Zoning Map

Have no idea what zone we are in since we have not lived here all our lives. You could have used better mapping. We live in El Mar estates

I'm not in favor of adus. They ruin the character and peacefulness of the neighborhood.

I appreciate and support the zoning update because it will help address the housing crisis in Missoula. I live in the lower Rattlesnake and am glad to see that density would increase in this neighborhood. I want Missoula to be a place where regular people can afford to live, not just a place for the wealthy. This zoning update will help make Missoula affordable. I would encourage the city to consider expanding the higher density zoning area higher up the Rattlesnake and wider across the valley floor to accommodate more residents. These upgrades are long overdue. Thank you.

How do you find out what new zone your property is in? There is no color key for the map stating what colors = what zones.

I am surprised to see privately owned parcels downzoned from R5.4 to Open Space 2. This affects several properties that are adjacent to University-owned parcels along Mt Sentinel. This reduces the value of these properties without compensating the owners. It renders property unbuildable in perpetuity while keeping the property owners on the hook for property taxes on land that essentially has no resale value. These property owners will not be able to use OR sell these parcels, rendering them a financial liability instead of an asset.

There is no good reason to alter the character of the Rattlesnake with increased population density. Current vacancy rates are increasing city wide and changes to R1 would only perpetuate this problem. Young families in Missoula need homes they can invest in and be proud of, not increased density of structures with a resultant increase in vacancy. This coupled with an ever increasing fire risk and substantial problems with egress and evacuation would provide a disaster in the making, all while negatively impacting the wildlife and environment that make the Rattlesnake valley important to all of Missoula. This change in zoning would be a classic example of long term irreversible negative repercussions for the sake of short term gains, and very questionable gains at that.

We have the property located at 1600 Stephens Avenue and our neighbors are the Beach Family and Beach Transportation, between the two properties we have multiple City blocks that have always been used for commercial purposes. The central location fits and are very valuable locations for goods and service providers. We would like to setup a meeting to discuss the new zoning designation for early next week. Please let us know a date and time. Brent Small 406-396-0262

We need to slow down and rethink aspects of the zoning process. I understand this effort has been a “long-time” coming and that city officials have been besieged by the weight of the local housing issues. But attempting to solve housing via a flawed comprehensive zoning response will only lead to more problems and aggravations in the future. Just a few of the problems include:

The City and County have adopted a100% Clean Electricity Resolution to reach 100% clean electricity for the Missoula urban area by 2030. Allowing 4 story buildings on the Prescott School lot, for example, conflicts with that city policy and will disallow solar access by denying ability to generate solar energy to nearby existing residential lots on some of the nearby streets.

Public safety is an issue both politically and legally when overlaying the new zoning regulations on the Lower Rattlesnake. When a train is parked on the Greenough Drive crossing (an event that occurs numerous times throughout the day) there is a backup of transportation on the I-90 roundabouts, and traffic can become seriously stalled. Fire, police, or ambulance services can face considerable delays in getting in or out of the Rattlesnake. A health emergency could seriously worsen. But other possibilities are obvious and need to be acknowledged. If a train carrying toxic materials (and there are a lot of train cars that do) de-rails, both exits from the Rattlesnake could be seriously blocked and residents’ abilities to avoid toxic gasses seriously undermined. This scenario has been discussed among emergency responders in the past, and questions remain unanswered. A fire in the timbered areas of the Rattlesnake could also present serious problems for evacuation.

A single road, Van Buren/Rattlesnake Drive provides an unbroken link between the Upper and Lower Rattlesnake. The Rattlesnake neighborhood is inextricably linked. Exempting the Upper Rattlesnake for the High Density designation but burdening the Lower Rattlesnake appears to be a political and economic decision that is biased in favor of protecting the interests of a more elite area of the neighborhood. The city’s actions suggest unequal and discriminatory treatment.

In an increasingly acrimonious atmosphere, housing has become the pet project for many in city government. While there may be staunch support for housing (especially among realtors, developers), the city has faced problems trying to get levies passed such as the one seeking more funding for First Responders. There is simply no money to enforce a growing list of problems, ones that housing will not solve and may further complicate. Many areas in the Lower Rattlesnake lack sidewalks (or have seriously damaged sidewalks) and residents walk on narrow streets. Water and sewer mains are aging, leaking, and often inefficient. Existing zoning regulations are not enforced (numerous examples could be cited), and neighbors report increased problems with theft. Thefts aren’t even reported as there is a sense that “so little” can be done. Parking can pose major problems. Biking on Van Buren Street is currently dangerous at many times during the day and increased density will only make it more so.

Without more thought and meaningful opportunities for community input, the implementation of these new zoning regulations will seriously undermine the stability, health, and wellbeing of a small neighborhood. The numbers of houses “gained” in this housing sprint will not justify all that is lost, on many levels, for those who currently live in the neighborhood.

