I am submitting the following comments as a long-time resident (45+ years), and design professional with 30 years’ experience in Missoula. The 2045 Long-Range Plan should be the guiding visionary document of what our city wants for the next 20 years of growth. It will define our future zoning code and subdivision expansion over the remaining undeveloped land that surrounds the city. The plan will contribute to remaking existing neighborhoods as the homes and commercial buildings are reaching their useful life in the oldest portions of town. The past zoning policies have been those of exclusion taking away equity and affordability from our children and grandchildren as laid out in the Our Missoula Equity and Land Use Report. The lessons learned from the report are hard earned as our city’s policies have enforced exclusion, over inclusion, of all economic classes or the needs of the residents to live sustainably.
The 2045 Land Use Plan should meet what is needed on a day-to-day basis, in ten years from its adoption, for development policy. It should exceed the needs of current development demands for more housing and sustainable development as it is our long-term vision for the future. It will start to be overly restrictive after much of its term has passed with no guarantees the City leaders will make updates to it, which has occurred under current planning. Citizens who participated in the public meetings and left comments on previous drafts wanted more density throughout the city and mixed-use development, so neighborhoods were not dependent on driving to work, stores, and other city services. The draft of this plan falls short of meeting those citizens’ desired needs in several aspects. The draft does have many good concepts concerning annexation goals, habitat preservation and urban interface. I hope the considerable public input will allow the board to make the needed changes to this plan to ensure that future generations have an equitable and affordable place to call home.
1. Terminology: There is a new term for inequity, in zoning parlance, and it is called “Form”. Form does not create good land use planning, it is a new trend in zoning policy, which is avoided by many municipalities due to development potential it takes away. Form rules are what will stop future affordability in city regulation, much like single-family-zoning policy did for the past 70 years. The term “Form” in this draft will be used to create tools for zoning codes to drive up the cost of future construction through overly restrictive and lengthy bureaucratic processes. It lowers density by taking away buildable volume on redeveloped land. Form policy will limit affordable housing by requiring more expensive construction to make increased density of housing fit in a small volume similar to a single-family home. For Commercial development it would drive up cost in a similar manner as the volume and area will be limited by form policy but the need for more space, to serve a growing community, in the city core will be reduced on the land available for redevelopment. “Our Code Diagnostics” page 90 shows how Form removes volume in Form based codes lowering potential density from a development. This is a loss of volume that does not exist in the current codes. I suggest references to “Form” be struck from the plan and replaced with built environment or similar adjectives.

2. Housing Choice and Access - Policy objective #1 and Residential Place Types: This policy desires smaller dwelling units as the missing middle, regardless of what the market supports for residential development. It highlights the misunderstanding of development costs, construction costs and affordability of residential construction within the document. Small is not a viable solution in constructing affordable freestanding single-family homes. The land costs are similar for a small home as a large single-family home. Small single-family homes have as many trades involved as larger homes but with far less area to spread out costs per square foot. New 600 s.f. single-family homes are selling for $750 per s.f.. Larger multifamily developments on the other hand could be built for far less cost per square foot, plus less land costs per unit. That savings is passed onto buyers as new small condominiums are selling for around $407 per s.f. but the buildings are larger and taller than older single-family buildings. Promising a building’s scale for new development being compatible with existing-single-family homes scale is not possible as the new development needed, to meet the housing goals set by the city, are much denser per area of land. References to new construction being similar to single-family-home size and area should be removed from the draft.
3. Industrial Place Types: Historically Missoula’s industrial areas allowed residential housing and where known as “D” zoning districts. The 2045 Long Range Plan does not allow residential work force housing or support services in the Industrial Place Type. This will cause many employees to commute to their industrial jobs, increasing congestion and vehicle pollution. This should be changed back to the principles that Missoula was founded on and that is Mixed-use neighborhoods throughout. Industrial zones need housing for the employees that work in them. Proximity of housing to manufacturing allows for multi-modal transportation to work and home. The building codes require separation of hazardous uses from less hazardous uses such as office, retail and dwelling units. It is not really a zoning safety issue, but a building codes and environmental law concern.
4. Civil, Open and Resource, Parks and Conservation lands Place types: These Place Types should remove Historical Sites from their building types. Historical sites exist across all Place types in Missoula with multiple historic districts and buildings. Historic homes, farms, ranches, community centers, educational institutions and commercial buildings occur all over the Land Use map. Civic and Public place types should only be placed on land that is publicly owned or has a publicly owned conservation easement upon them. No privately owned land should be included that has no public ownership included in its ownership title.
5. Street Type modifications should include public parking on both sides of the street for all street types. This parking is central to creating community streets for neighborhood business. Street parking acts as a protection barrier for pedestrians, psychologically and physically. The parking provides a lively interaction zone for the community to participate with the built environment in front of the building. Within the urban core no street should have on street parking removed for vehicle efficiency, automobile, bike or multimodal, as the street will become a pedestrian wall across the town such as The Strip on Brooks. If streets do not have on street parking commercial development will turn inwards away from streets towards parking lots as the streets will be devoid of pedestrian activity and the Parking lot is where customers will arrive to a building.
Sincerely
David V. Gray LEED Green Associate
Principal Architect

