Zoning Map

I recognize that we will need to create zoning that allows for infill in the Lower Rattlesnake, because our city is growing, and affordable housing is a priority. Nonetheless, I am extremely concerned that we are making such a significant leap (e.g., from single-family homes to 4-story apartment buildings), a change that would fundamentally alter the character and safety of our neighborhoods. I live relatively close to the highway, and on football game days, the narrow streets are so thick with parked cars that they are barely passable, and local residents have a hard time securing parking in front of their own homes. (This is an even bigger problem if there is any snow, because our streets are usually among the last to be plowed in the winter.) I imagine that that could become our daily experience if apartment buildings without designated parking are added to our neighborhoods, creating conflict between neighbors and reducing quality of life. In addition, I would echo the concerns shared by others about safety: the railroad crossing at Monroe Street already makes efforts to leave the Lower Rattlesnake a gamble (particularly when the trains remain stationary, blocking the street, for long periods of time), and significantly more cars in the Lower Rattlesnake would make rapid evacuation via Van Buren far more difficult and dangerous in the event of a wildfire or chemical spill. I am saddened by the idea that we could cut down even more trees to make room for buildings. Lastly, I would like to point out that sewer improvements last year resulted in over 6 months of inconvenience, noise, and road blockages. I can only imagine the disruption that would be caused by the construction of 4-story apartment buildings (and the necessary infrastructure to support them) in those neighborhoods. Please consider RU-2 zoning and limits on short-term rentals as alternative solutions to boost the number of affordable housing units in the Lower Rattlesnake. Thank you for your time.

I am a homeowner in the Lower Rattlesnake with young kids. Like others have eloquently stated, re-zoning to increase density would severely tax our two access roads, Van Buren and Greenough. We have young kids and already find it very difficult to safely cross Rattlesnake drive with constant traffic. It lacks crosswalks and cars are often going 35+ around blind corners. If we further increase density it will only exacerbate the problem. I would want to see significant changes to our infrastructure in order to support this - we'd need a lower speed limit enforced higher up Van Buren, more lighted crosswalks to support kids going to school or parks, an overpass built over the train crossing that is often blocked on Greenough/Spruce, and considerable upgrades to our aging sewer, water and disaster response capabilities.

I would like to see more affordable housing, but just re-zoning is not the full solution.

I am a homeowner in the

Hello,

I think much of the proposed zoning for the lower Rattlesnake is too dense as suggested. The UR-4 designation would significantly change the character of the neighborhood, add too much traffic, and add significantly to the evacuation times for the entire valley.

The entire Rattlesnake is in the wildland urban interface. There are two roads out of the area. I went to an open house last year showed how long it would take to evacuate the entire Rattlesnake. As an upper Rattlesnake resident, the idea of putting much high density in the valley is concerning. I already stay in town the entire month of August due to fire danger. A friend of mine, who is a fire specialist, won't stay in the upper Rattlesnake July - September. I think a large increase in density is asking for fatalities and irresponsible.

I agree that there should be some increase in density, but do not zone past UR-2 in the Rattlensake.
Thank you,

Anne Iverson

To Members of the Planning Commission and City Council,

I would not want your job navigating this volatile and complicated issue in the lower Rattlesnake.

I have been a homeowner in the lower Rattlesnake for 33 years. The entrance to my home is through an alley. There is no parking on this block of Van Buren. We have struggled over the past years with the increased parking in the alley and the increased rental properties. Several homes including rentals have 3 vehicles and boats. It's become very difficult to manage. Recycling and garbage service vehicles struggle with this as well. Adding high density zoning to the historic lower Rattlesnake would only increase traffic in the narrow streets, alleys and on Van Buren.

We have many treasures in the lower Rattlesnake including proximity to Greenough Park and the Gateway to Rattlesnake Wilderness. It's designated a National Historic District with burial land. How can we in good conscious desecrate this sacred land with condos and apartments.

I am an advocate for more reasonable affordable housing only in areas that have the resources and space to build three story buildings perhaps closer to commercial businesses. To permit cutting down old growth trees to build these units is heartbreaking. It will severely compromise the "old" feeling of the neighborhood.

Prescott has been empty for several years now and is getting vandalized. Perhaps this building could be used as apartments. Why does it stand empty for so long? Realize the potential of the building and not the shortsightedness of using a neighborhood playground for three story high density housing. What about sacrificing a high water use golf course?