We need to slow down and rethink aspects of the zoning process. I understand this effort has been a “long-time” coming and that city officials have been besieged by the weight of the local housing issues. But attempting to solve housing via a flawed comprehensive zoning response will only lead to more problems and aggravations in the future. Just a few of the problems include:

The City and County have adopted a100% Clean Electricity Resolution to reach 100% clean electricity for the Missoula urban area by 2030. Allowing 4 story buildings on the Prescott School lot, for example, conflicts with that city policy and will disallow solar access by denying ability to generate solar energy to nearby existing residential lots on some of the nearby streets.

Public safety is an issue both politically and legally when overlaying the new zoning regulations on the Lower Rattlesnake. When a train is parked on the Greenough Drive crossing (an event that occurs numerous times throughout the day) there is a backup of transportation on the I-90 roundabouts, and traffic can become seriously stalled. Fire, police, or ambulance services can face considerable delays in getting in or out of the Rattlesnake. A health emergency could seriously worsen. But other possibilities are obvious and need to be acknowledged. If a train carrying toxic materials (and there are a lot of train cars that do) de-rails, both exits from the Rattlesnake could be seriously blocked and residents’ abilities to avoid toxic gasses seriously undermined. This scenario has been discussed among emergency responders in the past, and questions remain unanswered. A fire in the timbered areas of the Rattlesnake could also present serious problems for evacuation.

A single road, Van Buren/Rattlesnake Drive provides an unbroken link between the Upper and Lower Rattlesnake. The Rattlesnake neighborhood is inextricably linked. Exempting the Upper Rattlesnake for the High Density designation but burdening the Lower Rattlesnake appears to be a political and economic decision that is biased in favor of protecting the interests of a more elite area of the neighborhood. The city’s actions suggest unequal and discriminatory treatment.

In an increasingly acrimonious atmosphere, housing has become the pet project for many in city government. While there may be staunch support for housing (especially among realtors, developers), the city has faced problems trying to get levies passed such as the one seeking more funding for First Responders. There is simply no money to enforce a growing list of problems, ones that housing will not solve and may further complicate. Many areas in the Lower Rattlesnake lack sidewalks (or have seriously damaged sidewalks) and residents walk on narrow streets. Water and sewer mains are aging, leaking, and often inefficient. Existing zoning regulations are not enforced (numerous examples could be cited), and neighbors report increased problems with theft. Thefts aren’t even reported as there is a sense that “so little” can be done. Parking can pose major problems. Biking on Van Buren Street is currently dangerous at many times during the day and increased density will only make it more so.

Without more thought and meaningful opportunities for community input, the implementation of these new zoning regulations will seriously undermine the stability, health, and wellbeing of a small neighborhood. The numbers of houses “gained” in this housing sprint will not justify all that is lost, on many levels, for those who currently live in the neighborhood.

The Lower Rattlesnake is pretty densely inhabited right now, and we have a problem. The valley is a long but narrow corridor. If there is a wildfire or other emergency, it will be hard to get everyone out quickly. This problem will only get worse if we change zoning codes to accommodate more residents. The Office of Emergency Management knows this is a problem, which is why they held a meeting in 2023 in the Rattlesnake. It is hard to understand why the City wants to increase population density since we know this is a potential problem. Let's not make the problem worse.

I am opposed to Residential Zoning of our city parks. A few examples from the Interactive Proposed Zoning Map (as of 10/12/2025) include:
• Bonner Park - Urban Residential 3 (Zone U-R3) [University Neighborhood]
• Pineview Park – Limited Urban Residential 1 (Zone LU-R1) [Upper Rattlesnake Neighborhood]
• Rose Park – Urban Residential 4 (Zone U-R4) [Rose Park Neighborhood]
• Whitaker Park – Limited Urban Residential 1 (Zone LU-R1) [Farviews/Pattee Canyon Neighborhood]

Please update all city park parcels on the Interactive Zoning Map to "Open Space", whether OP-1 or OP-2, prior to submitting to the City Council for review and adoption.

Difficult to understand what exactly this means for my neighborhood. Typical Governmental doublespeak.

I am opposed to the proposed changes to the Rattlesnake area.
Current challenges with the existing population include:
1. Fire risk designation is now HIGH for Rattlesnake- homeowners insurance rate increases reflect this.
2. Limited evacuation routes.
3. Bottleneck traffic in the lower
Rattlesnake backs up onto highway M-F in late afternoon, on UM game
days, and for large events at Adams Center already. This will only get worse.
4. Duncan side has RR which also limits exit options. Cars trying to reroute currently end up contributing to highway back ups at VanBuren and Orange Street.
5. City bus cannot stay on schedule in late afternoon M-F d/t to existing traffic and school buses. Again, this will only worsen.
6. Concern for adverse effects on wildlife, which is already a concern.

Other options exist for the housing problem:
1. Limit short-term rentals/Airbnb in Rattlesnake. This would open up some needed housing.
2. Continue expansion on the west side towards Frenchtown where new infrastructure can be built to accommodate density goals.

Endangering residents by further packing an already dense area that has limited evacuation options for current residents all while disrupting wildlife doesn't seem in keeping with Missoula values.

I understand the Proposed Zoning Map is scheduled for adoption, and then will become a regulatory document, in December. I believe Missoula city parks should be zoned Open Space, and not Residential. At the Zoning Open House on 10/9/2025 it appeared the city sincerely wants input from City residents and property owners.