Dear Planning Board Members:

I am submitting the following comments as a long-time resident (45+ years), and design professional with 30 years’ experience in Missoula. The 2045 Long-Range Plan should be the guiding visionary document of what our city wants for the next 20 years of growth. It will define our future zoning code and subdivision expansion over the remaining undeveloped land that surrounds the city. The plan will contribute to remaking existing neighborhoods as the homes and commercial buildings are reaching their useful life in the oldest portions of town. The past zoning policies have been those of exclusion taking away equity and affordability from our children and grandchildren as laid out in the Our Missoula Equity and Land Use Report. The lessons learned from the report are hard earned as our city’s policies have enforced exclusion, over inclusion, of all economic classes or the needs of the residents to live sustainably.
The 2045 Land Use Plan should meet what is needed on a day-to-day basis, in ten years from its adoption, for development policy. It should exceed the needs of current development demands for more housing and sustainable development as it is our long-term vision for the future. It will start to be overly restrictive after much of its term has passed with no guarantees the City leaders will make updates to it, which has occurred under current planning. Citizens who participated in the public meetings and left comments on previous drafts wanted more density throughout the city and mixed-use development, so neighborhoods were not dependent on driving to work, stores, and other city services. The draft of this plan falls short of meeting those citizens’ desired needs in several aspects. The draft does have many good concepts concerning annexation goals, habitat preservation and urban interface. I hope the considerable public input will allow the board to make the needed changes to this plan to ensure that future generations have an equitable and affordable place to call home.
1. Terminology: There is a new term for inequity, in zoning parlance, and it is called “Form”. Form does not create good land use planning, it is a new trend in zoning policy, which is avoided by many municipalities due to development potential it takes away. Form rules are what will stop future affordability in city regulation, much like single-family-zoning policy did for the past 70 years. The term “Form” in this draft will be used to create tools for zoning codes to drive up the cost of future construction through overly restrictive and lengthy bureaucratic processes. It lowers density by taking away buildable volume on redeveloped land. Form policy will limit affordable housing by requiring more expensive construction to make increased density of housing fit in a small volume similar to a single-family home. For Commercial development it would drive up cost in a similar manner as the volume and area will be limited by form policy but the need for more space, to serve a growing community, in the city core will be reduced on the land available for redevelopment. “Our Code Diagnostics” page 90 shows how Form removes volume in Form based codes lowering potential density from a development. This is a loss of volume that does not exist in the current codes. I suggest references to “Form” be struck from the plan and replaced with built environment or similar adjectives.

