Procedures and Review Types

Purpose. This chapter establishes the procedures for the twelve review types through which the City administers this UDO. The procedures are organized by review type rather than by chapter or topic, so a reader applying for a permit or appealing a decision finds the full procedural picture in one place.

Applicability. The procedures in this chapter apply to every land use review the City conducts under this UDO, including applications for development of any kind, applications for variances, applications for zoning map and text amendments, and annexation petitions. Where another chapter of this UDO refers to a procedure, the procedure in this chapter applies.

Ministerial framing. Every administrative review type in this chapter is a ministerial review under 76-25-103(24), MCA — a review that determines whether a proposal complies with objective standards stated in advance. The decision-maker on a ministerial review has no discretion to deny a proposal that meets the standards or to approve a proposal that does not. The substantial-compliance determination required under 76-25-304(2)(c) for proposals subject to that standard is itself made by applying objective criteria stated in the relevant chapter.

Legislative framing. The three legislative actions in Part C of this chapter — zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and annexation — are legislative acts of the governing body, made under the governing body's legislative authority and reviewed against the substantial-compliance and consistency standards of 76-25-304 and the annexation statutes.

Application form. Every review type in this chapter requires an application submitted on the form the Community Development Department publishes for that review type. The application materials are maintained by the Department and are the authoritative statement of submittal requirements for each review type.

Completeness review. Within ten business days of receiving an application, the Planning Administrator determines whether the application is complete — meaning all the materials the application form requires have been submitted in the form required. If the application is complete, the review clock under the applicable timeline begins to run; if it is incomplete, the Planning Administrator notifies the applicant in writing of the specific deficiencies, and the clock does not begin until the application is complete.

Fees. Every review type carries the fee specified in the City's adopted fee schedule. Fees must be paid at application submittal; an application is not complete without payment.

Public notice. Where this chapter requires public notice for a review type, the notice is provided in accordance with 76-25-501, MCA, and the City's noticing policy: mailed notice to property owners of record within the radius the review type specifies, posted notice on the subject property where applicable, and published notice in a newspaper of general circulation where required by the statute or the review type. Notice contents include the application, the review type, the date and means by which public comment may be submitted, and the date of any public hearing.

Decisions in writing. Every decision under this chapter is made in writing. The written decision states the findings of fact and the conclusions of law on which the decision rests, including (for administrative reviews) the application of the review criteria to the proposal, and (for legislative actions) the substantial-compliance determination required under 76-25-304(2)(c) where applicable.

Continuances. The Planning Commission or governing body may continue a public hearing to a date certain on its own motion or on the request of the applicant or any party, where the continuance is necessary to obtain additional information or to permit further public comment. A continuance does not toll a statutory timeline unless the applicant consents in writing.

Withdrawal. An applicant may withdraw an application at any time before the decision becomes final by submitting a written withdrawal to the Planning Administrator. Withdrawal terminates the review and forfeits the fee.

Form and content of submittals. The submittal requirements for each review type are stated in the application materials the Community Development Department maintains. The materials state, for each review type, the application form, the supporting documents required (site plans, surveys, narrative descriptions, photographs, technical studies, and any other materials), the format the submittals must take, and the number of copies.

Authoritative submittal list. The application materials are the authoritative submittal list for the review type. A submittal not listed in the application materials may not be required as a condition of completeness; a submittal listed in the application materials must be provided for the application to be complete.

Updates. The Planning Administrator may update the application materials at any time to reflect changes in the substantive requirements of this UDO, changes in the Engineering Standards, changes in statute, or improvements in administrative practice. Updates take effect on the date the updated materials are published. An application submitted before the effective date of an update is reviewed under the materials in effect on the date the application was submitted, unless the applicant elects in writing to be reviewed under the updated materials.