I've noticed that there are many out of state developers who have submitted projects or are currently under review. Are they invested in providing "affordable" housing? Who benefits from affordable housing?
I believe it would prohibitive for a Missoula residents who lives paycheck to paycheck. Housing costs need to decline, building supplies need to be reduced and wages need to increase.

Missoula has soul. The lower Rattlesnake is a special neighborhood. Please do not move forward on rezoning the lower Rattlesnake. I believe if we were allowed to vote on the rezoning of this neighborhood; it would be clear just how special it is.

Thanks for listening.
Rattlesnake33

Re: Opposition to High-Density Zoning Proposal in the Rattlesnake

Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council,

As a resident of the Rattlesnake neighborhood that has lived in the neighborhood off and on for the last 20 years, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed rezoning that would allow high-density development throughout the Rattlesnake Valley, particularly the lower end. The Rattlesnake is a unique and cherished neighborhood due to its proximity to natural spaces, like Greenough Park and the Rattlesnake Wilderness, and its family-friendly environment with lower (but increasing) traffic. While Missoula is growing and infill/smart growth should absolutely be encouraged, allowing for major multi-unit (unlimited as in the case of parts of the lower Rattlesnake) apartments or condos in the Rattlesnake would fundamentally alter this character, leading to several negative impacts, including:

- Infrastructure Issues: Our roads, such as Van Buren Street, Rattlesnake Drive, Duncan Drive, and Lolo Street, are not equipped for increased traffic from hundreds of new residents. These roads are already very dangerous for the many kids and families that bike/walk in the neighborhood and lack necessary infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc) to keep people safe. The added increased traffic without first addressing the failed infrastructure needs and road design will further worsen the existing hazards for area residents and children. Moreover, with two ingress/egress roads out of the Rattlesnake, there are known concerns of the ability to safely evacuate existing residents during emergencies, increasing density throughout the valley is a recipe for disaster. These issues should be studied before approving the rezoning of the Rattlesnake Valley.

- Environmental Concerns: Densification risks increased runoff and pollution into Rattlesnake Creek, threatening local wildlife and recreational areas. An environmental review of the impact of increased density throughout the valley on the watershed should be required before any approval.

- Quality of Life: Abrupt density increases can disrupt community cohesion. We need zoning that preserves the Rattlesnake's unique character, not erodes it. To this point, the zoning proposals should be much more targeted in terms of where higher density is permitted and, under no circumstances, should density above U-R2 be permitted in the lower Rattlesnake (with the exception of the area immediately around the existing apartments near Greenough). Additionally, the upper Rattlesnake, especially the west side north of Lolo Street, should all be zoned under the rural classification. Traffic and speeds on Duncan Drive already present major safety hazards for area residents (high speeds and traffic, no speeding deterrents, no sidewalks, no crosswalks, etc.). Over my years of living in the Rattlesnake, I’ve seen numerous near-misses from pedestrians, bikers and vehicles. Adding more traffic without the infrastructure upgrades will undoubtedly turn near misses into tragedies. The plan’s proposal is not nearly targeted enough. These traffic concerns must be reviewed and considered through a study before any zoning approval occurs.

Overall, I support responsible growth in Missoula and agree with the need to focus inward, but this proposal ignores the Rattlesnake's specific needs and the unique aspects of the Rattlesnake that make it the Rattlesnake. Instead, prioritize development in commercial corridors or vacant lots and narrow the zoning changes to more targeted areas rather than a blanket high density proposal for the entire lower Rattlesnake Valley.

I request that you deny this rezoning proposal, studied the impacts noted above, and explore a more targeted approach that really takes into account the unique qualities of neighborhoods throughout Missoula.

Respectfully,
Lowell Chandler

Dear Mayor and Members of City Council,

I write as a resident and steward of the Lower Rattlesnake who is deeply troubled by the recent approvals and ongoing proposals to permit multi-dwelling, higher-density construction in the Lower Rattlesnake valley—specifically the Rattlesnake Hills Estates PUD (Phase 7 / “Cherry Gulch”).

This proposal, currently before the City, calls for six multi-dwelling buildings totaling approximately 42–45 dwelling units. According to the official application, the request is for 42 units (EngageMissoula project page). Local news reporting on the Council’s action describes 45 units—four six-plexes, one nine-plex, and one twelve-plex (KPAX/MTN News).