2. Housing Choice and Access - Policy objective #1 and Residential Place Types: This policy desires smaller dwelling units as the missing middle, regardless of what the market supports for residential development. It highlights the misunderstanding of development costs, construction costs and affordability of residential construction within the document. Small is not a viable solution in constructing affordable freestanding single-family homes. The land costs are similar for a small home as a large single-family home. Small single-family homes have as many trades involved as larger homes but with far less area to spread out costs per square foot. New 600 s.f. single-family homes are selling for $750 per s.f.. Larger multifamily developments on the other hand could be built for far less cost per square foot, plus less land costs per unit. That savings is passed onto buyers as new small condominiums are selling for around $407 per s.f. but the buildings are larger and taller than older single-family buildings. Promising a building’s scale for new development being compatible with existing-single-family homes scale is not possible as the new development needed, to meet the housing goals set by the city, are much denser per area of land. References to new construction being similar to single-family-home size and area should be removed from the draft.
3. Industrial Place Types: Historically Missoula’s industrial areas allowed residential housing and where known as “D” zoning districts. The 2045 Long Range Plan does not allow residential work force housing or support services in the Industrial Place Type. This will cause many employees to commute to their industrial jobs, increasing congestion and vehicle pollution. This should be changed back to the principles that Missoula was founded on and that is Mixed-use neighborhoods throughout. Industrial zones need housing for the employees that work in them. Proximity of housing to manufacturing allows for multi-modal transportation to work and home. The building codes require separation of hazardous uses from less hazardous uses such as office, retail and dwelling units. It is not really a zoning safety issue, but a building codes and environmental law concern.
4. Civil, Open and Resource, Parks and Conservation lands Place types: These Place Types should remove Historical Sites from their building types. Historical sites exist across all Place types in Missoula with multiple historic districts and buildings. Historic homes, farms, ranches, community centers, educational institutions and commercial buildings occur all over the Land Use map. Civic and Public place types should only be placed on land that is publicly owned or has a publicly owned conservation easement upon them. No privately owned land should be included that has no public ownership included in its ownership title.
5. Street Type modifications should include public parking on both sides of the street for all street types. This parking is central to creating community streets for neighborhood business. Street parking acts as a protection barrier for pedestrians, psychologically and physically. The parking provides a lively interaction zone for the community to participate with the built environment in front of the building. Within the urban core no street should have on street parking removed for vehicle efficiency, automobile, bike or multimodal, as the street will become a pedestrian wall across the town such as The Strip on Brooks. If streets do not have on street parking commercial development will turn inwards away from streets towards parking lots as the streets will be devoid of pedestrian activity and the Parking lot is where customers will arrive to a building.
Sincerely
David V. Gray LEED Green Associate
Principal Architect

I accidentally submitted my comment before it was finished, this is the second half... I left off by saying that East Missoula is not ready for an "Urban Residential High" designation. However, once the plan is finalized, incoming developers can cite and use it as justification for what they want to build (this already happens with the existing growth plan and we have seen repeatedly that stating adherence to the growth plan gives new developments an advantage) Designation on a growth plan does not mean we have the infrastructure for the label. By prematurely assigning that label, the horse is before the cart. We are chronically in a state of trying to catch up to the growth plan as opposed to having a well thought out plan to begin with. Early in the document it is stated that this plan will be reviewed every five years. I believe it would be prudent to change our color from orange to almost any other color for now. Then at the five year mark or the ten year mark, re-evaluate again. For now, East Missoula is not annexed. We have no grocery store. We have no neighborhood center. We do not have a community center. Those types of things do not follow development. If they never materialize, we will never develop as you describe in your plan.

I am a long time resident of East Missoula. I try to keep up with as much of the new development, zoning, rezoning as I can. I attend planning board meetings and commissioners meetings, I am a member of the community council and our neighborhood EMU group. This entire project caught me by surprise last week at the All Community Council meeting. To have never heard of this, leads me to believe that there was not a lot of outreach to the East Missoula Community. That being said, I do not believe our neighborhood has been accurately portrayed in this plan. We have been deemed "Urban Residential High". If anyone had asked us what we think we are, this would be one of the last designations we would have chosen. By the definition, the neighborhood would be walkable (we have no sidewalks), complete with near-by ammenities (we, though no lack of trying, have very limited ammenities)

URBAN RESIDENTIAL HIGH
• Suggest as 4-story apartment buildings spring up in Franklin-to-the-Fort and other URH areas, the character of these neighborhoods will change dramatically — which will result in community pushback. My suggestion is to include in the zoning a package of design standards with enough articulation ((second floor setbacks, and varied profiles) so that they fit into the neighborhoods and the community can accept them. The areas designated URH are the less affluent home owner areas — sensitive FBC zoning will protect them from a monoscape of block-shaped apartments
• Suggest adding Vertical Mixed-Use to Building Types.
• Suggest the City purchase some of the best multi-family building plans from local architects to offer to new developers — speeding the approval process and insuring that neighborhoods change in ways property owners feel good about.

URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOW
• Suggest adding Vertical Mixed-Use to Building Types.
• Suggest eliminating new Strip Malls in Building Types (Mixed-Use Vertical will support our goal of housing density — Strip Malls will take us in the other direction).
• Suggest including FBC design standards in zoning package.

RURAL RESIDENTIAL
Within this designation include zoning for community hubs (services/ groceries) so that as new subdivisions are developed, the neighborhoods are walkable (part of our sustainability commitment and traffic mitigation plan.)

DOWNTOWN
• Suggest 110’ for Downtown.
• Suggest shorter height for Hip Strip area and east of Washington and west of Orange (with building heights for those areas capped at 6 stories / 75’ because 10 story building in a residential adjacent neighborhood can stick out like the Space Needle. These shorter heights give the City the opportunity to negotiate with developers for higher density/more stories for the addition of more affordable units. Also building heights can increase as the City fills in. (See Rural to Urban Transect Planning https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2017/04/13/great-idea-rural-urban-transect)

URBAN MIXED USE HIGH
• Suggest 6 stories / 75’ feet (These shorter heights give the City the opportunity to negotiate with developers for higher density/more stories for the addition of more affordable units.)
• Suggest extending this zoning area along Broadway to the airport and along the Reserve and Brooks corridors. • Suggest removing Strip mall inclusion.
• Our zigzag building placement on corridor boulevards makes the streets unsafe and unwalkable. The new vertical mixed use zoning will go a long way to correct this issue, in order for that to work, we need to include zoning for building placement for new development (to sit parallel to the street —creating a consistent street wall and walkable / bike-able complete streets.
• Zoning some intersections with a prescriptive (replace parking lot with a mixed-use vertical or liner building, pocket park, removal of short angled streets, etc.) will help us convert our corridors to vibrant, safe areas of town.
• Suggest eliminate setbacks on corridor boulevards.

URBAN MIXED USE LOW
• Our zigzag building placement on corridor boulevards makes the streets unsafe and unwalkable. The new vertical mixed use zoning will go a long way to correct this issue, in order for that to work, we need to include zoning for building placement for new development (to sit parallel to the street —creating a consistent street wall and walkable / bike-able complete streets.
• Zoning some intersections with a prescriptive (replace parking lot with a mixed-use vertical or liner building, pocket park, removal of short angled streets, etc.) will help us convert our corridors to vibrant, safe areas of town.
• Suggest eliminate setbacks on corridor boulevards.
• Suggest area between the railroad tracks and Toole be designated Urban Residential — the fabric of that neighborhood will be too greatly impacted if it becomes Mixed-Use Low.

SUBURBAN MIXED USE
• See suggestions for “Our zigzag building placement on corridor boulevards makes the streets unsafe” above.

INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT
• Some areas like Roseburg Forest Products will be selling and there is potential for housing in those areas after clean-up (as they are fairly close to city center)— so suggest transitional zoning.
• Suggest cottage industry/makers space zoning added to housing types.

CIVIC
* Suggest Building Types include eateries and marketplaces because some civic buildings could house restaurants with rental agreements that would bring the city income, and indoor farmers markets/food halls would support our sustainability goals.

GENERAL:
• Suggest Identifying neighborhoods with a lack of walkable services/ food options and zone small islands of Mixed-Use plus pocket parks /plazas. (Did you know that one of the reasons Portland has so many charming, walkable neighborhoods is that much of the City originally had a grid of cable car stops across it? The stops were zoned mixed use — so eateries and shops grew up around them —even in residential neighborhoods, making much of Portland a short distance from something fun and/or convenient.)
• Suggest the proviso “Incorporate appropriate street wall height” could be clarified by including specific triggers for height allowance — like “no more than two stories above existing street wall structures.”
• Suggest changing our asphalt zoning directives to help mitigate rising temperatures in the summer — to slimmer residential street requirements (some municipalities use 26’ widths and soft shoulders for emergency vehicles), shorter driveway lengths required, permeable pavers allowed in some cases, and bioswales for rainwater.

Re: The Urban High-Density plan (for Franklin-to-the-Fort and other neighborhoods): as more 4-story apartments go in, the character of these neighborhoods will change dramatically — which will result in community pushback. My suggestion is to include in the zoning package design standards with enough articulation ((second floor setbacks, and varied profiles) so that they fit into the neighborhoods and the community can accept them.