Two appeal tracks. The UDO carries two distinct appeal tracks. The default track — Track 1 — is the two-tier de novo administrative appeal under 76-25-503, MCA, followed by district court review under 76-25-503(5). Track 1 applies to every final administrative land use decision under this chapter except the administrative minor subdivision. A separate track — Track 2 — applies to the administrative minor subdivision, which is appealed under 76-3-609, MCA, on the deferential arbitrary-capricious-unlawful standard. The two tracks are stated separately in subsections B and C of this section.

Track 1 — 76-25-503 two-tier de novo appeal.

Track 2 — 76-3-609 administrative minor subdivision appeal.

No appeal for legislative actions. Legislative actions — zoning map amendments, zoning text amendments, and annexations — are not subject to administrative appeal under this section. Judicial review of a legislative action proceeds under the otherwise-applicable judicial-review statutes for legislative acts of the governing body.

Vesting. A permit issued under this chapter vests on the date of the Planning Administrator's written decision approving the permit, subject to any conditions stated in the decision. A vested permit authorizes the development the permit describes under the standards in effect on the date of vesting; a subsequent amendment to this UDO does not retroactively alter the standards applicable to a vested permit, except as provided in the amending ordinance.

Vesting period. A vested permit remains effective for two years from the date of vesting unless (1) substantial construction has commenced before the two-year period expires, in which case the permit remains effective through completion of construction, or (2) the Planning Administrator extends the vesting period in writing for up to one additional year on a showing of good cause. After the vesting period expires without substantial construction commencement or an extension, the permit is void, and any subsequent development on the site requires a new permit reviewed under the standards then in effect.

Revocation. The Planning Administrator may revoke a permit issued under this chapter on findings that (1) the permit was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation; (2) the permitted use or development is being conducted in material violation of the permit's conditions, the approved plans, or this UDO; or (3) the permit was issued in error and the conditions of paragraph A or B of this subsection are met without rectification within a reasonable cure period the Planning Administrator specifies in writing.

Revocation procedure. The Planning Administrator's revocation decision is a final administrative decision subject to appeal under Section 11-3-4. The Planning Administrator must give the permittee written notice of the grounds for revocation and an opportunity to cure or respond before issuing the revocation decision; the notice must specify the cure period, which must be reasonable in light of the violation.

Conditional uses. A conditional use permit issued under Section 11-3-9 is subject to revocation under this section on the same grounds and through the same procedure as any other permit. The revocation of a conditional use permit terminates the use; continuation of the use after revocation is a violation of this UDO subject to the enforcement provisions of Section 11-1-15.

Applicability. A zoning compliance permit is required for every development that establishes a new use, expands an existing use, alters the exterior of a building in a manner subject to this UDO's form or dimensional standards, or modifies a site element regulated by this UDO. A zoning compliance permit is not required for interior remodeling that does not change the use or the building's exterior, for routine maintenance and repair, or for development expressly exempted in this UDO.

Decision-maker. The Planning Administrator.

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials for the zoning compliance permit, including (at minimum) a site plan, a building elevation where exterior alteration is proposed, and a description of the proposed use.

Public role. None. A zoning compliance permit is reviewed against objective standards in this UDO without public comment or hearing; chapter 25 does not require public process for ministerial permits, and adding one would convert the permit into a discretionary review the statute does not authorize.

Review criteria. The Planning Administrator approves the application if and only if the proposed development complies with every applicable standard in this UDO, including the use standards in Chapter 2, the form and dimensional standards in Chapter 4, the topical-chapter standards (Parking, Signs, Landscaping, and others), and any other applicable standard. The Planning Administrator may attach conditions to the approval that are necessary to bring the proposed development into compliance with this UDO; the Planning Administrator may not attach conditions that are not necessary to that purpose.

Timeline. The Planning Administrator issues the written decision within ten business days of the application becoming complete, except where a technical review by another department (engineering, fire, parks) is required, in which case the decision is issued within ten business days of receipt of the technical review's response, with a total timeline not to exceed thirty business days from completeness.

Decision. The decision is in writing, states the application of the review criteria to the proposal, lists any conditions, and specifies the vesting date and the appeal path.

