Our Missoula 2045 Land Use Plan

12/16/24


* I am writing this morning in regard to the 2045 Missoula Land Use Plan.
* While I was aware the initiative dealt with residential types and density, I had no particular opinion of expertise on those issues, so I largely left discussion on it to others.
* However, when a casual reading of the document uncovered that a major portion of Fort Missoula was to be re-designated from “parks and open space” to “civic,” and that the new designation was “not anticipated to provide housing but could be supported” - my attention as head of two Fort Missoula historic preservation organizations covered in the gray zone, was secured
* This plan is apparently fast-tracked for City Council approval Monday night. I became aware of the above late last week, and consultations over the weekend with the three primary Fort Missoula historic agencies indicate none of their staff members, board members, or support organizations was made aware of this proposed change, either in formulation or final presentation. After a number of years in government and 28 spent working on Fort Missoula planning I can confidently say that if problems of this extent are present in the notification process - then there was effectively none. (And no, email blasts containing mainly generalities do not count.)
* A change of this magnitude warranted direct contact between the Dept. of Community Planning, Development and Innovation and the Fort Missouia landowning and administering agencies - at the minimum the Rocky Mountain Museum of Military History, the Historical Museum at Fort Missoula, the Northern Rockies Heritage Center, plus several more and the Historic Fort Missoula Coalition, representing over thirty interested organizations. The executive leadership of the above was especially deserving of such - they have full agendas and cannot be expected to spend large amounts of time poring through the entirety of the minutiae produced by city government.
* In further review, multiple episodes since the early 1990’s - in editorial statements, ballot referendum, litigation, and legislative actions - have clearly and emphatically shown that the public is satisfied with the existing preservation protections and land use matrix at Fort Missoula, and is resolutely opposed to residential/commercial development and the introduction of neighborhood problems into the Fort. Preference has been strong and clear for the present mix of historic preservation, cultural, recreational, and office park use. Fifty years of investment under that combination has made Fort Missoula a recognized and prized community resource unique among national historic sites. I cannot see what circumstances or direction mandate CPDI to overturn the above.
* This plan as applied to the Fort essentially creates a keyhole to begin reduction of all that - and it should be pointedly noted here that the Fort agencies in entirety were satisfied with the existing parks and open space designation; here a solution has been set loose in search of a problem. None of the Fort public and/or nonprofit agencies has expressed any desire to get into the housing business; the only possible contingency this designation might be generally applied to is that RMMMH, HMFM, NRHC, UM, US Army, USFS, and others will simultaneously dissolve and/or relocate elsewhere.
* As is, the plan does offer an undeserved lifeline of sorts to the one land speculation entity attempting to insert tract housing into the historic Fort Missoula core - FAE-Wolf of Denver, Colorado. As expressed by Mr. Max Wolf in a hearing last week (one the above agencies were entirely unaware pertained to Fort Missoula and did not attend):

“One of the owners of the Old Post Hospital, which previously proposed 16 residential units at the fort, asked the city council for a more dense land use type to allow for more intense development. 
"Unlike the surrounding tax-exempt property, This site actively supports our community's tax base and deserves equitable treatment in zoning," owner Max Wolf said at the meeting.” (Missoulian, 12/12/24)

Concerning the above -

- If FAE-Wolf (which retains a full time lawyer-lobbyist to keep track of these things, a resource unavailable to the Fort Missoula historic agencies) is considered to be representing Fort Missoula here, the hearing process on the plan reaches the highest levels of contrivance.
- FAE-Wolf has been resolute in attempting to roll back a half-century of Fort Missoula land use planning, protection and precedent to exclusively benefit a private financial land speculation project; their most recent scheme was decisively defeated in the City Council last spring.
- In his purported framing of the issue, Mr. Wolf shows little to no understanding of the role of nonprofit organizations. NPO’s and government lands were and are not designed to be part of the tax base. Rather, the later provides public benefit through conservation, service or other purposes, and private NPO’s receive nontaxable status after public review to ensure their activities are directed toward the same.
- FAE-Wolf has received more than equitable treatment by regulatory authorities throughout their application process - and furthermore it was incumbent on them to understand existing Fort Missoula land planning and protections, “equitably” written into statute and available to all. That they purchased property gambling they could change such and lost is not a matter for concern to anyone outside their ownership and office staff.

* I will again note further that over 28 years I have participated in multiple Fort Missoula land planning processes. When collaboration with the Fort agencies is sought in advance, productive things happen. When top-down dictates are attempted without preliminary discussion, the main product is an adversarial relationship. As of today this plan is leaning toward the latter category.