Re: The urban high-density plan (for Franklin-to-the-Fort and other neighborhoods): as more 4-story blocks of apartments go in, the character of these neighborhoods will change dramatically — which will result in community pushback. My suggestion is to include in that zoning package design standards with enough articulation ((second floor setbacks, and varied profiles) so that they fit into the neighborhoods and the community can accept them.

Missoula planning staff have done an admirable job here. Generally speaking, this has been very well thought out.
My single critique pertains to the city’s plans for the Tech Development Park along Expressway and centered around Technology Ct. The land has previously been identified and developed for industrial use. I believe an argument could be made to remove the development overlay entirely. However, 3 of the lots in the Park are entirely inappropriate for industrial development. Specifically, I’m referring to lots 10, 11 and 12.
Unlike the other lots in the Park which are accessed from Technology Ct., lots 10, 11 and 12 can only be accessed from Kendrick Place. On the opposite South/SE side of Kendrick is a sizable single-family home community. Proceeding with an industrial designation for this land will create undesirable commercial/industrial traffic through a residential area, negatively impacting the community and, likely, the tranquility and values of the residents’ homes.
A more suitable plan would create a transitional buffer between the existing low density residential community to the S/SE and the commercial area to the N/NW by designating lots 10, 11 and 12 for medium to high density apartment housing. Doing so would prevent an avoidable zoning clash of industrial development directly across the street from SF homes and avoid noisy/dirty truck traffic on what is currently a quiet residential street.
Higher density MF zoning in this location would provide much-needed missing middle housing. More housing density in the area would have the added benefit of supporting the existing businesses, and stimulating future commercial development, in the MU-designated land to the N/NW of the Development Park.
Thank you for your considerable effort and consideration of this suggestion.

Missoula planning staff have done an admirable job here. Generally speaking, this has been very well thought out.

My single critique pertains to the city’s plans for the Tech Development Park along Expressway and centered around Technology Ct. The land has previously been identified and developed for industrial use. I believe an argument could be made to remove the development overlay entirely. However, 3 of the lots in the Park are entirely inappropriate for industrial development. Specifically, I’m referring to lots 10, 11 and 12.

Unlike the other lots in the Park which are accessed from Technology Ct., lots 10, 11 and 12 can only be accessed from Kendrick Place. On the opposite South/SE side of Kendrick is a sizable single-family home community. Proceeding with an industrial designation for this land will create undesirable commercial/industrial traffic through a residential area, negatively impacting the community and, likely, the tranquility and values of the residents’ homes.
A more suitable plan would create a transitional buffer between the existing low density residential community to the S/SE and the commercial area to the N/NW by designating lots 10, 11 and 12 for medium to high density apartment housing. Doing so would prevent an avoidable zoning clash of industrial development directly across the street from SF homes and avoid noisy/dirty truck traffic on what is currently a quiet residential street.

Higher density MF zoning in this location would provide much-needed missing middle housing. More housing density in the area would have the added benefit of supporting the existing businesses, and stimulating future commercial development, in the MU-designated land to the N/NW of the Development Park.

Thank you for your considerable effort and consideration of this suggestion.

Missoula planning staff have done an admirable job here. Generally speaking, this is very well thought out.

My single critique pertains to the city’s plans for the Tech Development Park along Expressway and centered around Technology Ct. The land has previously been identified and developed for industrial use. I believe an argument could be made to remove the development overlay entirely. However, 3 of the lots in the Park are entirely inappropriate for industrial development. Specifically, I’m referring to lots 10, 11 and 12.

Unlike the other lots in the Park which are accessed from Technology Ct., lots 10, 11 and 12 can only be accessed from Kendrick Place. On the opposite South/SE side of Kendrick is a sizable single-family home community. Proceeding with an industrial designation for this land will create undesirable commercial/industrial traffic through a residential area, negatively impacting the community and, likely, the tranquility and values of the residents’ homes.

A more suitable plan would create a transitional buffer between the existing low density residential community to the S/SE and the commercial area to the N/NW by designating lots 10, 11 and 12 for medium to high density apartment housing. Doing so would prevent an avoidable zoning clash of industrial development directly across the street from SF homes and avoid noisy/dirty truck traffic on what is currently a quiet residential street.