Appeal. Track 1 appeal under Section 11-3-4.

Applicability. Commercial site review is required for development of a commercial or mixed-use site that meets the thresholds in Chapter 27 (Commercial Site Review) for size, intensity, or location, and that does not require a more comprehensive review under Section 11-3-8 (site-specific development review). The Commercial Site Review chapter sets the substantive standards; this section sets the procedure.

Decision-maker. The Planning Administrator.

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials for commercial site review, including a complete site plan, building elevations, a parking and circulation plan, a landscaping plan, a signage plan, and any other materials Chapter 27 requires.

Public role. Notice as specified in the Commercial Site Review chapter and as required by 76-25-501. Comment is received in writing within the comment period; the comment is part of the record and may inform the application of the review criteria, but the criteria themselves are objective and the comment does not convert the review into a discretionary process.

Review criteria. The Planning Administrator approves the application if and only if the proposal complies with the substantive standards in Chapter 27, the form and dimensional standards in Chapter 4 (calibrated by the A-grid and B-grid where applicable), and any other applicable UDO standard. Conditions are limited to those necessary to bring the proposal into compliance.

Timeline. As specified in Chapter 27, consistent with 76-25-305.

Decision. As specified in Section 11-3-2(E).

Appeal. Track 1 appeal under Section 11-3-4.

Applicability. Site-specific development review is required for (1) development of a commercial site that exceeds the Commercial Site Review thresholds in Chapter 27 or that proposes uses not within Chapter 27's scope; (2) development of a multi-unit residential site with more than four dwelling units; and (3) preliminary subdivision plat review under Section 11-3-13, where this section's procedural framework is incorporated.

Decision-maker. The Planning Administrator, except where this UDO assigns a specific element of the review to the Planning Commission or governing body.

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials, calibrated to the development type. Site-specific development reviews require, at minimum, complete site, landscape, building, parking, circulation, and stormwater plans; technical studies addressing traffic, archaeology, environmental, or hillside concerns where applicable; and a written demonstration of compliance with each applicable standard.

Public role. The substantial-compliance review under 76-25-304(2)(c) applies where the proposal is subject to that standard. Notice is provided as required by 76-25-501 and the application materials. A public meeting before the Planning Administrator's decision may be required by this UDO for specific development types.

Review criteria. The Planning Administrator approves the application if and only if the proposal complies with every applicable substantive standard in this UDO and, where applicable, is substantially compliant with the Land Use Plan under 76-25-304(2)(c). The substantial-compliance determination is itself made by applying objective criteria stated in the Land Use Plan and in this UDO. Conditions are limited to those necessary to bring the proposal into compliance.

Impact fork. Where the proposed development raises significant impacts under 76-25-305(5), the Planning Administrator follows the impact-determination procedure stated in Section 11-3-14.

Timeline. Consistent with 76-25-305; the application materials specify the timeline for each development type.

Decision. As specified in Section 11-3-2(E).

Appeal. Track 1 appeal under Section 11-3-4.

Applicability. A conditional use permit is required for a use marked 'CUP' in the use tables of Chapter 2 in the zoning district where the use is proposed. The use tables determine which uses are conditional in each district; this section determines how the conditional-use determination is made.

Decision-maker. The Planning Administrator.

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials for the conditional use permit, including a description of the use, a site plan, an operations narrative addressing the use's potential impacts on the surrounding area, and any other materials the application materials require for the specific use type.

Public role. Notice is provided under 76-25-501 to property owners of record within the radius specified in the application materials. Comment is received in writing within the comment period and is part of the record. A public meeting is not required, but the Planning Administrator may hold one where the Planning Administrator determines public input would aid the application of the review criteria.

Review criteria. The Planning Administrator approves the application if and only if the proposed use meets each of the objective criteria in subsection F. The Planning Administrator may attach conditions necessary to bring the proposed use into compliance with the criteria.

