Zoning Map

I am another longtime resident of the Lower Rattlesnake who has very deep concerns about the rezone for our area. As it is the most heavily wooded neighborhood in Missoula, there are already very serious concerns about how quick a wildfire could move through the area and how quickly folks could get out.

There are only 2 exits out of the entire Rattlesnake Neighborhood, and one of them is available only a portion of the time due to the trains. We already see Van Buren traffic backed up some days to Holly St and even occasionally to Missoula Avenue. Adding significantly to the Rattlesnake population is a dangerous idea.

Please reconsider the Lower Rattlesnake rezone. It genuinely feels like there are potential lives at stake.

Thank You

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.

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.

I'm glad to see so many of my neighbors in the Lower Rattlesnake voicing their concerns here. I sincerely hope the mayor and the council are monitoring this forum. We need to course correct on this proposal. We can have an update that meets the state's requirements and also reflects the input of the people who are going to have to live next door to all of this.

It would be nice if I could find the map again. This system goes into a loop around it. My zoning is UR4, the dark orange, and it may represent the Land Use plan, which I also complained about, but having up to 12 apartment units allowed on a lot is too much for our area. Having 8 is also too much. It is currently 6 and that should be plenty.

To whom it may concern, I have lived in larger, growing cities in the past. Typically, the more busy streets have higher housing density, commercial space, and transportation hubs. And then the neighborhoods behind the busier streets retain a lower density. This allows for needed housing, businesses, and public transportation while maintaining the character of the neighborhood as a whole. Did you consider increasing the housing density just along already busy transportation corridors while retaining low density in other parts of the neighborhood? For example, in the Lower Rattlesnake it seems like Van Buren would be a reasonable location to increase housing density since it already has established public transportation, and at least some commercial space. It seems like this strategy was employed along Higgins and 3rd streets, but not in the lower Rattlesnake. Increasing housing density and commercial spaces along these corridors would also make the city more walkable, sustainable, and ultimately affordable. Thanks for your consideration.

please don't allow 40' tall buildings with minimal setbacks and no parking in the lower rattlesnake...

Dear Missoula City Council and Planning Staff,

I’m a lifelong Missoula resident who grew up in the Lower Rattlesnake and care deeply about keeping this neighborhood livable, safe, and aligned with the Missoula Growth Policy and Our Missoula plan. I’m writing regarding the proposal to upzone parts of the Lower Rattlesnake from low-density residential to U-R3 and U-R4.

While I support adding housing, the intensity of U-R3—and especially U-R4—does not fit the neighborhood’s context, infrastructure, or ecological setting. U-R2 is a far better match for the Rattlesnake’s character, delivering the “missing middle” housing Missoula needs without compromising what makes this area special.

Neighborhood and Environmental Context

The Lower Rattlesnake is a unique, low-rise residential area surrounded by open space and wildlife habitat. It serves as a vital wildlife corridor for deer, elk, mountain lions, bears, raccoons, birds, amphibians, fish, and countless other species. Allowing high-density zoning here would encroach on this delicate balance, increasing cars, noise, and pollution while degrading habitat and open space.

The neighborhood’s tree canopy, narrow streets, and limited access points already stretch its infrastructure. During wildfire or flood events, evacuation and emergency access are critical concerns. Adding large-scale development—especially 40- to 50-foot buildings—would strain safety systems and erase the mountain views and neighborhood character that residents and visitors cherish.

Why U-R2 Is the Right Fit

U-R2 zoning would:

Add new housing opportunities such as duplexes, small apartments, and cottage clusters.

Maintain a walkable, human-scale environment with compatible height and setbacks.

Support smaller builders and homeowners instead of speculative high-rent developments.

Align with the Growth Policy’s call for context-sensitive, infrastructure-appropriate growth.

This is not opposition to growth—it’s support for the right kind of growth: adding attainable housing while maintaining the ecological, aesthetic, and community values that define Missoula.

Request

I respectfully urge the City to:

Remove U-R4 from consideration in the Lower Rattlesnake.

Zone the area U-R2, which meets housing goals while maintaining livability and environmental integrity.

Evaluate future upzoning alongside infrastructure capacity, emergency access, and wildlife corridor protection.

The Rattlesnake’s beauty and character are irreplaceable. Let’s ensure our planning choices protect them while still creating space for the community to grow responsibly.

