Zoning Map

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

Hi there. I recognize, support, and understand the need to increase the zoning density of our neighborhoods in Missoula. The proposal to change the lower Rattlesnake from R 5.4 and similar to U-R3 is EXTREME and a terrible idea related to our geographic and infrastructure constraints in this area. Make it easier to have an ADU in the lower Rattlesnake by changing the setbacks as an excellent start to making well-considered incremental progress to improving our housing issues in Missoula. 4 story 12 unit multi plexes without cap will create a dam of people blocking the wilderness corridor. I live in the lower Rattlesnake and my home insurance is 'grand-fathered' in meaning the company who provides my home insurance no longer will insure new homeowners in the neighborhood for some of these reasons. Yes we can support more housing but certainly NOT high density. There is one way in and out of this area that is consistent with the other frequently blocked by railroad traffic. It isn't safe and it isn't smart. This is not NIMBY. I am not saying no change, but I am saying U-R3 is madness for this area. Look at what is behind us not just that we are close to a big street to South. Is it true you will also not have protections for green areas, mature trees, and no plans for parking? Bad, bad, and bad if yes. You will be trying to solve one problem while creating 3 more...Please reconsider the lower Rattlesnake zoning designation to something more in the middle of what we have now and what you are proposing. I strenuously oppose you current idea. Thank you for you time. -- sara mcclure cox

In advance of Wednesday’s code reform open house, could you please ask staff to summarize the process by which the current zoning strategy of collapsing dual-place type parcels into a single zone was vetted for alignment with our key values (Housing, Equity, Climate, Connectivity)? I would also like to know what other strategies were considered for dealing with dual-place type parcels and why they were dismissed in favor of the proposed zoning strategy.

For transparency and clarity, I recommend that these strategies be presented to the public in a rubric or side-by-side ranking that shows how each approach to dual-place type parcels performs against the 4 adopted key values. This would help residents and decision-makers clearly evaluate whether the current proposed solution is the best fit, or whether alternatives—such as applying the less restrictive zoning with universal constraint overlays—offer stronger alignment.

Please do not rezone the lower rattlesnake to allow tall buildings and greater density. We are pretty full now
I will not repeat the many valid reasons to deny the proposed rezone. I agree with each of them. I love this neighborhood. This plan would diminish it , make it much less livable
I am strongly opposed to the proposed plan in regard to the lower rattlesnake

There are inconsistencies in this zoning proposal. On the one hand the city is saying that they need greater density and on the other hand where we have a property at 921 East Beckwith that could provide that greater density because up until this new zoning proposal came out, it was available to have up to ten units. It is now restricted to 1 single family home or I believe a duplex. We are not looking to disrupt the hillside but sell the property to developer who will build a building on the flat land at the base of the hill, where there are five existing small houses that are used as rentals.
Who would compensate the ownership for the huge loss in revenue from the sale of this land?
Why wouldn't you want an apartment building right across the street from the University of Montana in a town where housing is tight for students?
How did they decide to use such a random decision maker?Like the fifty percent rule. It just seems unfair. It certainly is to my clients.

As a long-time lower rattlesnake resident, I find the City of Missoula’s proposed high density zoning for our neighborhood heartbreaking and disturbing for many reasons. Although the land use plan and zoning framework planning have been in the works for ‘several years’, many Missoula residents have only recently become aware of the effort and the significant impacts to our neighborhood character and quality of life in Missoula. Applying a high density one size fits all for many of our Missoula neighborhoods is ill conceived and does not consider the underlying infrastructure of each neighborhood to support what is proposed. Furthermore, the speed at which this process is being conducted has limited opportunities for public understanding and input.
The ‘Our Missoula Growth Policy Update & Code Reform’ is a growth at all cost approach, without sensitivity to maintaining neighborhood character and quality and ease of living for current residents. Many new residents have been attracted to Missoula for its unique combination of city amenities with beautiful neighborhoods, such as the Rattlesnake, embedded within a wildland landscape. Now it seems that the ‘Our Missoula’ plan is focused on erasing the very livability and character that defines the historic Lower Rattlesnake neighborhood. The neighborhood is currently zoned R5.4 – this residential district is primarily for single family detached houses that generally permits one detached dwelling unit per 5,400 square feet of parcel area. This designation is for areas intended to maintain a lower density, open-space environment.
To go from this low-density zoning to high density does not make sense for the Lower Rattlesnake for many reasons. First and foremost is the currently inadequate ingress & egress routes in the Rattlesnake – Van Buren and Duncan. The latter is blocked by a railroad track with train traffic for significant portions of each day. Already traffic is routinely backed up way above the interstate on both routes and adjacent side streets, creating a traffic bottleneck in the Lower Rattlesnake, and raising an alarming safety concern for emergency evacuation in the valley and daily ease of traffic flow. Implementing high density zoning in the Lower Rattlesnake at this time would exacerbate this already bad traffic/safety situation and could have disastrous consequences down the road. A complete and rigorous Traffic Impact Study and accompanying Infrastructure Plan is needed for the Rattlesnake Valley prior to any major zoning change from low density to high density. This is a serious liability concern that the City should take very seriously before proceeding.
Another concern with increased densification, no parking restrictions, and more parked cars is winter time snow removal and access on neighborhood streets. The Lower Rattlesnake has a harsh winter environment with the Hellgate Winds. In recent years, the City has performed more limited snow removal on side streets presumably due to limited budgets and retention of employees, making it difficult to get around the neighborhood in the winter. Increased densification and more parked cars will make it even more impassible at current levels of snow removal service and make it more difficult to find places to pile the snow.
Although I understand that the need for affordable housing is real, why does it need to come at the expense of the unique and beloved character of Missoula neighborhoods. Furthermore, it remains to be seen how Missoula will make new housing actually ‘affordable’ – seems like an oxymoron. The zoning proposal is directed at providing more housing and not finding balance with preserving the very qualities that make Missoula unique like the urban/wildland interface of the Rattlesnake neighborhoods, where wild creatures still roam and coexist with people. I would have hoped for City governance to have more sensitivity to the balance of people and the environment and the land itself. It seems that humanity is full steam ahead on utilizing every last piece of earth resources including our cherished Missoula neighborhoods.
An important situation that seems to have fallen through the cracks of the various recent City of Missoula planning processes is the fate of the Prescott School property (which is being considered for possible sale by MCPS). For over a century the school grounds have been a treasured green park space and is the most used neighborhood playground space and community sledding hill. In the face of potential disposition of the Prescott property it is extremely important for the City to collaborate with others in securing the grounds as a city park in perpetuity. Holding on to this green space is all the more important as Missoula densifies.
My request is that the City back off high density zoning for the Lower Rattlesnake (east of Rattlesnake Creek) at this time, and instead provide for continuity with the current zoning (R5.4) by assigning the entire neighborhood to the new LU-R1 district. The west side of Rattlesnake Creek is proposed for LU-R1 zoning – having continuity in zoning across this narrow cross-section of the valley south of Lolo Street only makes sense. My hope is that the City of Missoula will come to its senses and keep the low-density districting of the Lower Rattlesnake, ensuring safety and well-being of its residents. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.