Zoning Map

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.

I have lived in the Lower Rattlesnake for more than three decades. Long time residents like myself value the neighborhood's peace and quiet. The density you are proposing for our valley would ruin what we have worked to create and protect.

It is both a haven for wildlife. And with respect to the threat of a wildfire, it is not a question of 'if' but 'when'. We need clear evacuation routes out of the valley. Adding density and towering three story apartments would leave us trapped. I understand the need for more housing in Missoula, but the Rattlesnake is different. It is the jewel of Missoula. Please maintain our existing zoning and protect the Rattlesnake from harmful growth.

Public Comment on Proposed Zoning Changes in the Lower Rattlesnake

I invested in the Lower Rattlesnake because it is a quiet neighborhood where we can see the mountains and park in front of our home. The proposed zoning changes would allow developers to tear down existing homes and replace them with 40-foot-tall apartment buildings without any off-street parking.

I understand the city’s goal is to increase housing supply in hopes that prices will stabilize and create more affordable housing. However, after 20 years in real estate and construction, I have not seen this “trickle-down” approach achieve meaningful affordability in markets like Missoula. I would rather see targeted affordability incentives than a blanket up-zoning that risks damaging the character and livability of our neighborhoods.

The removal of off-street parking requirements is also concerning. While I appreciate the goal of reducing car dependence, Missoula remains a recreation-based, car-dependent community. Our public transit system is limited, and our long winters make biking impractical for much of the year. Most residents need vehicles to work, recreate, and enjoy all that Montana offers. Eliminating private parking will only push more cars onto already crowded neighborhood streets.

Furthermore, increasing building heights and density without adequate planning will strain infrastructure, water resources, and wildlife corridors, and diminish the quality of life that residents have invested in. These changes will not make Missoula more inclusive or peaceful — they will instead create tension among neighbors and negatively impact the natural environment that defines this community.

I urge the city to reconsider these zoning changes and pursue housing solutions that balance affordability with sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and neighborhood character.

Removed by moderator.

There are some positive things in the proposed update. My main concern lies in the fact that when considering purchasing a home people look carefully at neighborhoods and the zoning of those neighborhoods. Zoning is protection for the attributes we value in a neighborhood and the investment we make in a home. For me, retroactively changing the density of a neighborhood is unfair to current owners in that peacefulness, noise, and neighborhood quality, is inversely proportional to density. I'm hoping the council keeps that under consideration.

Allowing increased housing without accompanying infrastructure development is poor planning and leads to diminished quality-of-life for all Missoulians, serious safety issues, and increased pollution. A case in point: the two developments in the lower, west-side Rattlesnake neighborhood adjacent to Greenough Drive. I have repeatedly pointed out (apparently to deaf ears in the City) that a traffic circle needs to be built on Greenough Drive at its intersection with Peggio Lane before the two developments proceed. A traffic circle at this location is essential to avoid putting dangerous entrances onto Greenough Drive from the developments. Without a traffic circle, increases in traffic accidents and wildlife collisions will undoubtedly occur. A traffic circle on Greenough Drive will also calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety. This infrastructure project needs to be given as much priority as the developments. Code reform must not be blind to the infrastructure needs of the community.

Thank you for the draft zoning update. Like other writers, I have safety concerns regarding the higher density zoning proposal in the Rattlesnake. Under the current situation, traffic is backed up on the two access routes into the Rattlesnake daily. This issue is compounded by trains blocking the Duncan Street access for long periods each day. I am currently concerned about the risks of a wildfire, with people needing to evacuate and emergency services trying to enter the Rattlesnake, Those concerns would increase with the proposed increase in density. Thank you for your consideration.
Sally

Thank you for the zoning update. This will help address some of the housing accessibility issues around us. I live in the lower Rattlesnake and am glad to see the R3 zoning for this neighborhood, given our proximity to downtown and other basic living amenities- I think this zoning could extend further north up the valley. I'm glad that parking requirements are not specified (as the existing code results in too much potential yard/garden/green space being paved). In particularly vulnerable parts of the wildland urban interface, it would seem prudent to include requirements related to hardscaping, hardening/spacing. Retaining existing trees and planting new ones goes a (REALLY) long way to maintaining neighborhood character in the face of increasing density (just notice how the trees are all over every illustration in the document!)- please consider adding this to the zoning framework because of this.

I’m strongly against increasing population density zoning in any area of the Rattlesnake for two reasons:

Dangerously Limited Access:
I believe these proposed zoning changes pose a significant safety risk to residents and should not be approved, due to the neighborhood’s extremely limited access in case of emergency, particularly wildfire.

Only one egress route is available during the many times of day that trains block the crossing on the west side of the valley. Residents couldn’t possibly evacuate in a timely manner, even if both routes were accessible. To increase population density in this area is unacceptably unsafe.

Unlikely “Affordable” Housing:
Some commenters believe that affordable housing will be built in the Rattlesnake as a result of the proposed zoning changes. This seems highly unlikely, as developers will be understandably inclined to build market-rate, expensive housing units.