My concerns are both specific and significant:

1) Evacuation and public safety
The Lower Rattlesnake sits in a narrow drainage with limited access points. Increasing residential density here will only intensify evacuation bottlenecks during wildfire, flood, or other emergency events—placing residents, first responders, and adjacent neighborhoods at greater risk. I urge the City to require a rigorous, independent evacuation and emergency-access analysis (not merely a checklist) that models vehicle egress under high-occupancy scenarios, fire behavior impacts, and the cumulative effect of additional units across the valley.

2) Historic and cultural resources, including Tribal history
The Lower Rattlesnake is part of a historically significant landscape with documented archaeological and cultural value—including Salish place names and traditional use of the Rattlesnake drainage. The neighborhood is also recognized as the Lower Rattlesnake Historic District on the National Register. Any ground-disturbing work in Cherry Gulch and adjacent areas must be reviewed for impacts on buried cultural resources, and the City must consult formally with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and other Tribal authorities. I request that the Council require pre-construction archaeological surveys and an enforceable Tribal consultation plan.

3) Affordability — who benefits?
There is a growing disconnect between the term “high-density” and the reality of housing that is truly affordable to Missoula families, people experiencing homelessness, or working households. Many higher-density developments near the university and downtown function as market-rate or student housing rather than affordable homes. I ask for transparency: who is the applicant/developer; what percentage of units will be permanently affordable; what income bands will they serve; and what legally binding instruments (deeds, covenants, or agreements) will guarantee affordability in perpetuity?

Current documentation for this PUD shows Paradigm V3 Architects representing the applicant—the Peschel family, property owners—for the multi-dwelling design review (EngageMissoula). Yet public materials do not demonstrate that the proposed units will deliver the kind of subsidized or deeply affordable housing the city urgently needs.

4) Fiscal and mitigation questions — who pays, who benefits?
I ask the Council to require full disclosure of developer financial commitments: projected tax revenues, impact fees, mitigation funds for infrastructure (roads, water, sewer), contributions to affordable-housing funds, and long-term maintenance assurances for stormwater and hillside stabilization. A public fiscal impact analysis is needed to show whether this project represents a true public benefit or simply a speculative land play based on its proximity to the University and downtown.

5) Location choice and alternatives
If the goal is to build housing that is both affordable and sustainable, there are other parcels near high-capacity transit lines and less environmentally or culturally sensitive sites that would be far better suited for increased density. The Lower Rattlesnake’s historic designation, narrow valley, proximity to sensitive creeks (Cherry Gulch flowing into Rattlesnake Creek), and limited egress make this the wrong place for this scope of development. The City should prioritize density where transit, evacuation routes, and infrastructure already exist.

Requests for Council Action
• Pause any further permitting or construction authorization until the City publishes an independent evacuation study, fiscal impact analysis, and cultural resource/archaeological assessment that includes formal Tribal consultation.
• Require legally enforceable affordability covenants with clear income bands and timelines attached to any approvals that increase allowable density.
• Require full developer disclosure: ownership entities, financing model, projected tax/fee payments, and planned contributions to the City’s affordable housing trust or mitigation funds.
• Insist on meaningful Tribal consultation and pre-construction archaeological surveys for Cherry Gulch and any ground-disturbing work in Phase 7.
• Reconsider the siting of high-density development in the Lower Rattlesnake and redirect it toward corridors with existing infrastructure and public transit.

I support responsible, well-planned housing growth in Missoula that truly expands affordability while protecting public safety, cultural resources, and the historic character of our neighborhoods. I urge the Council to apply a precautionary standard here: require the analyses above, secure enforceable affordability commitments, and ensure Tribal and community consultation is substantive, not symbolic.

Thank you for your time, and for considering the concerns of those who call the Lower Rattlesnake home.

Sincerely,
Erin Anderson

Dear Mayor and Members of City Council,

I write as a resident and steward of the Lower Rattlesnake who is deeply troubled by the recent approvals and ongoing proposals to permit multi-dwelling, higher-density construction in the Lower Rattlesnake valley—specifically the Rattlesnake Hills Estates PUD (Phase 7 / “Cherry Gulch”).

This proposal, currently before the City, calls for six multi-dwelling buildings totaling approximately 42–45 dwelling units. According to the official application, the request is for 42 units (EngageMissoula project page). Local news reporting on the Council’s action describes 45 units—four six-plexes, one nine-plex, and one twelve-plex (KPAX/MTN News).