These are examples of parks and their proposed zoning which I disagree (from the Interactive Proposed Zoning Map on 10/12/2025):
Bonner Park - Urban Residential 3 (Zone U-R3) [in University Neighborhood]
Pineview Park – Limited Urban Residential 1 (Zone LU-R1) [in Upper Rattlesnake Neighborhood]
Rose Park – Urban Residential 4 (Zone U-R4) [in Rose Park Neighborhood]
Whitaker Park – Limited Urban Residential (Zone LU-R1 ) [in Farviews/Pattee Canyon Neighborhood]

While there may be rules which would make development of city park parcels difficult, I recommend the zoning on the regulatory document is in alignment with the "Our Missoula 2045 Land Use Plan", that is parks are zoned as Open Space.

Allowing four apartment units in a U-R1 is misleading and excessive. This entire plan overshoots the mark on density at the expense of neighborhood character, crowding, traffic. What is the point in still calling it R1? If even some of the houses in our neighborhood, currently zoned R1, get replaced with four apartment units, it will have a huge impact on the neighborhood we love. I'm late to the game here but I'm going to get active in opposing this plan. I'll start with our council person and candidates for city office.

Allowing four apartment units in a U-R1 is misleading and excessive. This entire plan overshoots the mark on density at the expense of neighborhood character, crowding, traffic. What is the point in still calling it R1? If even some of the houses in our neighborhood, currently zoned R1, get replaced with four apartment units, it will have a huge impact on the neighborhood we love. I'm late to the game here but I'm going to get active in opposing this plan. I'll start with our council person and candidates for city office.

I oppose the rezoning of lower rattlesnake, for many reasons.
First, if we are in need of more housing, why does the city allow so many short-term rentals. There's one street in lower rattlesnake that is almost exclusively ARBNB (owned by one person). Short-term housing could be viable long-term housing.

Second: The rattlesnake area is a gateway to a wilderness area. Increased density (housing and cars) is not conducive to wildlife corridors in the area.

Third: The traffic is already an issue. If and when there is a need to evacuate due to fire, the single thru road could not handle it.

Fourth: The area is already tight with housing: apartments, ADUs and duplexes. It cannot support more.

Fifth: We don't need loss of green space, and further damaging our ecology. With the added houses, mature trees will be cut, and green space damaged. We already put enough into the landfill....with the rezoning, smaller houses in the area will be replaced with larger units. We saw this happen on the north side. If we are truly the garden city, focus needs to be on the health of green space. Not more construction, more roads, more sidewalks, with less space for birds and bees.

I strongly oppose the lower rattlesnake rezoning, for several reasons.
If we need more residential housing in the area, why does the city allow all the short-term rentals. There is one street in the lower rattlesnake that is almost exclusively Airbnb (owned by mostly one person). Instead of short-term rentals, this housing could be viable long-term rentals.
Second, the rattlesnake is a gateway to a wilderness area. The increased population and traffic to the entire area is not conducive for any of the area's wildlife corridors.
Third, the area is already tight with housing: apartments, duplexes and many ADUs.
Lastly, The traffic is currently a big problem...how can the area support more? If and when there were ever a fire or need for evacuation of the area, the one thru road couldn't handle it.
I believe we need more housing options for all. I just don't believe overcrowding an already crowded area is the solution.

On the zoning map for Fort Missoula there is a small strip of land adjacent to Sleven's Island along the Bitterroot River zoned as CD-2. This would allow residential units. However, a large adjoining area does not allow residential units. This makes no sense as the narrow strip along the Bitterroot River is an important riparian area extremely important to wildlife. It should be coded CD-1, no residential development.

The Land Use Plan that the city recently adopted emphasizes
the need for setbacks to mitigate disturbances in areas
with “significant cultural and environmental resources” such as historic districts and river and riparian areas.

The city needs to establish and enforce measurable setback distances from the river as stated in its Land Use plan. This action will protect important riparian corridors, and in doing so will mitigate potential disturbances to existing wildlife and habitat. Measurable setback distances will also guide any future plans by current or future property owners.

This is my comment for the proposed new Zoning Map and Framework for Missoula 2025. The new zoning would allow 4 story high complexes. I totally agree that we need to create affordable housing for the working families of Missoula. My concern is that Real Estate developers will create very expensive condos on these packed to the extreme lots (after razing the old houses) and the units will still be unaffordable. How do we create affordable? By just building more and more? A visit to Denver will demonstrate how increased density dramatically changed the culture of the old neighborhoods. That is a reality, but still, I think we should protect farmland, prevent sprawl, and decrease commute times. So, the answers are very difficult. That being said -
If we must increase the density in the Lower Rattlesnake I would ask for these factors to be a priority:
-More protected bike and walk lanes (my #1 request)
-better public transportation
-Use the North Missoula Community Land Trust model (like NMCDC is doing) to keep units affordable
- Protect boulevard trees and vegetation
-protect our green spaces (with more people, and less yards, there is more need for community green spaces to hang out in)
Thanks for considering my comments and I appreciate all the difficult work in trying to come up with the new zoning rules.