Higher density MF zoning in this location would provide much-needed missing middle housing. More housing density in the area would have the added benefit of supporting the existing businesses, and stimulating future commercial development, in the MU-designated land to the N/NW of the Development Park.

Thank you for your considerable effort and consideration of this suggestion.

Missoula planning staff have done an admirable job here. Generally speaking, this is very well thought out.

My single critique pertains to the city’s plans for the Tech Development Park along Expressway and centered around Technology Ct. The land has previously been identified and developed for industrial use. I believe an argument could be made to remove the development overlay entirely. However, 3 of the lots in the Park are entirely inappropriate for industrial development. Specifically, I’m referring to lots 10, 11 and 12.

Unlike the other lots in the Park which are accessed from Technology Ct., lots 10, 11 and 12 can only be accessed from Kendrick Place. On the opposite South/SE side of Kendrick is a sizable single-family home community. Proceeding with an industrial designation for this land will create undesirable commercial/industrial traffic through a residential area, negatively impacting the community and, likely, the tranquility and values of the residents’ homes.

A more suitable plan would create a transitional buffer between the existing low density residential community to the S/SE and the commercial area to the N/NW by designating lots 10, 11 and 12 for medium to high density apartment housing. Doing so would prevent an avoidable zoning clash of industrial development directly across the street from SF homes and avoid noisy/dirty truck traffic on what is currently a quiet residential street.

Higher density MF zoning in this location would provide much-needed missing middle housing. More housing density in the area would have the added benefit of supporting the existing businesses, and stimulating future commercial development, in the MU-designated land to the N/NW of the Development Park.

Thank you for your considerable effort and consideration of this suggestion.

Here are a few suggestions and thoughts I have:

1) The urban residential low in the area bounded by SW Higgins/39th, Brooks, South, and Higgins should all be urban residential high.

2) The area south and directly adjacent to SW Higgins/39th should be residential low instead of suburban south as far as about Briggs, geography permitting.

3) The area between Wyoming, Reserve, Russell, and 3rd should be urban residential high. Between Wyoming and River Road should be urban residential low except where the flood risk is high.

4) Broadway up to Palmer should be Urban mixed use instead of suburban.

5) Target Range and Orchard Homes are not nearly dense enough. The triangle between Central, Reserve, and Spurgin should be urban residential high. The area between Spurgin, Hiberta, Reserve, and 3rd should also be urban residential high. There should be urban residential low from 3rd to Juneau in the same area. The area bounded by Hiberta, Spurgin, Tower, and 3rd should be urban residential low. And most of the rest of that area should be suburban or urban residential low.

6) I agree with the person commenting about Mullan being unsafe. There definitely needs to be some work done there and probably a reduction in speed limits.

7) The comments advocating for decreasing people and discouraging people from moving here are antithetical to Missoula's community values and from the values and policy goals of this draft plan (and literally every city planning document); are illiberal and against the spirit of Article IV, § 2 of the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment; and violate rules 3 and 7 of this site's moderation policy. We can't stop people from coming here. Who hurt you?

8) I think we could benefit by consolidating some of the place types and increasing the flexibility of allowed uses. Suburban doesn't seem to need to exist except to decrease the efficacy of this plan. With some tinkering, we could also just have two high and low mixed uses and remove the suburban mixed use, especially if the goal is to increase density, walking, and biking throughout the city. The suburban mixed use along Reserve seems to preclude a viable pedestrian/biking/bus connection between two centers of growth in Missoula. 9) Would still really appreciate an ordinance outlawing the practice of using residential units as short-term vacation rentals. I get a previous document published by the city says it's a negligible effect, but if we're in a housing crisis, I assume every single additional unit helps. Or do I not understand how supply and demand works?

10) Everyone's freaking out about cars, but my read of the plan is that the city has no intention of completely removing parking minimums. I'm personally fine with .5 spaces, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that every household needs a car in Montana. 1 parking space per unit is plenty. How many cars do y'all need? One for each season?