My concerns are both specific and significant:

1) Evacuation and public safety
The Lower Rattlesnake sits in a narrow drainage with limited access points. Increasing residential density here will only intensify evacuation bottlenecks during wildfire, flood, or other emergency events—placing residents, first responders, and adjacent neighborhoods at greater risk. I urge the City to require a rigorous, independent evacuation and emergency-access analysis (not merely a checklist) that models vehicle egress under high-occupancy scenarios, fire behavior impacts, and the cumulative effect of additional units across the valley.

2) Historic and cultural resources, including Tribal history
The Lower Rattlesnake is part of a historically significant landscape with documented archaeological and cultural value—including Salish place names and traditional use of the Rattlesnake drainage. The neighborhood is also recognized as the Lower Rattlesnake Historic District on the National Register. Any ground-disturbing work in Cherry Gulch and adjacent areas must be reviewed for impacts on buried cultural resources, and the City must consult formally with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and other Tribal authorities. I request that the Council require pre-construction archaeological surveys and an enforceable Tribal consultation plan.

3) Affordability — who benefits?
There is a growing disconnect between the term “high-density” and the reality of housing that is truly affordable to Missoula families, people experiencing homelessness, or working households. Many higher-density developments near the university and downtown function as market-rate or student housing rather than affordable homes. I ask for transparency: who is the applicant/developer; what percentage of units will be permanently affordable; what income bands will they serve; and what legally binding instruments (deeds, covenants, or agreements) will guarantee affordability in perpetuity?

Current documentation for this PUD shows Paradigm V3 Architects representing the applicant—the Peschel family, property owners—for the multi-dwelling design review (EngageMissoula). Yet public materials do not demonstrate that the proposed units will deliver the kind of subsidized or deeply affordable housing the city urgently needs.

4) Fiscal and mitigation questions — who pays, who benefits?
I ask the Council to require full disclosure of developer financial commitments: projected tax revenues, impact fees, mitigation funds for infrastructure (roads, water, sewer), contributions to affordable-housing funds, and long-term maintenance assurances for stormwater and hillside stabilization. A public fiscal impact analysis is needed to show whether this project represents a true public benefit or simply a speculative land play based on its proximity to the University and downtown.

5) Location choice and alternatives
If the goal is to build housing that is both affordable and sustainable, there are other parcels near high-capacity transit lines and less environmentally or culturally sensitive sites that would be far better suited for increased density. The Lower Rattlesnake’s historic designation, narrow valley, proximity to sensitive creeks (Cherry Gulch flowing into Rattlesnake Creek), and limited egress make this the wrong place for this scope of development. The City should prioritize density where transit, evacuation routes, and infrastructure already exist.

Requests for Council Action
• Pause any further permitting or construction authorization until the City publishes an independent evacuation study, fiscal impact analysis, and cultural resource/archaeological assessment that includes formal Tribal consultation.
• Require legally enforceable affordability covenants with clear income bands and timelines attached to any approvals that increase allowable density.
• Require full developer disclosure: ownership entities, financing model, projected tax/fee payments, and planned contributions to the City’s affordable housing trust or mitigation funds.
• Insist on meaningful Tribal consultation and pre-construction archaeological surveys for Cherry Gulch and any ground-disturbing work in Phase 7.
• Reconsider the siting of high-density development in the Lower Rattlesnake and redirect it toward corridors with existing infrastructure and public transit.

I support responsible, well-planned housing growth in Missoula that truly expands affordability while protecting public safety, cultural resources, and the historic character of our neighborhoods. I urge the Council to apply a precautionary standard here: require the analyses above, secure enforceable affordability commitments, and ensure Tribal and community consultation is substantive, not symbolic.

Thank you for your time, and for considering the concerns of those who call the Lower Rattlesnake home.