Criteria. [The eleven specific criteria carried forward from current 11-3-4(B), expressed as objective standards — a condition the use either satisfies or does not, a measurable threshold the use either meets or does not, a defined compatibility test the use either passes or does not. This subsection's content is a tracked drafting task in the working file's deferred-drafting list. The conversion of the current discretionary criteria to objective form is the residual CUP drafting task; the CUP itself is settled as a chapter-25-conformant ministerial review.] G. Limits on conditional use. A conditional use permit may not be used to deny a use that the use tables have made conditionally available in the district, on the ground that the use category is unpopular. The review is of the proposed use's site-and-operation compatibility against the criteria of subsection F, not a rehearing of the policy decision to make the use category conditionally available.

Timeline. As specified in the application materials, consistent with 76-25-305.

Decision. As specified in Section 11-3-2(E), with explicit findings on each criterion in subsection F.

Appeal. Track 1 appeal under Section 11-3-4.

Modification and revocation. A conditional use permit may be modified at the permittee's request under this section's procedure or revoked under Section 11-3-5.

Applicability. A variance from a standard in this UDO may be requested under this section. Variances from standards in Chapter 4 (form and dimensional), Chapter 5 (subdivision design), or any other UDO chapter are processed through this section. Variances from standards in the Engineering Standards are processed under those standards' own variance procedure and are not within the scope of this section.

Decision-maker. The Planning Administrator. The Board of Adjustment is retired; the variance is administered under 76-25-502, MCA, with the Planning Administrator as the decision-maker.

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials for the variance, including a description of the standard from which a variance is sought, a narrative establishing the criteria for granting the variance, and any supporting materials the application materials require.

Public role. Notice is provided under 76-25-501 to property owners of record within the radius specified in the application materials. Comment is received in writing within the comment period and is part of the record.

Review criteria. The Planning Administrator grants a variance only on written findings that all of the following are met

Conditions. The Planning Administrator may attach conditions necessary to satisfy the criteria in subsection E.

Decision. As specified in Section 11-3-2(E), with explicit findings on each criterion in subsection E.

Appeal. Track 1 appeal under Section 11-3-4.

Self-created hardship. A practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that the applicant or the applicant's predecessor in title created — by acquiring property knowing the standard, or by altering the site to create the condition — is not a basis for a variance under this section.

Applicability. A subdivision exemption review is required for every division of land that is claimed exempt from subdivision review under 76-25-401(2) or 76-3-201, MCA. The exemptions include family conveyances, court-ordered divisions, aggregations, easement and right-of-way divisions, and the other statutory exemptions.

Decision-maker. The Planning Administrator.

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials for the exemption claimed, including documentation establishing the basis for the exemption and a survey of the proposed division.

Public role. None. The exemption review is a determination whether the statutory exemption applies; it is not a substantive subdivision review.

Review criteria. The Planning Administrator approves the exemption claim if and only if the proposed division meets the statutory conditions for the exemption claimed. The Planning Administrator may not deny an exemption claim that meets the statutory conditions; the Planning Administrator must deny an exemption claim that does not.

Decision. As specified in Section 11-3-2(E), with explicit findings on the statutory conditions for the claimed exemption.

Appeal. Track 1 appeal under Section 11-3-4.

Effect of approved exemption. An approved exemption is recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder under the procedure the Engineering Standards specify. The exempted division is not subject to subdivision review under Sections 11-3-12 through 11-3-14 of this UDO.

Applicability. An administrative minor subdivision is a first minor subdivision as defined in 76-3-103(8), MCA, that creates five or fewer lots from a tract of record and meets the other statutory conditions for administrative review under 76-3-609, MCA.

Decision-maker. The Director of the Community Development Department, on the recommendation of the Planning Administrator.

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials, including a preliminary plat meeting the subdivision design standards of Chapter 5 and the construction-plan requirements of the Engineering Standards.

Public role. Notice is provided to property owners of record immediately adjoining the subject property and to contract-for-deed purchasers of immediately adjoining property, in accordance with 76-3-609. No public hearing is required.