11) Toward the end of the draft plan, it talks about lobbying the state legislature for some things that only the state government can do or that the state government has denied us. You might as well ask for a higher and more progressive income tax and a mansion tax so we can actually fund the services we need. To anyone who worries about snow on roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, I suggest the city lobby the Republicans in this state to stop fiscally strangling us to pad the pockets of the rich so we can actually maintain our infrastructure.

Please make sure that the plan is realistic about the fact that sidewalks are incomplete in so many neighborhoods and that the city estimates it will take 100 years to complete our sidewalks. Be sure to prioritize short-term, quick-build alternatives in the meantime--such as Neighborways--to improve safety and connectivity across the city. Sometimes the Greenways plan isn't ideal. Not all cars are willing to share the road with cyclists. And it's tricky for pedestrians, wheelchair users and those pushing strollers to get around in neighborhoods where there are no ramps for the sidewalks at the end of each block. Neighborways could alleviate that problem. A pilot route reaching all the way across Missoula, either east-west or north-south, would be a great start. Thank you.

Overall, I think this land use plan is moving in the right direction. I do think we should give priority to housing in multiple ways: allowing for more density in all neighborhoods and along commercial corridors; eliminating the requirement for parking (we have plenty throughout the city and there will be no prohibition on developers from providing more parking with their developments if it pencils out for them); and devoting more street space to walking and biking which go hand-in-hand with more compact and people-friendly development. Please highlight the need for more greenways and neighbor ways in your street types, not just corridors devoted to motor vehicles. Also please maintain the emphasis on neighborhood commercial, which will also support more compact, walkable neighborhoods and reduce the need for motor vehicle trips (and just make Missoula a better place to live, work and travel). Thanks to staff and the community for getting us to this point and let's get code reform in place by early Spring!

Overall, I think this land use plan is moving in the right direction. I do think we should give priority to housing in multiple ways: allowing for more density in all neighborhoods and along commercial corridors; eliminating the requirement for parking (we have plenty throughout the city and there will be no prohibition on developers from providing more parking with their developments if it pencils out for them); and devoting more street space to walking and biking which go hand-in-hand with more compact and people-friendly development. Please highlight the need for more greenways and neighbor ways in your street types, not just corridors devoted to motor vehicles. Also please maintain the emphasis on neighborhood commercial, which will also support more compact, walkable neighborhoods and reduce the need for motor vehicle trips (and just make Missoula a better place to live, work and travel). Thanks to staff and the community for getting us to this point and let's get code reform in place by early Spring!

Overall, I think this land use plan is moving in the right direction. I do think we should give priority to housing in multiple ways: allowing for more density in all neighborhoods and along commercial corridors; eliminating the requirement for parking (we have plenty throughout the city and there will be no prohibition on developers from providing more parking with their developments if it pencils out for them); and devoting more street space to walking and biking which go hand-in-hand with more compact and people-friendly development. Please highlight the need for more greenways and neighbor ways in your street types, not just corridors devoted to motor vehicles. Also please maintain the emphasis on neighborhood commercial, which will also support more compact, walkable neighborhoods and reduce the need for motor vehicle trips (and just make Missoula a better place to live, work and travel). Thanks to staff and the community for getting us to this point and let's get code reform in place by early Spring!

This looks like a great land use plan, however, I believe we need to see the background information to fully provide feedback on the land use designations as they are mapped. In particular, no information has been provided on the environment, cultural and historic resources, natural resources, hazards, infrastructure and economic conditions. I would assume the City has these map layers that could easily be shared. It would also be helpful to have the parcel layer turned on. The map is not intuitive and hard to comment on.

I see that the annexation policy has been included in the draft plan. This appears to be the existing annexation policy with no updates made to the map. Overtime we have found areas that are mapped as Annexation Area 'A' only to later find out that the infrastructure isn't really there to support the development or the property is/will be in the floodplain and therefore the city does not want to annex the property. It would be helpful to see the annexation map as a layer so it can be compared to the infrastructure, hazards, etc.

What outreach has been done to County residents and community councils? With 44% of the population in the urban area still residents of the county, the annexation policy and future land use map could effect them greatly. I see a situation in which a developer may request annexation for a subdivision (since the public process will be less with the subdivision) and surrounding neighbors are taken back by the intensity of the development only to find out that they should have commented now and no longer have the same ability to comment at the time of the development. To be inclusive, outreach must be done to county residents.

Thank you