City of HelenaCommunity Development
Helena UDO — Working Primer 0.9.4

Working status

Open items

Items still open across the chapters, the Process Crosswalk, and the working file. Surfaced here in one place so the working status of the primer is honest.

Ch. 1General Provisions, Administration, Definitions, and Measurement

  • Section 11-1-12: the consolidated definitions list is a substantial first pass corrected against verified Title 76, chapter 25 text — not exhaustive. Chapter-scoped sets are confirmed against their rewritten chapters in a later pass; new terms are added as Chapters 2-6 are drafted.
  • Section 11-1-12: the current 11-7-2 'mobile home' definition must be reconciled against the statutory distinction between 'mobile home' and 'manufactured housing' (76-25-103(23)) and the 76-25-303(1)(a) protection of manufactured housing — a later-pass task tied to the Mobile Home Parks chapter rewrite.
  • Section 11-1-13: the actual measurement methods for setbacks/build-to, frontage occupancy, transparency, and lot dimensions are drafted as Chapters 4 and 5 are drafted.
  • Section 11-1-8 and Chapters 3-4: the A-grid and B-grid needs its membership criteria (Chapter 4) and its amendment procedure (Chapter 3) drafted. Section 11-1-8 establishes the concept and cross-references both.
  • Working-file coordination: the dual subdivision appeal track must be carried into the Chapter 3 procedures and the crosswalk — the 76-25-503 two-tier de novo path for most decisions, and the separate 76-3-609 path Helena currently uses for administrative minor subdivisions (appeal to the City Commission via the City Manager, arbitrary/capricious standard). Note this 76-3-609 path coexists with the 76-25-105(4) point that chapter 3 generally no longer applies — the administrative-minor-subdivision appeal is a specific retained mechanism and should be confirmed and explained, not assumed away.
  • Working-file coordination: 76-25-303 (the Effective October 1, 2026 version) limits parking requirements — one space maximum per dwelling unit and no minimum for several categories — and limits height restrictions and the treatment of certain housing and care facilities. This is a Chapter 2 and Parking-chapter constraint; it should be captured in the working file's legal_and_implementation_assumptions or policy_risks so the use tables and parking standards are drawn to it.
  • Working-file coordination: RISK-CUP in the working file should be softened. The verified picture is that Helena's adopted April 2026 CUP process already operates the conditional use permit as a chapter-25-conformant ministerial process; the residual risk is the narrower drafting task of expressing the 11-3-4(B) criteria as objective standards, not the existential question of whether the CUP survives.

Ch. 2Districts and Use Standards

  • Three default instincts. The RMX draft resolves judgment calls along three consistent instincts: (1) permit small residential building types (duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhouse) by right rather than by CUP; (2) resolve R-U-versus-R-1/R-2 conflicts toward the more restrictive R-1/R-2 call, since R-1/R-2 is the dominant character of the merged RMX-1; (3) reserve by-right non-residential institutional and entertainment uses for RMX-5. Confirm or correct the three instincts before reviewing rows individually, since each propagates to multiple rows.
  • 11-2-4 RMX table — residential dwelling-type split. The current single 'multiple-dwelling units (3 or more units)' row is split into three-unit, four-unit, and multi-unit (5+) dwelling per the 76-25-103 vocabulary. Draft calls: triplex and fourplex P in RMX-2 and above, NP in RMX-1; multi-unit (5+) NP in RMX-1, CUP in RMX-2, P in RMX-3 and above. Confirm the CUP-versus-P line for multi-unit dwellings at the RMX-2/RMX-3 boundary.
  • 11-2-4 RMX table — administrative government agency. The draft makes this use NP in RMX-3 and RMX-4 (P only in RMX-5), departing from current R-4/R-O which carries it as P. Confirm the departure: the reasoning is that the residential-primary family should not carry office-park permissiveness.
  • 11-2-4 RMX table — mobile home park. The draft makes the mobile home park CUP in RMX-1 through RMX-3 and NP in RMX-4/RMX-5, dropping current P-in-R-4/R-O to CUP. This row depends on the Chapter 1 'mobile home' versus 'manufactured housing' definitional reconciliation (76-25-303(1)(a)).
  • 11-2-4 RMX table — daycare center. The draft makes the daycare center NP in RMX-1, departing from current CUP-in-R-1/R-2. 76-25-303(1)(f) constrains the treatment of certain child-care facilities and must be checked before this row is final.
  • 11-2-4 RMX table — emergency shelter. The current code's calls are internally inconsistent across residential districts (CUP/NP/NP/CUP). Decide whether to handle emergency shelter uniformly across the RMX family or carry the inconsistency forward in translated form.
  • 11-2-5 CMX table — B-2 split. The CMX-2 / CMX-3 / CMX-4 columns are the three-way split of the current B-2 column. Which use lands in which slice is parcel-level mapping work the working file flags. CMX-1 (clean B-1 translation) and CMX-5 (clean DT translation) can be drafted now; CMX-2 / CMX-3 / CMX-4 columns wait on the B-2 split mapping exercise.
  • 11-2-6 IMX family use table — IMX-1 and IMX-3 use lists. CLM-to-IMX-2 is a clean translation. IMX-1 (live/work/maker) and IMX-3 (general-and-heavy industrial, the M-I analog) need their use lists confirmed: which of CLM's lighter uses plus which residential and small-commercial uses belong in IMX-1, and confirmation that IMX-3 carries M-I's full range including the heavy uses (heavy industrial, junkyard, motor vehicle wrecking, fuel tank farm, outdoor storage) that the collapsed IMX-4 would have isolated.
  • 11-2-7 SP table — Airport district 'P/CUP' split. The current Airport district's 'P/CUP' split calls (restaurant, tavern, vehicle sales and rental) cross-reference current 11-2-5 subsections. The UDO use-table key has only P, CUP, NP — a bare 'P/CUP' is not a valid entry. Confirm the resolution: carry the conditions into 11-2-9 supplemental use standards, or pick one (P or CUP).
  • 11-2-8 use category definitions — single-dwelling unit residence. The current 11-2-4 definition expressly excludes mobile homes while including manufactured and factory-built homes; re-examine against 76-25-303(1)(a) and the Chapter 1 'mobile home' versus 'manufactured housing' distinction so the use-category definition does not reintroduce a forbidden distinction.