Review criteria. The Director approves the application if and only if the proposed subdivision meets each of the substantive standards of Chapter 5, the construction-plan requirements of the Engineering Standards (which proceed in parallel under their own review), and the chapter-3 procedural requirements of 76-3-609.

Final plat. The administrative minor subdivision is the only subdivision review type in which final-plat approval is also administrative. This is the express exception in 76-25-410(5) to the general rule that final plat is a governing-body decision; the exception is preserved by this section.

Decision. As specified in Section 11-3-2(E).

Appeal. Track 2 appeal under Section 11-3-4(C) — the 76-3-609 City Commission review on the arbitrary-capricious-unlawful standard. The administrative minor subdivision is the only review type for which Track 2 applies; every other subdivision review uses Track 1.

Applicability. A preliminary plat is required for every major subdivision — a subdivision that creates six or more lots, or that does not meet the conditions for administrative review under Section 11-3-12.

Decision-maker. The Planning Administrator, with substantial-compliance review by the Planning Commission under 76-25-304(2)(c).

Submittal requirements. As specified in Chapter 5 (Section 11-5-9) and the application materials, including the preliminary plat, the topographic survey, the circulation plan, the parkland and open-space plan, the stormwater concept plan, the conformance narrative, and any other materials the application materials require.

Public role. Notice is provided under 76-25-501. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing on the preliminary plat, at which public comment is received.

Review criteria. The Planning Administrator approves the preliminary plat if and only if (1) the proposed subdivision is substantially compliant with the Land Use Plan, as determined by the Planning Commission under 76-25-304(2)(c); and (2) the proposed subdivision meets the substantive standards of Chapter 5. The Planning Administrator may attach conditions necessary to bring the subdivision into compliance with this UDO.

Substantial-compliance determination. The Planning Commission, after the public hearing, issues a written determination on substantial compliance with the Land Use Plan. The determination is part of the record; the Planning Administrator's decision incorporates the determination by reference and the Planning Administrator may not approve a preliminary plat the Planning Commission determines is not substantially compliant.

Impact fork. Where the subdivision raises significant impacts under 76-25-305(5), the Planning Administrator follows the impact-determination procedure in Section 11-3-14.

Timeline. Consistent with 76-25-305.

Decision. As specified in Section 11-3-2(E).

Appeal. Track 1 appeal under Section 11-3-4.

Applicability. A final plat is required for every major subdivision after preliminary plat approval. The final plat may not be filed before the conditions of preliminary plat approval are met, the public improvements are installed or secured under Chapter 6, and the construction plans receive final acceptance under the Engineering Standards.

Decision-maker. The governing body. Final plat approval is a legislative decision of the City Commission under 76-25-410(5), MCA, except for administrative minor subdivisions which are addressed in Section 11-3-12.

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials, including the final plat, the documentation that the preliminary-plat conditions have been met, the public-improvement acceptance or security documentation under Chapter 6, and any other materials the application materials require.

Public role. Notice as required by 76-25-501. The City Commission's consideration of the final plat is at a public meeting; public comment is received but the decision is whether the conditions of preliminary plat approval are met and the statutory standards are satisfied, not a substantive re-review of the subdivision design.

Review criteria. The City Commission approves the final plat if and only if (1) the conditions of preliminary plat approval are met; (2) the public improvements required for the subdivision are installed or secured under Chapter 6; (3) the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat; and (4) the final plat meets the statutory requirements of 76-3-401 and 76-25-410.

Recording. After approval, the final plat is filed with the County Clerk and Recorder.

Appeal. Track 1 appeal under Section 11-3-4. The decision is a final administrative land use decision under 76-25-503(3)(a), notwithstanding that it is made by the governing body — the chapter-25 appeal applies because the final plat is the imposition of a condition on a permit (under 76-25-503(3)(a)) and is reviewed as a ministerial determination of compliance with preliminary-plat conditions and statutory standards, not as a legislative act.