This morning, I would respectfully request that the portion of the 2045 Missoula Land Use Plan dealing with the “civic” designation for Fort Missoula be withdrawn from further consideration until further discussion between the Fort Missoula agencies and CPDI. I would be pleased to facilitate such.

Sincerely,

Tate Jones

Executive Director
Rocky Mountain Museum of Military History

President
Northern Rockies Heritage Center

Member
Historic Fort Missoula Coalition

A few days before Christmas 1993 the Missoula City Council was faced with a choice: should it enact Ordinance 2877 granting residential zoning on the 82 acre site of the WW2 Japanese and Italian concentration camp at Fort Missoula or do as the large number of its constituents urged and NOT enact Ordinance 2877? That Council chose residential development - which proved to be the wrong choice.
The incensed constituents now had 30 days before the ordinance took effect to draft a petition, get it approved by the City Attorney and then collect the necessary number of signatures. With barely a week remaining and armed with a certified petition - 100 plus brave souls stood on street corners in freezing January and collected 13 thousand signatures which put the question on the June 7th Primary Ballot.
A 4-month media battle ensued. Developers standing to make millions vs citizens who knew and deeply cared about the extraordinary "Civic" value of those 82 acres.
On June 7, 1994 - the bad choice made by the Council was overwhelmingly corrected at the ballot box. It's now 30 years later and a similar choice is at hand.
Fort Missoula represents something unique. Especially now with all the ugly talk of rounding people up and putting them in camps. That place is sacred. There is a choice before us - before the Council - to humbly recognize - in the most respectful way possible - what that place was in our journey and to acknowledge that private residential housing does not fit in that picture.
Under the Plan being proposed - some of the Fort would change from OP3 to "Civic." The "Civic" designation states that "Civic uses are not generally anticipated to provide housing, but could be supported if proposed." This language should be clarified so that it PROHIBITS private residential housing developments.
The Fort might represent the most "Civic" place in all of Western Montana and as such is no place for private residential housing. Even the University eventually recognized that residential housing is inappropriate on the 82 acres it still controls at the Fort - and as such has enacted a memorandum to NEVER allow private residential housing there. The Missoula City Council should do the same.

I have had the opportunity to review the draft plan and would like to comment on the proposed changes to the land use designations at Fort Missoula. The Land Use Plan is changing from Parks and Open Space to Civic that recognizes housing in limited situations. I would prefer that we use this opportunity to strengthen and enhance historic preservation measures for the Fort instead of opening the door to development. There are ways to encourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings at the Fort. There are also ways to require compatible new construction in the historic district. The council should table the decision on the land use plan to give staff and the community the opportunity to develop ways to strengthen and enhance historic preservation measures for Fort Missoula.

Please clarify language concerning “housing” at Fort Missoula. No residential uses should be permitted or conditional except for health care facilities. Allowing anything other than this is a matter of community concern and will be strongly opposed.

I am a long time resident of East Missoula. I try to keep up with as much of the new development, zoning, rezoning as I can. I attend planning board meetings and commissioners meetings, I am a member of the community council and our neighborhood EMU group. This entire project caught me by surprise last week at the All Community Council meeting. To have never heard of this, leads me to believe that there was not a lot of outreach to the East Missoula Community. That being said, I do not believe our neighborhood has been accurately portrayed in this plan. We have been deemed "Urban Residential High". If anyone had asked us what we think we are, this would be one of the last designations we would have chosen. By the definition, the neighborhood would be walkable (we have no sidewalks), complete with near-by ammenities (we, though no lack of trying, have very limited ammenities)

Removed by moderator.

Thank you for this tentative plan. I am sure you are working with the transportation plan and the park plan that are happening at the same time. Planning trails and bike lanes in all areas that connect to services is crucial. I see the development west of Reserve and there are different types of housing. My concern is that the traffic situation is ridiculous on Mullan Road. Flynn Lane is dangerous as well as Mary Jane as there are not adequate stop signs, slow signs, traffic lights.
Parks with amenities within walking distances from developments are a must.

I see little to no discussion about decreasing people instead of accommodating growth. We need a campaign to discourage people from moving here and helping people who want to leave do so. It will not solve all the problems but it seems unbalanced to just look at the supply side. How can we decrease the demand is a question that is not even asked. Shoving more people up our valleys, most with one egress road that is overtaxed is just crazy and dangerous. If Grant Creek or the Rattlesnake or Miller Creek or the like need to be quickly evacuated there will be deaths. If we want to accommodate more people we need more infrastructure first, more schools, more roads, more parks, more police etc.