Thank you for your work and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Dylan
Lower Rattlesnake Resident

I own property at 1813 Idaho Street and it appears that the whole block is going to be zoned LU-31. The new zoning does not recognize that the entire north side of the block is currently commercial property and that there is currently commercial property as well on the south side of the block. This would be a significant take impacting the value and use of the property in this area. I believe there should be further research done on this area to better reflect what is existing and how to develop this "shoulder" area where residential and commercial property are blended.

The Lower Rattlesnake should not be zoned UR3. This is a historic neighborhood that is essential to Missoula's character. It is mostly small old houses with mature trees. This zoning would offer financial incentive for developers to bulldoze such houses and trees to make luxury condos. 3 story 12 unit apartment buildings simply don't fit here. I would suggest UR2 is more appropriate.

Ben Hughes Statement
Whoever proposed the idea of changing the Ben Hughes zoning appears to be unfamiliar with the neighborhood. All of the lots in this area are already developed with existing dwellings. Ben Hughes is a pleasant, unspoiled community cherished by its residents as well as by visitors who come to enjoy the city park and the adjacent section of the Clark Fork River.
The neighborhood serves as a sanctuary — not only for homeowners and visitors, but also for the wildlife that frequents the area, including deer, rabbits, and occasionally bears seeking food and shelter near the river and park.
This proposed rezoning has not been carefully thought through and would create a number of problems for both property owners and visitors. Parking, for example, is already limited. Many families with multiple vehicles rely on street parking, which becomes even more strained when people visit the park and river.
Instead of changing the zoning, the city would be better served by exploring practical solutions — such as (possible) adding a designated parking lot across the street from the only entrance to the Ben Hughes neighborhood.

As a renter in the lower Rattlesnake who values our community, I support zoning that allows more people to live here, but I urge the city to ensure this plan leads to genuinely affordable housing for Missoulians, not high-end developments that are out of reach.

It is also vital that new projects are required to incorporate green spaces and preserve the natural environment that defines our neighborhood. Furthermore, the existing infrastructure concerns cannot be ignored. Traffic congestion and our primary exits raise serious safety questions, particularly regarding evacuation in an emergency like a fire.

I wonder if more thought can go into this that allows for the increase of housing units but does so with a firm commitment to affordability, environmental preservation, and resident safety.

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed reduction of zoning regulations in the Lower Rattlesnake neighborhood, particularly changes that would allow additional multiplex housing without requiring off-street parking.

Many of us in this neighborhood do not have driveways or garages and depend on on-street parking in front of our homes. While I understand that the streets are city property, they are essential for residents’ daily living. As an elderly resident, I cannot safely or practically carry groceries or other necessities for a block or more if I am unable to park near my home.

Parking is already limited, especially during Griz games and in winter months when snowbanks reduce available space. Adding more housing units without off-street parking requirements will severely overburden the already limited street parking. Furthermore, the Lower Rattlesnake is not a walking-friendly neighborhood—sidewalk coverage and lighting are inconsistent—and most of my neighbors rely on cars for transportation to work, appointments, and essential errands.

I support thoughtful growth and housing diversity, but these changes should not come at the expense of existing residents’ accessibility and safety. I would like the city to retain reasonable off street parking requirements for all new development.
Sincerely,
Debbie

Dear Missoula City Council and Planning Staff,

I am a lifelong Missoula resident who grew up in the Lower Rattlesnake, and I care deeply about increasing housing in a way that aligns with the Missoula Growth Policy and Our Missoula. I am writing regarding the proposal to upzone portions of the Lower Rattlesnake from low-density residential to U-R3 and U-R4. I support adding housing, but the intensity of U-R3 and especially U-R4 is not compatible with this neighborhood’s conditions, infrastructure, or adopted city planning objectives. U-R2 is the appropriate urban residential designation for this area and would better deliver the “missing middle” housing the City is aiming for.

Existing Neighborhood Context

The Lower Rattlesnake today is a low-rise residential neighborhood made up primarily of single-family homes, accessory dwelling units, and a very limited number of duplexes, with one larger existing apartment complex. Its mature tree canopy, human-scale buildings, and limited access points are central to its livability and should be considered in zoning decisions.