Ch. 3Procedures and Review Types

  • DRAFT STATE: this is v0.1 at primer depth. All eighteen sections drafted (11-3-1 through 11-3-18, with 11-3-15 the impact-determination procedure as a numbered section between the administrative reviews and the legislative actions). Part A (sections 11-3-1 through 11-3-5) carries chapter-wide framing; Part B (11-3-6 through 11-3-14) carries the nine administrative reviews plus 11-3-15 (impact determination); Part C (11-3-16 through 11-3-18) carries the three legislative actions. The chapter is structurally complete.
  • CUP CRITERIA TEXT (Section 11-3-9(F)): the eleven specific criteria from current 11-3-4(B), expressed as objective conditions a use either satisfies or does not, are the residual CUP drafting task. The section's architecture is settled; the text of subsection F is a tracked drafting task carried in the working file's deferred-drafting list.
  • SUBSTANTIAL-COMPLIANCE CRITERIA — the criteria the Planning Commission applies in its substantial-compliance determinations under sections 11-3-13(F), 11-3-16(G), 11-3-17(G), and 11-3-18(D)(3) need to be stated either in this chapter or in the Land Use Plan. The chapter's current drafting points to the Land Use Plan for the substantive criteria; if the Land Use Plan does not carry them with enough specificity, the chapter would need to carry them itself.
  • IMPACT-DETERMINATION TRIGGER THRESHOLDS (Section 11-3-15(B)): the trigger thresholds for impact-determination review under 76-25-305(5) are stated as living in the application materials and the substantive UDO chapters. The thresholds themselves — what counts as a significant environmental impact, a significant transportation impact, etc. — need to be drafted, either in this section, in the substantive chapters, or in the application materials. Office decision: where the thresholds live.
  • FINAL-PLAT APPEAL CLASSIFICATION (Section 11-3-14(G)): the section classifies the final-plat decision as a Track 1 appeal even though it is made by the governing body, on the reasoning that the determination is ministerial (compliance with preliminary-plat conditions) rather than legislative. The reasoning should be reviewed by the City Attorney; if it does not hold, the final-plat appeal would need to be classified differently, with consequences for the procedural posture.
  • VESTING PERIOD (Section 11-3-5(B)): two years with substantial-construction tolling and one year administrative extension is the current Helena practice; the office should confirm. Some jurisdictions use three or five years; 76-25-303 may impose constraints on vesting for housing-related permits.
  • ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT EXEMPTIONS (Section 11-3-6(A)): the section exempts interior remodeling, routine maintenance and repair, and ‘development expressly exempted in this UDO’ — the third category is a placeholder for the specific exemptions the substantive chapters provide (Sign chapter exemptions, Parking chapter exemptions, etc.). The exemption list should be consolidated and cross-referenced.
  • ENGINEERING-SEAM POSTURE (chapter_meta): the chapter consistently treats the construction-plan review under the Engineering Standards as a separate sequence whose authority is not codified in the UDO. This is the engineering-seam structural decision applied to procedural drafting. The application materials carry the timing-coordination provisions that align the two sequences.
  • TIMELINE CONSISTENCY: every administrative review type's timeline (sections 11-3-6 through 11-3-14, plus 11-3-15) is stated as 'consistent with 76-25-305' or with a specific business-day count. The 76-25-305 framework as it stands in 2026 and as it will stand after July 1, 2027 should be checked, and any timeline that needs to update at the 2027 effective date should be flagged for the office.
  • PUBLIC NOTICE RADII: each review type's notice provision references 'the radius specified in the application materials.' The radii should be confirmed as the office's current practice supports them, or revised. 76-25-501 sets the statutory floor for notice; Helena's practice has typically exceeded the statutory minimum.
  • WORKING-FILE COORDINATION: the working file's structural_decisions item on the dual subdivision appeal track, the CUP-survival decision, the Board of Adjustment retirement, and the final-plat-is-not-administrative point are all implemented by this chapter. The Process Crosswalk's PX-* row content corresponds row-by-row to sections 11-3-6 through 11-3-18 except that 11-3-15 (impact determination) is its own section here rather than being folded into a single review type. The crosswalk's PX-MAP udo_note (revised in v0.2 to reflect grid amendment as recording, not driver) is consistent with Section 11-3-16(A)(i).
  • JOURNAL: add a journal entry noting Chapter 3 primer-depth draft completed in this conversation.