We can see your primary focus is how to cram more people into the same space. But there are realities we are going to run up against. One is that there is already not enough room for infrastructure. Adding bike lanes and buses may make the problem worse, but it certainly won't fix anything. The western United States is car centric, and much as the planners of a super-dense Missoula might like to fly in the face of that reality, they can't change it. Dense, congested neighborhoods become dirty, unhappy neighborhoods with more crime and road rage. People are already getting to sit through two cycles of some traffic lights, watching it tick over 3 times will improve no one's mood. You are going to make this worse when people sitting 50 cars back from the light gaze at nearly empty bike lanes that could have been used more effectively for the majority.

Another reality I keep seeing ignored around Densetown is parking. You can't get rid of the cars. Go ahead and try. And people need a place to park them. I was recently driving down the newly paved Dakota St. just off Russell and you got rid of the parking that used to exist there. This is madness. We can hope the cars in Missoula go electric soon, but we cannot hope they disappear. Stop eliminating parking spots and lot requirements!

Please try to remember that weather is not going away. In fact, a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, not less. We don't know if Missoula will become more like Seattle, but cold, or more like Utah. When you get rid of all the space people used to put snow, what's your solution going to be? Everyone has to buy a vehicle to haul it away? Oh, wait, there's no parking, anymore. What's the solution? When heavy snows can't be plowed anywhere, what's the plan then? Maybe Missoula city planners should plan snow days for everyone while the city pours money down the drain scooping and hauling snow from every dense little alleyway and street.

Making space that encourages people to move to a place with not enough space is just not practical. In exchange for your density, you are telling every Missoulian to forfeit their way of life and make way for newcomers.

I have a specific concern regarding the land between Kendrick Place and Technology Court within the Development Park. Lots 10, 11, and 12 are only accessible via Kendrick Place, which the plan designates as a residential street type. This creates a potential conflict, as both industrial users and residents would be using the same street, which is not ideal for either group and could negatively affect the marketability of the industrial lots.

First, I want to commend the planning staff for developing an overall thoughtful and well-designed land use plan that reflects a balanced vision for the area. To address the specific challenge with this section, I recommend exploring one of two potential solutions:

Introduce Zoning Flexibility: Adjust the zoning to permit some multifamily residential development within the industrial place type, creating a more compatible land use mix.

Change the Place Type Designation: Reclassify lots 10, 11, and 12 to allow for multifamily or "missing middle" housing. This would create a thoughtful transition zone between the single-family neighborhoods to the east and south, and the industrial operations (e.g., Peterbilt) to the west and north.

These changes could help reduce conflicts, improve marketability, and enhance the long-term functionality of the area for both residents and industrial users.

Thank you.

This draft plan presents an optimistic vision for the future of our City. However, it doesn't adequately describe how safe, connected mobility will be achieved. While the Plan highlights the need for prioritizing walking and biking, there are few practical details about how to protect pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair users while also enabling them to travel between neighborhoods and to access amenities. The proposed Street Types don’t include any plan for cyclist, pedestrian, or wheelchair infrastructure beyond sidewalks, which are missing from many Missoula neighborhoods. The Plan has no provision for how sidewalks that do exist would be maintained in the winter, which is crucial to making them functional for pedestrians and wheelchair users. There is no provision for safe bicycle infrastructure, because sidewalks aren't safe for cyclists and our "Greenways" have too many fast-moving cars. And the Street Types and the accompanying map do not envision how residents will travel farther than one block. There are more than 42,000 traffic fatalities in the U.S. each year and the number of pedestrians struck and killed by vehicles is higher now than anytime in the past 40 years (Smart Growth America, “Dangerous by Design 2022”). In Missoula alone, there were roughly two crashes involving cyclists or pedestrians every week between 2013 and 2018 (Montana Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System). We need to be more flexible and creative in thinking about how to provide infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair-users that will connect neighborhoods and connect neighbors.

page 95, column 3: "Current distances
between destinations and existing infrastructure until
the city becomes more urbanized, services are closer
to homes, and density supports more frequent and
reliable transit service."
Problem: This is not a complete sentence, and doesn't actually say anything.

Obviously, a lot of thought and planning has been done to draft this plan to deal with the ever increasing population and housing deficit in the Missoula area. I am a resident of the upper Rattlesnake neighborhood and we had a general meeting of the neighborhood last spring, in which the Office of Emergency Management presented several emergency evacuation scenarios. Depending on the situation, it could take up to 6 hours to evacuate all residents of the Rattlesnake. Since the Butler Creek Fire or the Spring Gulch Fire from this summer could have resulted in evacuation protocols (thank goodness for quick response to both of these fires) for our neighborhood, I would ask that these factors be taken into consideration when looking at density of an area. There are only 2 roads out of the Rattlesnake neighborhood and getting residents out quickly and safely should be a consideration. Thank you for your work on this document.