Why U-R3/U-R4 Are Misaligned with City Policy

The Missoula Growth Policy and Our Missoula emphasize context-sensitive infill, infrastructure-aligned growth, and housing diversity. The development standards of U-R3 and especially U-R4 conflict with those principles in this neighborhood:

Scale and Massing: U-R3 allows buildings up to 40 feet and U-R4 up to 50 feet, with 10-foot front setbacks and only 5-foot interior and rear setbacks. This fundamentally alters the scale, sunlight, privacy, and tree canopy of existing lots.

Building Intensity: U-R3 allows up to 12 units per apartment building, while U-R4 has no maximum number of units per building. Combined with the FAR increase up to 2.0 for 7+ units in U-R4, this enables large, bulky buildings out of scale with current parcel sizes and block patterns.

Infrastructure Constraints: The Lower Rattlesnake has only two evacuation/ingress routes, limited transit service, and constrained street width. Increasing density to U-R3/U-R4 levels without corresponding infrastructure planning raises safety and access concerns—notably during wildfire or flood events.

These standards may be suitable in well-connected, service-rich core areas. They do not reflect the Growth Policy’s requirement that intensity be matched to context, access, and infrastructure.

The Path Forward: U-R2 Aligns With Housing and Livability Goals

U-R2 provides meaningful new housing capacity—without the negative consequences of U-R3/U-R4—and better fulfills the City’s stated goals:

Delivers “Missing Middle” Housing: U-R2 enables duplexes, cottage courts, small apartment buildings (up to 6 units), and rowhouses—housing types specifically identified in Our Missoula as needed for affordability and diversity.

Supports Local-Scale Development: U-R2 development (generally 2–3 stories) is financially feasible for smaller builders and non-speculative owners, which increases the likelihood of more attainable units rather than high-amenity, high-rent apartments.

Context-Sensitive Density: U-R2 adds units while keeping bulk, height, and setbacks consistent with the established neighborhood scale and tree canopy.

Infrastructure-Appropriate Growth: U-R2 increases housing without overwhelming the area’s limited transportation capacity or emergency access constraints.

This is not an argument for preserving the status quo. It is an argument for the right type of density—one that adds housing and affordability while maintaining livability and safety.

Request

For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the City:

Remove U-R4 from consideration in the Lower Rattlesnake, as its intensity is incompatible with adopted City policy for this neighborhood.

Zone the Lower Rattlesnake U-R2, which supports missing-middle housing, aligns with City planning goals, and allows the neighborhood to grow responsibly.

Ensure that any future increases in residential intensity are evaluated alongside infrastructure capacity, including transportation, safety/evacuation access, and impacts to the existing tree canopy.

I support more housing in Missoula. I also believe it must be done in a way that aligns with our adopted policies, respects neighborhood conditions, and results in housing that residents—not only investors—can realistically live in. U-R2 offers that path.

Thank you for your work and for considering this request with the care it deserves.

Sincerely,

- Richelle DeVoe

I am deeply concerned that increasing residential density through additional height allowances and the elimination of off-street parking requirements is unsafe and not compatible with the historic character or infrastructure of the Lower Rattlesnake neighborhood.

Our streets are already congested with parked cars, and the lack of continuous sidewalks creates real safety issues for pedestrians. During the winter, snow buildup driven by Hellgate winds further limits available street parking and narrows roadways. Allowing 3–4 story apartment buildings without off-street parking requirements will only intensify these challenges, creating unsafe and impractical conditions for residents.

This proposal also feels out of step with current demographic and housing trends. Missoula’s population is only growing by approximately 500–600 residents per year, and projections indicate that growth may even slow. Vacancy rates are rising, and many short-term rentals are likely to return to the long-term rental market once new tax structures take effect next spring. Given these factors, it seems premature and unnecessary to remove zoning protections that have long helped preserve the character and livability of this neighborhood.

I urge the City to reconsider these proposed changes and to pursue approaches to housing that respect the unique history, infrastructure limitations, safety and community investment in the Lower Rattlesnake.

My property is Zone T20 R8 proposed to be U-R1. Does that mean I can no longer have an ADU or multi resident property? It also has a permit for short-term rentals.

I've lived in the Lower Rattlesnake area about 40 years. It's an older, calm neighborhood of mostly resident owned , roughly lower middle-class homes. We have neighbors we know and we take pride in our homes.

A significant increase in transient residency (especially rentals) would overwhelm traffic capacity and dilute neighborhood attributes like relationships, property upkeep, noise level, and low crime rate. It would lower the quality of our life here and it would lower our property values.

I strongly hope these issues are of significance to you.

Sincerely,
Steve Herndon