Ch. 4Form, Dimensional, and Site Design Standards

  • 11-4-12: confirm whether citywide transition standards survive as a section. The district intensity ladder and the A-grid and B-grid may already do the calibration work this section proposes.
  • 11-4-3(D): confirm the list of structures exempt from the building-height standard. Current Title 11 list carries forward; planning staff propose adding solar arrays and small wind turbines.
  • 11-4-13(A): identify each form standard that warrants an in-built alternative-compliance path rather than a variance pathway. The corner-lot-orientation provision in 11-4-6(E) is the first example; planning staff have not yet identified the full set.
  • 11-4-4(F), 11-4-6(A)(6), 11-4-10: verify the Engineering Standards cross-references against the Engineering Standards 2025 draft when it is in hand.

Ch. 5Subdivision Design and Public Realm

  • 11-5-3(B) block-length maxima. Draft uses 660 ft for RMX-1/RMX-2 and CMX-3/CMX-4; 500 ft for moderate-intensity districts; 350 ft for walkable-grid CMX-2 and CMX-5. Confirm against current Helena subdivisions, the Engineering Standards, and block-length data in the Downtown Multimodal and Infrastructure Plan.
  • 11-5-3(B) mid-block throughway 500-ft threshold. Confirm the 500-foot trigger for a required mid-block pedestrian connection. Alternatives in the literature range from 400 to 660 ft. The 10-foot width is a primer default; the Engineering Standards may specify a different width.
  • 11-5-4(E) arterial-access rule. Confirm the scope of the rule that prohibits primary access from a principal or minor arterial unless no other access is feasible: every arterial, or only principal arterials? Single-family lots, or only multi-unit and commercial?
  • 11-5-6(A) parkland dedication. The eleven-percent / 0.03-acres-per-DU formula is stated from 76-3-621. The City's parkland dedication policy makes additional decisions (cap or exemption to apply; cash-in-lieu valuation method); confirm whether those decisions are stated in this chapter, in application materials, or in a separate parkland policy.
  • 11-5-6(B) parkland usability and 11-5-8(D) steep-slope exclusion. Confirm the thirty-percent slope threshold and the configuration tests for parkland usability. The current Title 12 does not contain comparable provisions; these are substantive additions.
  • 11-5-6(E) stormwater as public realm. Decide whether the integrated-landscape-feature requirement is stated as a design standard (current draft), a guideline, or a more specific menu (vegetated swale / detention pond with native palette / underground facility).
  • 11-5-4(B) flag lots. Confirm the conditional approach (permitted only where conventional frontage is infeasible, with a written finding by the Planning Administrator). Alternatives are outright prohibition or unrestricted permission.
  • 11-5 Engineering Standards consistency. Verify every design menu and threshold in this chapter against the current Engineering Standards and the applicable fire code before this draft advances. The Engineering Standards 2025 draft is the document this chapter must coordinate with.