Sincerely,
Erin Anderson

Hello,
I would like to express my disapproval of the proposed zoning of the Lower Rattlesnake as Urban Residential High Zoning. I have lived in the Lower Rattlesnake for over twenty years and while I have been fortunate to watch minimal development, I have been reliant on the City of Missoula to make good decisions. In 1999, the City registered twenty residential blocks and Greenough Park as the Lower Rattlesnake’s Historic District, listed in the National Historic Register, citing the “neighborhood’s unique scenic amenities and isolated geography of the district bolsters Missoula’s claim as the Garden City.” https://historicmt.org/items/show/934
Recently, the City has approved several construction permits that have violated the historic character of the National Historic District as written in the City’s own historic preservation guidelines for the neighborhood development. Either it is lack of proper training or allowing personal values to overreach zoning laws that this has occurred (please add the Lower Rattlesnake Historic District to your overlay maps and GIS files for future use https://montana.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5378695ae71b414ba66f478fc57241f6 ). It is depressing, and though not devastating, it does make me wonder how the City will uphold even more residential development restrictions in the area. Will the 40-foot height requirement be over looked? Will the density cap be surpassed out of convenience? Will existing and spalling infrastructure be allowed to continually degrade? It certainly makes a resident wonder.
Additionally, the City has recently highlighted the significance of the Lower Rattlesnake in Chinese history and participation in building Missoula (https://thepulp.org/montanas-chinese-past-isnt-past/
). This should not be forgotten again simply for the City to appease developers and unknown, future residents. Should a burial site be unearthed during construction what will the City do? Halt the construction, remediate the site? How to report burial sites, archeological finding should be disclosed in the zoning plan at minimum for future reference.
I am also concerned about the zone requirements are to “provide a wide range of building type options for people to live in”. Currently there is a wide range of options for people to live in. In the Lower Rattlesnake, we have apartments like Alpha East, we have residential apartments (i.e., houses converted to multi-resident living quarters), homes for ownership, homes for rent, and short-term rental options. In fact, there are so many options we have at least six VACANT homes in the neighborhood. These are vacant, abandoned houses that are owned either local or by out of town/state owners. No one lives in them, no one! This suggests that maybe there is not a need for additional housing if six houses can remain vacant for decades (i.e., there is not “missing middle” building types). There are at least four homes that are full time Airbnb houses, that are not rented throughout the year. This is a current problem, how will the new zoning fix this? Or will we continue to have vacant homes and apartments that have no added value to the neighborhood.
I am also concerned about the no parking set back. Again, this is an irresponsible decision by the City and a repeated miscalculation of the ensuing issues. For example, currently, the University of Montana is exempted from providing enough parking and their parking needs, especially during Griz football home games, seeps into the surrounding neighborhoods. In the Lower Rattlesnake, this turns two-way streets into single lanes, likely not wide enough for Emergency Medical Services vehicles to pass through. Not requiring parking in new developments will exasperate this problem, not to mention add to the current traffic congestion. Again, this violates current city planning regulations for street widths (not to mention lighting and sidewalk issues). And like many others have mentioned, the ingress and egress issue is problematic now, adding high density housing zoning will add to this problem substantially.
And of course there is always the need to plan for green space and parks. The current green spaces for parks would not accommodate the requirements for urban high residential zoning. More houses/living spaces is an addition to regular community use. I realize the Rattlesnake Recreation Area/Wilderness is huge and the open space on either side of the valley provide the majority of the open space and more that is likely recommended per house according to planning guidelines but they are currently being loved to death and do not provide the typical neighborhood park with swings, slides, and other play equipment that can be made accessible for all abilities and ages. Where are playgrounds going to go? Where does the City foresee playgrounds in the design for people to live, plan, and connect? Will there be sidewalks to such spaces? Will the City maintain the parks? Who will fund that?
And lastly, nature. Sigh. Highly developed residential zoning will continue to reduce the quality of the natural areas that surrounds us. The City is already delinquent on the vegetation management of their open spaces. I do feel the requirement to have bear resistant garbage cans reduced the number of bears in the neighborhoods but they are still around. Will the City require new developments to have bear resistant garbage cans? Most of the Rattlesnake Valley has switched to Grizzly Disposal, who takes their garbage to Helena. Does the City have a plan on how to deal with additional garbage? Recently I saw a sign in my neighborhood that was promoting the addition of more houses. This particular house is next to an abandoned home and their vehicle has a bumper sticker supporting the protection of wildlife corridors – that snapshot sums up the problems of development in the Rattlesnake. This valley is an important wildlife corridor, maybe not as important as it once was, but it still sees plenty of wildlife activity. And our water resources would likely be compromised with the addition of high residential zoning. The City recklessly removed the dams that captured our secondary water source and Rattlesnake Creek ran at an extremely low level this year. Tapping into our aquafer and deteriorating water resources is not only bad for fish and wildlife but for our own existence.
I feel like there is an overarching resentment by other neighborhoods that the Rattlesnake hasn’t been more developed. This is a personal opinion, not a true reflection of the problem and definitely not a professional evaluation of what is necessary to allow the City to grow sustainably. Issues span from lack of jobs to infrastructure the the city can support. The “if we build it, they will come” mentality is akin only to the movie title (a Field of Dreams). That is all this 20 year plan is – a dream. Perhaps the City needs to consider working with other small towns and developing another large city in Montana. Missoula cannot take all the pressure for development from either an ecological or community perspective.

