Missoula council extends Aspire subdivision phasing despite neighborhood safety objections

Missoula — The City Council voted Nov. 17 to approve a three-year postponement of final plat filings for the Aspire Subdivision, a 35-acre development in East Missoula, while litigation and related uncertainties continue.

Councilor Michael Nugent moved to approve the phase development review and phasing plan amendment for Aspire phases 1 through 6 “subject to the conditions of approval and based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the staff report as amended by the city council.” The motion passed on a roll-call vote, 10 in favor and 1 opposed (Councilor Jordan).

Why it matters: Aspire was preliminarily approved after annexation and zoning in 2024 for roughly 182 lots (about 250 dwelling units). City planners told council the subdivision largely still meets the place-type vision in Missoula’s land-use plan, but that a previously anticipated $24,000,000 in federal funding for Highway 200 improvements was rescinded. Staff recommended a single amendment to condition #3 requiring lot owners to waive their right to protest the formation of improvement districts that could fund needed road improvements.

What officials said: Dave DeGrandpre, with City of Missoula Development Services, summarized staff findings and said there is “minimal new or changed primary review criteria impacts” and recommended only the change to the improvement-district waiver to ensure future mitigations could be funded if necessary. Developer representative Brent Throckmorton told the council the extension request was procedural: “The biggest thing is we just want to get an extension so that the lawsuit can have time,” giving the project a start date when litigation is not pending.

What residents said: Dozens of East Missoula residents urged denial or further review. Adjacent homeowner Bruce Baxter said the loss of federal funding and the surge of multi‑story housing nearby create new public-safety risks, arguing the subdivision’s traffic study is outdated and that “the new Aspire traffic will create hazards.” Legal counsel for petitioners, Kiera Shelke, told council the revocation of the $24 million “creates new unmitigated public safety risks” and urged denial or substantial new conditions.

Legal and procedural context: City Attorney Ryan Sudbury and staff explained council’s decision space under Montana subdivision law: the governing body may approve a phasing amendment unless new information demonstrates changed circumstances that would adversely affect public health, safety or welfare and that the prior conditions are inadequate to mitigate those effects. Sudbury told council that losing grant funding alone does not automatically require revoking the approval unless the original conditions explicitly relied on that funding.

What happens next: The council’s approval keeps the existing preliminary plat in effect and shifts the filing timeline (phase 1 filings pushed back three years). If developers choose to move forward with final plats before the new deadline, they may still do so and would need to meet conditions of approval; alternately, the subdivisions could be withdrawn and different development paths pursued. Council recorded the motion’s passage as 10–1.

Votes at a glance: Motion to approve the phasing plan amendment — passed, 10–1 (Councilor Jordan opposed).