Applicability. Where a review under this chapter raises significant impacts under 76-25-305(5), MCA — development with significant environmental, transportation, public services, or natural resource impacts — the Planning Administrator follows the procedure in this section in addition to the procedure for the underlying review type.

Trigger. The trigger for impact-determination review is stated in the application materials and the substantive UDO chapters that calibrate the impact thresholds. The Planning Administrator makes the trigger determination at completeness or as soon as the proposal's impact profile is known.

Procedure.

Timeline. The impact-determination review proceeds in parallel with the underlying review type; the timeline for the underlying review is extended by the time needed to complete the impact studies.

Appeal. The impact-determination is part of the underlying decision and is appealed with that decision under Track 1 in Section 11-3-4.

Applicability. A zoning map amendment changes the zoning district applicable to one or more parcels by amending the Official Zoning Map. The map amendment is also the procedure for recording (i) a change to the A-grid and B-grid layer under Section 11-1-8(B), and (ii) a change to any other map layer adopted under Section 11-1-7.

Initiation. A map amendment may be initiated by (1) the governing body on its own motion; (2) the Planning Commission; or (3) any property owner of the affected parcel.

Decision-maker. The governing body, on the substantial-compliance recommendation of the Planning Commission under 76-25-304(2)(c).

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials, including the application form, a description of the proposed amendment, a map showing the affected parcels and the proposed zoning, and a narrative addressing the substantial-compliance criteria.

Public role. Notice as required by 76-25-501. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The governing body holds a public meeting on the amendment ordinance.

Review criteria. The governing body adopts the amendment ordinance if and only if (1) the Planning Commission has determined the proposed amendment is substantially compliant with the Land Use Plan under 76-25-304(2)(c); and (2) the amendment ordinance meets the procedural requirements of 76-25-301 through 76-25-309.

Substantial-compliance determination. The Planning Commission's substantial-compliance determination is a written finding that addresses each Land Use Plan element relevant to the proposed amendment. The determination is the substantive review under chapter 25; the governing body's adoption is the legislative action implementing the determination.

Effect. The amendment ordinance, on its effective date, modifies the Official Zoning Map. The Planning Administrator updates the map within ten business days of the effective date.

Appeal. Legislative actions are not subject to administrative appeal under Section 11-3-4. Judicial review proceeds under the otherwise-applicable statutes for review of legislative acts of the governing body.

Applicability. A zoning text amendment amends the text of this UDO. Amendments to the subdivision provisions of this UDO (Chapter 5 and Chapter 6) are processed under this section.

Initiation. As specified in Section 11-3-16(B).

Decision-maker. The governing body, on the substantial-compliance recommendation of the Planning Commission under 76-25-304(2)(c).

Submittal requirements. As specified in the application materials, including the application form, the proposed text changes shown in strike-through and underline format, and a narrative addressing the substantial-compliance criteria.

Public role. As specified in Section 11-3-16(E).

Review criteria. As specified in Section 11-3-16(F).

Substantial-compliance determination. As specified in Section 11-3-16(G).

Effect. The amendment ordinance, on its effective date, modifies the text of this UDO.

Appeal. As specified in Section 11-3-16(I).

Applicability. Annexation brings land outside the City limits into the City under Title 7, chapter 2, MCA. Annexation procedures are governed by the annexation statutes; this section coordinates the UDO's review with those statutes and assigns the initial zoning designation for the annexed land.

Initiation. As provided in the applicable annexation statute.

Decision-maker. The governing body, under the annexation statute.

UDO coordination.

Public role. As required by the annexation statute and as provided in 76-25-501 for the initial zoning.

Review criteria. The annexation review criteria are stated in the annexation statute; the initial-zoning criteria are stated in Section 11-3-16(F).

Effect. On the effective date of the annexation, the annexed land is within the City and is subject to this UDO under the initial zoning designation.

Appeal. Annexation decisions are reviewed under the annexation statute; the initial-zoning component is treated as a legislative act under Section 11-3-16(I).