I am a lower Rattlesnake resident. I so appreciate this neighborhood for the proximity to downtown, University, and great walks on Mt, Jumbo and Waterworks Hill/North Hills. I totally believe AFFORDABLE housing in Missoula needs to expand, and I believe our Rattlesnake neighborhood should be a part of that expansion. That being said, I believe this can be accomplished with multi unit housing that is appropriate to this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods in Missoula. That would mean dwellings no higher than 2 story, with off street parking, and green spaces in the mix. This can be done affordably and tastefully. Indeed, other cities around the world have done this. The BIGGER issue here is emergency evacuation when there is a fire or other emergency. We all know this is a when, not an if. If there is massive housing from 40 foot high multifamily housing in the Rattlesnake, we have 2 roads leading out of our valley to deal with this increased population. One of those roads is often blocked by the train, Many of us have seen the Madison Street crossing blocked by a train for 2 hours. Has the city considered any of this?
Given the evacuation situation in the Rattlesnake, there is absolutely no reason to have multi units of up to 40 foot high in residential neighborhoods. Two story multi unit housing will work in open lots in the Rattlesnake, with off street parking, and green spaces. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to have high rise 4 story housing in the Rattlesnake!

I’m a Lower Rattlesnake resident and I’d echo the other commenters who support the proposed density for our neighborhood. We are walkable to some of the biggest employers in Western MT— UM, St. Pats, and all the downtown businesses and startups. Our housing supply has barely budged over the past few decades, especially compared to other neighborhoods. I hope this zoning update is the one that unlocks for us a wider variety of housing options. Thank you for all your work.

I am very opposed to the high density zoning for the Rattlesnake Valley. There is already minimal open land in this area. But some of the largest problems with this proposal is the lack of any Parking provisions. This area already has a heavy burden of rentals and on street parking is a problem everywhere. The lack of provision for green space and retention of mature trees is in direct opposition to city values

The Lower Rattlesnake is a historic neighborhood that doesn’t have — and realistically can’t support — the infrastructure needed for high-density development. The cross streets in the Lower Rattlesnake often become one-way when cars park on both sides, sidewalks are inconsistent, and traffic at the roundabouts regularly backs up to Locust street because there’s only one reliable exit from the corridor.

Removing off-street parking requirements and encouraging higher density here would make our streets less safe, worsen congestion, and reduce the livability of our small neighborhood.

The Lower Rattlesnake is not a downtown district. Its zoning should reflect its historic character, limited infrastructure, and residential nature. I urge the City to maintain lower-density zoning and keep off-street parking requirements in place to protect the safety and quality of life in our neighborhood.

I have been living in the lower Rattlesnake for 35 years, first on Van Buren and now on Monroe. I have already seen every open lot and back yard filled with houses, manufactured homes and mother-in-law apartments and there is no room for more apartments, duplex/triplex or apartments or 4 story buildings. The parking is already really tight and when the university has an event we are choked up. If we needed to evacuate quickly this would currently be a disaster but adding still more people and buildings would make it that much more hazardous! We are a dense valley and there is no room to add high density housing to our neighborhood. I know all my neighbors feel the same. Please do NOT allow this to happen.

City staff have Fort Missoula as a civic area best suited for institutional uses, but that view sells short what this place could be. Fort Missoula should be a living part of the community again, not a restricted zone where history fades behind fences and funding shortfalls. Leaving it under CD-1 zoning will only push it further into decay.
Designating this area as CD-2 would create a more welcoming, vibrant neighborhood consistent with Missoula’s broader goals for adaptive reuse, housing, and community connection. The Fort was originally designed to accommodate residential uses, and that should again be permitted as part of a balanced mixed-use approach.
The Old Post Hospital property should be zoned CD-2 so it can be preserved and rehabilitated rather than left to decay or face demolition. Broader use allowances would attract private investment and reduce reliance on inconsistent public funding, which has never been enough to maintain these buildings. Not only would limiting this area to CD-1 zoning harm the Old Post Hospital, but it would also negatively impact all privately owned land within the Fort, restricting viable uses, discouraging reinvestment, and leaving owners with few practical options to restore or maintain their properties.
Importantly, the City Council has already recognized the need for flexibility. As recorded in its October 7, 2024 meeting minutes, a motion by Alderperson Campbell revised the land-use framework to state that “residential development may be permitted, dependent on context and adjacent land-use types,” and made a similar revision for commercial intensity. Those adopted changes affirm that residential and commercial uses are appropriate within civic areas, exactly the situation at Fort Missoula. Yet under the proposed zoning, private property in the Fort Missoula area would lose that flexibility because of the combined restrictions of CD-1 and the Historic Overlay chokehold.
What makes this even more concerning is that Fort Missoula is the only area in the city facing this level of restriction under the new code. In most of Missoula higher density and mixed-use development are being encouraged, while Fort Missoula is being left behind. If anywhere in Missoula deserves a balanced and flexible approach, it is Fort Missoula.
Despite Missoula’s push for greater density across the city, this area is being left out. Without finding a realistic middle ground between preservation and development. Fort Missoula will continue to fall into neglect, becoming more of a historic wasteland than a living part of Missoula’s future.
A CD-2 designation would instead strike that balance, encouraging adaptive reuse, compatible commercial activity, and new residential opportunities while still respecting the Fort’s historic character.