Ch. 6Subdivision Improvements and Dedications

  • 11-6 Engineering Standards coordination. Verify the cross-references to the Engineering Standards (which appear in nearly every section) against the current Engineering Standards document. The 2025 draft is the coordination target.
  • 11-6-3(A) eighteen-month bond period. Confirm. Some jurisdictions use twelve months, some use twenty-four; current Helena practice is eighteen.
  • 11-6-2(B) two-thousand kVA undergrounding exception. Confirm the threshold against contemporary high-capacity transmission practice.
  • 11-6-7(C) warranty period. The chapter points to the Engineering Standards for warranty period and warranty terms. Confirm the Engineering Standards' current warranty provisions; if missing or ambiguous, the chapter could state a default warranty period itself.
  • 11-6-6 capital facility extension. The section carries 76-25-410 authority but does not state the cost-allocation methodology (proportional share, fair-share, full-cost). Decide whether the methodology is stated in the chapter or referenced to a separate policy.
  • 11-6-9(C) cross-access dedication choice. The section gives the Planning Administrator discretion to choose between dedication to the City and dedication to affected adjacent lots. Confirm discretion as the right approach, or set a default direction (e.g., always to the City).
  • 11-6-10(C) parkland cash-in-lieu timing. The section requires payment before final plat approval. Confirm, or allow phased payment or escrow alternatives.

Ch. 7Overlay Districts

  • Section 11-7-4 (Airport Noise Influence Overlay): the avigation easement requirement in subsection C(3) needs review against current Helena practice and against Helena Regional Airport Authority requirements. Current Chapter 36 does not state the avigation easement as a code requirement, but the airport authority commonly requires one in practice. Planning staff propose stating it in the overlay so the practice is operating under adopted code rather than under practice alone.
  • Section 11-7-4 (Airport Noise Influence Overlay): the 45 dB Ldn interior standard in subsection C(2) is the FAA-recommended threshold for habitable rooms. Current Chapter 36 does not specify a numeric interior threshold. Planning staff propose adopting the FAA threshold explicitly so the standard is measurable. Worth checking with airport authority and with state aviation administration.
  • Section 11-7-5 (Wildland-Urban Interface Overlay): the renovation thresholds in subsection D (10% / 50%) carry forward from current Chapter 41. Worth reviewing against current wildfire code best practice (NFPA 1144, IWUIC) to see whether the thresholds reflect current understanding of structure ignition risk.
  • Future overlays: the working file's deferred drafting list does not name additional overlays as items planning staff intend to draft. Section 11-7-6 establishes the procedural pathway; substantive proposals for floodplain, historic, viewshed, or neighborhood character overlays are deferred to later work or to the consultant's full rewrite.
  • Relationship to subdivision: an overlay's standards can affect what subdivision can occur within the overlay (lot size, infrastructure requirements). Chapter 5 cross-reference to overlay districts to be drafted; current chapter does not state this cross-reference.

PCProcess Crosswalk — open questions

  • The completeness clock varies by review type in Helena's current process documents — 5 working days for CUP and variance, 20 working days for site-specific development including preliminary plat, 10 business days for final plat. Confirm whether the UDO should preserve those differentiated completeness clocks (they match the complexity of the submittal) or move toward a single completeness standard. The crosswalk preserves them as-found for now.
  • Whether the Process Crosswalk table in the rendered chapter should be the full detail of this file or a compressed at-a-glance version with this file's depth available as an appendix. IG-6 in the working file is currently scoped as the compressed version.
  • Whether to draft the impact determination as a standalone numbered section in Chapter 3 that the review types cross-reference, or to state it within the first review type and cross-reference back. The standalone-section approach is cleaner but front-loads a mechanic before the reader has seen a review type use it.

WFWorking file — open questions

  • Confirm with Director Brink which Bozeman Chapter 38 is the intended structural reference (long-running vs. the Dec 2025 / Ordinance 2151 replacement).
  • Confirm the six infographics are the intended set, or adjust.
  • Decide whether to render one sample infographic now to set style direction, or keep editing data and render all six at PDF stage.
  • Definitions, 11-1-12: carry forward 'Utility, major' and 'Utility, minor' from current Title 11 11-2-2 with one substantive change — data centers move from minor to major. Under current definitions a data center reads as a minor utility ('facilities that ... provide the conveyance, distribution, transmission, or control, through a community system, of ... electronic data, and telecommunications'), and minor utilities are P in every district. Reclassifying data centers as major utilities means data centers become NP or CUP across the district family ladders rather than P-by-right, consistent with the major-utility treatment of water/wastewater plants and commercial-scale renewable generation. Whether the reclassification operates by amending the 'Utility, major' definition to name data centers explicitly, or by adding a standalone 'Data center' defined term with major-utility treatment, is a drafting choice for the definitions pass.