Planning commission reviews sweeping rewrite of subdivision and zoning rules tied to SB 382
May 21, 2026 | Columbia Falls, Flathead County, Montana
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
At the planning commission meeting, city planner Eric McKay presented a proposed rewrite of the city’s subdivision (Title 17) and zoning (Title 18) regulations intended to align local code with SB 382 and more recent state changes.
“SB 382 that was adopted by the legislature in 2023 basically lays out how we address our subdivision and zoning regulations,” said Eric McKay, the city planner, who told commissioners the draft also cites a new Montana code reference in the documents staff provided.
The rewrite would move several processes from public hearings to administrative review. McKay said conditional use permits would largely become administratively permitted uses rather than items that require a separate public hearing; however, staff would still apply performance or special-use standards in administrative reviews. He also said manufactured-home-park and RV-park standards were moved from the subdivision chapter into the zoning code because “that’s really where they should be.”
Why it matters: the changes affect how and when neighbors learn about projects and where appeals land. McKay described a typical application timeline — a 45-day staff completeness review, public notices 15 days before hearings and a potential multi-step appeal path — and warned that appeals can add sequential 15-day notice periods that prolong decision timelines.
The draft also addresses plats and phasing. McKay said final plats will still require council or mayor signatures and that phasing now includes a five-year review trigger for subsequent phases; preliminary plats can remain valid for up to 20 years under the draft.
On development thresholds and technical triggers, staff proposed a traffic-impact-study threshold of 300 vehicle trips per day. “I used the 300 vehicle trips per day which is halfway between like Whitefish and the county,” McKay said, describing staff’s effort to pick a midrange standard used by neighboring jurisdictions.
Several commissioners pressed for clarity about a transition period after adoption. One commissioner raised a concern that the administrative shift could create a short “no-man’s land” between the time the ordinance becomes effective and when any new performance standards are adopted, saying, “it could be abused or it could work.” McKay responded that the draft already contains the performance standards staff will use and that administrative review will continue to enforce setbacks, parking, sewer, water and site-review requirements.
The draft includes an inclusionary-housing element in the planned-unit-development provisions. McKay said a project that dedicates 10% of units as deed-restricted affordable housing could qualify for incentives such as a density bonus. He framed the provision as an incentive rather than a mandate to avoid discouraging projects that would otherwise be exempt from public hearings.
Other changes noted in the presentation: accessory dwelling unit language revised to comply with state law that allows ADUs on every lot, single-family zones that now permit duplexes, and a state-driven residential parking standard limiting local requirements to one parking space per residence. McKay also described a new annexation pathway that permits some annexations to proceed straight to council (skipping the planning commission) when the proposed city zoning essentially matches prior county zoning, the land use aligns with county expectations, or the proposal conforms to the city’s land-use plan.
Next steps: McKay asked commissioners to review the corrected strikeout/comparison document staff posted online. He said staff expects the planning commission hearing on the rewrite on May 28, a possible council special session on June 8 for first review, and a second-reading/adoption target of June 15, subject to council scheduling and quorum.
Authorities and documents cited at the meeting included SB 382 (legislature, 2023) and references to Montana code language cited in the draft. McKay flagged a 2025 amendment affecting appeals that contains a June 2027 sunset in the language staff reviewed.
The commission did not take a final vote on the rewrite at the meeting; the item was set for upcoming hearings at planning commission and council.
Ending: Commissioners thanked staff for the work and confirmed the schedule for public hearings and website postings for public comment.
“SB 382 that was adopted by the legislature in 2023 basically lays out how we address our subdivision and zoning regulations,” said Eric McKay, the city planner, who told commissioners the draft also cites a new Montana code reference in the documents staff provided.
The rewrite would move several processes from public hearings to administrative review. McKay said conditional use permits would largely become administratively permitted uses rather than items that require a separate public hearing; however, staff would still apply performance or special-use standards in administrative reviews. He also said manufactured-home-park and RV-park standards were moved from the subdivision chapter into the zoning code because “that’s really where they should be.”
Why it matters: the changes affect how and when neighbors learn about projects and where appeals land. McKay described a typical application timeline — a 45-day staff completeness review, public notices 15 days before hearings and a potential multi-step appeal path — and warned that appeals can add sequential 15-day notice periods that prolong decision timelines.
The draft also addresses plats and phasing. McKay said final plats will still require council or mayor signatures and that phasing now includes a five-year review trigger for subsequent phases; preliminary plats can remain valid for up to 20 years under the draft.
On development thresholds and technical triggers, staff proposed a traffic-impact-study threshold of 300 vehicle trips per day. “I used the 300 vehicle trips per day which is halfway between like Whitefish and the county,” McKay said, describing staff’s effort to pick a midrange standard used by neighboring jurisdictions.
Several commissioners pressed for clarity about a transition period after adoption. One commissioner raised a concern that the administrative shift could create a short “no-man’s land” between the time the ordinance becomes effective and when any new performance standards are adopted, saying, “it could be abused or it could work.” McKay responded that the draft already contains the performance standards staff will use and that administrative review will continue to enforce setbacks, parking, sewer, water and site-review requirements.
The draft includes an inclusionary-housing element in the planned-unit-development provisions. McKay said a project that dedicates 10% of units as deed-restricted affordable housing could qualify for incentives such as a density bonus. He framed the provision as an incentive rather than a mandate to avoid discouraging projects that would otherwise be exempt from public hearings.
Other changes noted in the presentation: accessory dwelling unit language revised to comply with state law that allows ADUs on every lot, single-family zones that now permit duplexes, and a state-driven residential parking standard limiting local requirements to one parking space per residence. McKay also described a new annexation pathway that permits some annexations to proceed straight to council (skipping the planning commission) when the proposed city zoning essentially matches prior county zoning, the land use aligns with county expectations, or the proposal conforms to the city’s land-use plan.
Next steps: McKay asked commissioners to review the corrected strikeout/comparison document staff posted online. He said staff expects the planning commission hearing on the rewrite on May 28, a possible council special session on June 8 for first review, and a second-reading/adoption target of June 15, subject to council scheduling and quorum.
Authorities and documents cited at the meeting included SB 382 (legislature, 2023) and references to Montana code language cited in the draft. McKay flagged a 2025 amendment affecting appeals that contains a June 2027 sunset in the language staff reviewed.
The commission did not take a final vote on the rewrite at the meeting; the item was set for upcoming hearings at planning commission and council.
Ending: Commissioners thanked staff for the work and confirmed the schedule for public hearings and website postings for public comment.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