Removed by moderator.

I think we all agree, the lower Rattlesnake is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Missoula. People will pay more to live in the area. To put that another way, housing in the lower Rattlesnake is more expensive per square foot than most other neighborhoods in Missoula. Is there any reason to think that new 40 foot tall buildings will be any different? Why would offering more housing in an expensive neighborhood provide anything other than more housing that is more expensive. How does increased density of expensive housing, see Sawmill District, give rise to more affordable housing? It doesn't. See Sawmill District again. With that said, what is the goal the planners want to accomplish with U-R3 zoning in the lower Rattlesnake?
Martha Goodloe

First, thx to the Missoula planning staff for your work on the proposed new zoning for Missoula. It’s important and necessary labor that many communities avoid. Thanks also to City Council for considering these weighty issues. This letter is for staff, council, and fellow Missoulians.

After 30 years in the same house in the small part of the Lower Rattlesnake currently proposed for U-R4 zoning, I am voicing the following concerns & observations. For the reasons below, I believe U-R2 is the best designation for the areas proposed as U-R4 and also R3 in the new plan. I fear that U-R4 and R3 designations in the Lower Rattlesnake may create more problems than they solve, and with greater costs than foreseen.

According to Missoula’s planning precepts, development is supposed to be context-sensitive. The Lower Rattlesnake is currently a place of smaller, modest homes that reflect its past as housing mainly for railroad workers and their families. Other historical context, specifically in the U-R4-proposed area, is the site of the Greenough Mansion, whose inhabitants gave us Greenough Park, and other related structures that still survive—such as my house (the former estate manager’s house, dating back to at least 1894), as well as at least five other houses in this same area. The areas proposed for U-R4 and R3 are some of Missoula-town’s oldest “settled” areas.

In this current humbly-sized neighborhood, apartment buildings up to 4 stories high, tight within their lots due to R4’s slim setbacks, would not be context-sensitive. In contrast, the Lower Rattlesnake’s current human scale allows neighbors of all kinds to see and talk with each other, track what’s happening regarding safety, and act together when there are emergencies (avalanche, blizzards, flooding, crime and theft, wildlife issues). Currently, my neighbors include all kinds of people, and we recognize and talk with each other. This human scale is reportedly valuable not just to people who live in the Lower Rattlesnake, but also to people who pass through to access Greenough Park. It is part of their Missoula, too. This unique neighborhood feeling is a harder-to-define but definitely important part of “context,” a context that R4 and R3 zoning do not fit. Higher, denser buildings introduce more anonymity and inaccessibility (that’s why a smaller scale is called, synonymously, “human”). In addition, if the R3 and 4 scenarios come true, owners of family homes in the Lower Rattlesnake may desire to leave. Their houses may then be razed for large apartment buildings whose chief aim is high profit through high rents—which they will be able to get because “it’s the Rattlesnake.” Sadly, many of the houses that may disappear are historical, but even when they aren’t, they serve to anchor our neighborhood. Often, owners have poured money and sweat into their homes. They also tend to steward their immediate neighborhoods, to the appreciation of our diverse micro-communities. I fear that R4 and R3 designations will lead to the vanishing of Lower Rattlesnake history, diversity, and community.

Development must happen, and more housing is needed. U-R2 zoning for the whole Lower Rattlesnake will accomplish that, plus help preserve community, history—and also, green assets. Trees and greenery are vital to the Lower Rattlesnake and, now we know, to any healthy neighborhood, particularly with growing concern about climate and heat-island effects. More trees are also proven to go along with better safety in neighborhoods, and mental health. U-R4 zoning actually promotes and allows less green space and trees. Especially near the highway, a heat creator, that seems regressive.