I encourage these commenters to research sale prices and monthly HOA fees at the recently completed Base Camp development as a realistic illustration of how higher-density housing will be priced in the Rattlesnake.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. As others have stated many of us are recently learning about this effort and trying to catch up. Please allow for more time and community engagement. As a resident of the lower rattlesnake area I am concerned about the changes being proposed. Locally, I want to voice the need to look at the area around Greenough park different than we are. Anything that adds additional traffic to this area will reduce safety. The streets around it are not wide enough to accommodate what is already occurring. My other concerns have already been shared by many others so I won’t list them all. However, a few key items include public safety, maintaining the historic integrity of Missoula’s first subdivision, and recognizing that the lower rattlesnake is already contributing in significant ways in providing diverse housing options. Increasing density in the neighborhood will make egress extremely challenging when we have wildfires. With only two exits from the entire Rattlesnake neighborhood we already see traffic back up as people leave for work in the morning. When we see a need for a mass evacuations the current road system won’t be able to accommodate the added pressure. Adding higher density and taller construction does not fit with the vision we have for the future of the neighborhood and its historic role in the growth of Missoula. The lower Rattlesnake area already provides for apartments, duplexes, and rental properties. We are doing our part to support diverse housing options. Thanks for your consideration of this feedback.

I'm surprised that the proposed zoning map isn't more forward-looking... why are we not expanding the D-C and D-T areas beyond their current boundaries to allow future growth/infill?!! Why is so much of the University District and Lower Rattlesnake and Slant Streets U-R3 rather than UR-4 or U-MU2 or D-T? The proposed map feels more "descriptive" of the present day circumstance rather than presenting a vision and framework for the future of a dense, livable, walkable, well-connected and non-sprawling Missoula.

The designation of large parts of the Lower Rattlesnake as Urban Residential 3 is completely inappropriate. Not only because of the traffic and egress issues, but also because it will destroy a long-term historical and vital character of Missoula in that neighborhood. People packed into dense row houses and apartments will result in permanent destruction of open and green space, generate noise pollution, destroy scenic views and introduce a host of other problems caused by excessive population density.

This major long-term growth zoning policy is being rammed through at excessive speed and without proper consideration and input from the people of Missoula. It is undemocratic and actually facilitates a larger-scale problem of housing distribution at the state and national level. Rural communities are losing population while Missoula planners are pushing toxic urban population densities. This is a mistake! We need to address the national housing problem by restoring small-scale agriculture, manufacturing and commerce in our small towns and communities. This will require policies to break up toxic big Agriculture and reverse corporate monopolization of commerce (Amazon). Myopic aggressive urban zoning policies are not the answer - they are part of the problem.

I work in WinCo Foods real estate department. It appears that our store at 2510 S Reserve Street will not be in conformance with this the new code once adopted. Will we be able to invest in the property in the future with maintenance and remodels and keep its current configuration? We purchased the property based on the ample building size and parking.

When I first moved to Missoula in 2002, my roommate and I paid $400 per month for a 3-bedroom apartment near the SW corner of the slant streets. Eight years later, I was still paying just $335 per month for my room in a shared house. The path to affordability is shared homes, duplexes, apartments, etc.

In the last five years, I've lived in the Rattlesnake and back in the Slant Streets. I'm blessed now to have an income that has let me stay in the heart of Missoula, but I hope that we preserve what actually matters about this community: the kind of vibrancy that only comes when teachers, nurses, artists, construction workers, and students can afford to live here. This zoning rewrite is a critical step to allow for more affordable, denser development. As a resident and taxpayer in the heart of Missoula, I welcome it. Thank you!

Resident of the lower Rattlesnake here to say that high-density zoning is completely inappropriate for this neighborhood. There is a fair amount of land with potential for development and even more so if Prescott school is abandoned. If we permit 4-story apartments and condo blocks with no requirement for parking it will fundamentally change the character of this mixed-income, fairly dense area. There are already ADUs and rentals alongside fancier houses. Traffic is already bad-- try turning onto Van Buren anytime between four and six o'clock, or walking your dog to the park in the winter with intermittent sidewalks and very few streetlights. This neighborhood does not have the infrastructure to support its current population. High-rise blocks would only worsen an already untenable situation. And if they are permitted, I believe that high-rise blocks with no parking is exactly what we are going to get.

Thoroughly against high density zoning and sacrificing our neighborhoods/increasing traffic for the unattainable goal of achieving ‘enough’ housing. As long as Missoula has the cultural vibe and the surrounding recreational opportunities, THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH HOUSING here. You could demolish every house and replace it with high rise apartments and it still won’t be enough for our growing population. We need sensible solutions, not a band-aid approach. 1) How about higher taxes on those with incomes not tied to the Montana economy. The taxes raised could assist low income (Missoula) homebuyers (that have lived here at least x-amount of years). 2) Get rid of short-term rentals. That will release ~600 homes/apartments for housing.