On page 69 of the Land Use Plan, which discusses Urban Residential Low, the comparable city zoning districts need to include R5.4 and RT5.4 given that 5400 sq ft is the "typical parcel size" found in the area of the city designated as Urban Residential Low and given that much of that area (specifically the Lewis and Clark neighborhood) is currently zoned R5.4.

Working toward greater housing density makes sense ... until you get to the parts about not accounting for parking. Even people who walk or bike to work (or are retired) own cars to go camping and hiking. I do not think that the most robust public transportation system imaginable in Missoula will convince many people to give up their cars. No one is going to take the bus to Costco to shop for a family, for example; nor will they take a bus, if one even existed, (along with tent and stove and kids and dogs...) to Rock Creek to camp for the weekend. People who live in Missoula need parking. And will continue to need parking for many, many years to come. Refusing to acknowledge that will lead to neighborhoods that are unlivable.

Thank you for all of your work on this. Missoula needs a user/sales tax to accommodate the wishes that the full community has. We can no longer put the bill on the backs of property owners alone. Everyone in the community; including home owners and renters need to take financial responsibility for Missoula improvements especially for changing roads, expanding/improving outdoor and recreational spaces. Please bring a sales tax to Missoula so that we can accommodate growth.

Really excited for more housing options and mixed-use density inwards. I would love to see fewer spaces for cars in downtown, since even with the bike lane on Higgins, it can get pretty scary trying to turn left or go forward when a car wants to turn right.

I'm hopeful that we can narrow the streets across town, especially in the U-district since cars go so fast down those blocks, even with the new-ish roundabouts that have been put in place. I really appreciate the recent bump-outs around Bernice's, and hope we can narrow more roads in that fashion, as well as increase the diameter of some roundabouts if road-narrowing (sidewalk-widening) isn't feasable. Additionally, I have to point out that there's a lot of missing curb cuts throughout the city, making it difficult for many members of our community to get around. While I would love to see continuous sidewalks, I would settle for consistent curb cuts.

I'm also hoping that the Mountain Line will run with higher frequency and later into the night, especially on weekends. I love that it's free, but I would gladly pay for a monthly pass if that would get frequency up.

I'm looking forward to the missing middle housing. I never want to see Missoula turn into high-rise buildings, but I would love more housing right around 4-stories or so. I love Missoula so much it hurts, and it's a city I want to stick around in and hope I can financially do that. The housing is one of the most challenging things about that, so I'm really appreciative and optimistic for the future.

Attended an event, and by far from the pins and comments left it was clear those participating wanted more density across the board. I appreciate the desire to build inwards, and the forethought put into creating an already bikeable city. Recognizing the issues brought with even more cars from more urban houses, I am hopeful that commuting possibilities outside of cars continue to be pushed for the benefit of relieving pressure to our car lanes, and creating healthy and sustainable transportation opportunities. Use these modifications to density to also include the completion of sidewalks as well as bike paths throughout the city. Not sure what to do with the enormous amount of cars brought into Missoula from outside the city and their use of our city services, perhaps raising a few more parking structures and parking fees would help them towards paying their fair share, while minimizing the sprawl of their SUV's.

Place types“We need safe, multi-modal connectivity east-west and north-south across the Plan boundary; neither the Street Types nor the Street Types Map provide for protected corridors through all neighborhoods." Background: The Street Types and the accompanying map do not envision how residents will travel farther than one block. If a cyclist needs to commute from a "Community Residential" street to a "Neighborhood Residential", what happens when the bike lane ends? While a "Community Residential" street might have some sidewalks, what happens when they disappear at alleyways or are blocked by snow and ice? We need to be more flexible and creative in thinking about how to provide infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair-users that will connect neighborhoods and connect neighbors.

The urban high density plan for Franklin-to-the-Fort does not work without a parallel plan to expand parks and green space within this community to accommodate the increased density. There is aready a shortage of parks and greenspace in this neighborhood. Without first addressing that problem before encouraging greater density of people, we exacerbate inequities that currently exist in Missoula. In addition, a N-S running neighborhood greenway is essential on Kemp Street to close the gap in safe bicycle infrastructure west of Johnson St that is essential to creating a contiguous safe bicycle commuting network that can plug into the Milwaukee Trail.