Here are other environmental observations from 30 years in this one place: 1) The sound wall along the highway is not aesthetic. The Dept of Transportation built it because sound levels had reached harmfully high levels—they were required to build it. In higher buildings in the proposed R4 area, residents would be unprotected by the wall. In lower buildings, they would have protection. 2) The area slated for U-R4 carries the brunt of floodwater in the Lower Rattlesnake. It all flows down, especially to Vine St, and the City is limited as to remediation. Adding more people and cars to an already problematic area would make it more difficult for residents and anyone trying to pass through this part of the Lower Rattlesnake at such times. Climate change models predict extra moisture and stronger storms in our future, which we are already seeing. 3) Trash disposal for large apartment buildings usually happens via communally used dumpsters versus individual trash carts. The Rattlesnake is Missoula’s worst neighborhood for human-bear encounters, unsafe for both species. Great strides have been made with individual bear-resistant trash containers in the Rattlesnake, but dumpsters remain a hard nut to crack in the Bear-Smart effort. U-R2 zoning, eg, duplexes, fourplexes, and courtyard-type developments, might allow for better (individual) trash-disposal solutions.

For all of these reasons, I’m asking: please remove U-R4 as a proposed designation for any part of the Lower Rattlesnake, and especially its oldest part. Please zone the Lower Rattlesnake as nothing higher than R2. That would accomplish the aim of more housing while helping to preserve greenery, history, and the character that residents and even non-residents value. U-R2 would also keep zoning policy from adding to some of the Lower Rattlesnake’s environmental challenges, which may only worsen in the future.

The introduction to the Zoning Map on the “Our Missoula” website states, “Zoning is important because it shapes how Missoula looks and feels for years to come….” That is my concern in writing this letter. I may wish for my old house to stand long into the future, but please know, it’s not just selfish. To me, U-R4 and R3 dense development will rob future generations of the opportunity to tangibly feel what I and many others have been able to feel in the Lower Rattlesnake: key ingredients that make Missoula Missoula, elements like humanness, community, history, and nature.

Thank you for listening and considering. Respectfully, Beth Judy

The thing that is most striking about the zoning plan which will go to the City Council in December is how quickly and shamelessly it is being rammed through. The original document which it supposedly supports, The Missoula 2045 Land Use Plan, is a long and carefully written plan for Missoula’s future based on years of study and public input. The plan contains important goals for future land use for Missoula which are ignored completely in the knife-edged zoning plan which seeks only to build as many additional housing units as possible. One example is Policy Objective #4, Identify historically and culturally sensitive places and landscapes. This critical goal states, “Missoula is grappling with significant challenges in preserving its historic and culturally significant sites, which are essential for understanding Missoula’s story and maintaining community identity…. Historic preservation is vital for maintaining cultural identity and continuity of communities. By preserving and cherishing our historic sites, we honor our past, enrich our present, and secure our future.” In 1999, the National Park Service and the Montana State Historic Preservation Office officially designated 20 blocks of the Lower Rattlesnake as a Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places. These 20 blocks—from Pierce to Monroe (East-West) and Elm to Vine (North-South)—align with Policy Objective #4. One of eleven historic districts in Missoula and consisting of well-maintained working-class homes which were built primarily between 1900 and 1950, this area deserves recognition and protection. But it does not receive recognition or protection in the proposed zoning plan. Eighteen of the twenty blocks are scheduled to be zoned high density. Three of the blocks are to be U-R4, which allows four-story apartment buildings with no maximum number of units. It is disingenuous in the extreme to rhapsodize about historic preservation while putting a bulldozer target on the back of an area already designated historic. The zoning plan is an imperfect plan that will disfigure our beautiful city permanently. The decision to adopt it needs to be delayed and the period for public comment needs to be extended. The plan needs work! Historic areas like the Lower Rattlesnake need to be preserved and not used simply as acreage to put high density housing.

I live in the Rattlesnake near Bugbee nature preserve and worry that if too many high density housing units went up in my area that emergency exits would be impossible to access during a forest fire or any other catastrophe where evacuations are necessary due to only having one way to exit the rattlesnake on the east side and only two exits total to evacuate the entire rattlesnake area. High density housing does not make sense from a safety perspective in the Rattlesnake neighborhood.