Infographics

Show the seven-chapter structure of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance and what each chapter does — the single most orienting visual in the document.

structural diagram — vertical chapter stack

Chapters 1-3 are the 'how the ordinance works' block; Chapters 4-7 are the 'how development must be built' block. Definitions, measurement, and nonconformities front-loaded into Ch. 1. Site design standards and use-specific operational standards are integrated into the chapters they belong to (Ch. 4 and Ch. 2 § 11-2-9 respectively), not split out into a topical block. Subdivision split across Ch. 3 (common process), Ch. 5 (subdivision-specific), and Ch. 6 (improvements). Overlay districts get their own chapter because they are mapped layers on the zoning map.

Structurally referenced to Missoula's Title 22 UDC, the closest precedent built under Title 76, chapter 25. The form-based logic: a chapter exists when the regulated thing is structurally distinct. Helena's standards remain Helena-specific; only the organizing structure is borrowed.

Show how the UDO regulates development through three nested layers, from most general to most specific.

nested-layer diagram — concentric or stacked

More specific layer supersedes more general, except where a citywide standard expressly applies notwithstanding. Every layer corresponds to a binding standard tied to a defensible basis. Categories that describe character but carry no defined binding standard do planning work, not zoning work, and live in the Land Use Plan or in area or neighborhood plans under 76-25-214 — not the ordinance.

The framework is deliberately spare. This is also why place types were excluded from the regulatory code entirely.

Show how every current Helena zoning district maps to the new MX family-and-intensity system — the change a property owner most needs to see.

migration map — current zoning districts on the left, MX families on the right, with connecting flows

Intensity = massing + use permissiveness, not density. Numbered ladder is legible on the map without consulting the ordinance. Existing parcels convert administratively on the effective date; the adopting ordinance specifies conversion rules where entitlement changes.

MX naming borrowed loosely from Philadelphia. The use tables are built on the statutory dwelling-type vocabulary defined at 76-25-103 — single-unit, two-unit, three-unit, four-unit, and multi-unit dwellings — so the migration acknowledges mixed use from the start. The B-2 split and the T retirement both carry implementation work the conversion entails — the B-2 parcel-level mapping test, the T parcel-specific-condition preservation mechanism — tracked in the MX-family structural decision and the deferred-drafting list in next_steps.

Show where the current Title 12 subdivision content lands in the unified ordinance, and how the subdivision-procedure split works.

integration diagram — current Title 12 chapters flowing to UDO homes

The Missoula split: common procedural mechanics in the procedures chapter; subdivision-specific process stays home in the subdivision chapter. Chapter 3 carries one consolidated appeals provision, but it describes two tracks — most subdivision decisions follow the 76-25-503 two-tier de novo path shared with zoning appeals, while the administrative minor subdivision under 76-3-609 follows its own separate City-Commission-review path. Chapter 3 owns common procedure; Chapter 5 owns subdivision-specific process and land-division form; Chapter 6 owns improvements and dedications; the Engineering Standards own construction detail.

Phase 1 already rewrote subdivision procedures to a fully administrative model and retained the 76-3-609 administrative minor subdivision path. Phase 2 carries that forward, cleans up the double variance track and the half-migrated citations, and seats everything in the UDO structure. Final plat at the City Commission is required for most subdivisions; the 76-3-609 administrative minor subdivision is the narrow exception and runs its own appeal track.

Show the division of labor between the UDO and the external Engineering and Design Standards — what each owns, and how the UDO is drafted so the two cannot conflict.

seam diagram — two domains with a defined interface

Purpose-based line, not document-based: geometry in service of a vehicle, a pipe, or fire access is specified in the Engineering Standards or the fire code; form intent in service of urban form and land use is stated in the UDO. Modeled on Missoula's 'Manual' companion-document device. Vocabulary misalignment handled inside the UDO by crosswalk.

The Engineering Standards remain external and are coordinated by cross-reference. The UDO does not renumber or rewrite them. The seam is handled as a drafting constraint, not as a codified decision-maker assignment — the subdivision design menus are checked against the current Engineering Standards and fire code so they cannot offer a design option those requirements would not permit. The construction and safety determinations are made under their own separate authority. The Chapter 5 drafting consistency check is tracked in the deferred-drafting list in next_steps.

Show the procedural posture under Title 76, chapter 25: which decisions are administrative, what public role attaches at first instance, and how the appeal paths work. This is the Process Crosswalk in visual form.

process flow — review types across decision-maker, public role, appeal path

Title 76, chapter 25 front-loads public participation to the adoption of the land use plan and the implementing regulations. Once the regulations are in place, an application in substantial compliance is not re-litigated — 76-25-304(6) supplies the adoption presumption, and 76-25-305 makes the substantially-compliant application an administrative decision. The public's role at first instance is notice; the comment opportunity activates on the 76-25-305(5) impact path and on appeal. The CUP is a ministerial process under 76-25-305, consistent with Helena's adopted practice.

Drafted to the version of 76-25-305 effective July 1, 2027 — the version in force when the UDO is adopted. The dual subdivision appeal track — 76-25-503 for most decisions, the separate 76-3-609 path for administrative minor subdivisions — is the detail most likely to be drawn wrong, and the diagram should show both.