Zoning Map

Fantastic to see the inclusion of Cottage Courts along with rowhouses and duplex-type developments in most of Missoula's urban areas. I'm excited to see this zoning lead to more dense, walkable, livable neighborhoods - with fewer empty parking spaces!

I oppose the residential development near Slevens Island. The habitat for birds will be severely impacted. We have so few green spaces left.

I strongly support the proposed zoning framework. It is high time that we adopt policies that encourage density and affordability, and allow more people to live close to everything that Missoula has to offer, without forced reliance on automobiles, especially in neighborhoods close to the urban core. Creating more dense, walkable/bikeable neighborhoods and cities is one of the few strategies that we have direct, local control over in the larger fight against resource degradation and climate change.

I understand that many people will be apprehensive about these changes, but we all really need to do our share, and create a future Missoula that is accessible and affordable to more people, not an enclave that only wealthy people can afford. I honestly believe the policies proposed in the zoning framework will help achieve these ends.

And to those that claim creating more density won't help address the affordability problem, I say you should re-examine your premises: more houses, more multi-dwelling buildings (yes - apartments, maybe even near your house), and smaller houses (especially ones that don't include large yards or on-site parking), will indeed drive down housing prices. It may not happen overnight, especially given that Missoula, and Montana in general, have become nationally popular places to move to and visit. But allowing fewer housing units to be built can only make the problem worse.

Also, I personally welcome policies that don't force property owners to build yet more automobile infrastructure (parking) when our cities and towns are already dominated by automobiles and the infrastructure they require, usually to the benefit of big oil and automobile companies, and to the detriment of our personal and planetary health.

Kudos to our elected leaders for taking this bold step forward - it's about time.

I strongly support the proposed zoning density increase in the Lower Rattlesnake. As housing affordability and availability continue to challenge Missoula, especially in high-demand areas, increasing the ability to build more dense housing is a step towards addressing those issues.

Increasing density in the Lower Rattlesnake can help expand access to housing for a wider range of residents, support economic diversity and equity, reduce sprawl and environmental impact by allowing more efficient use of existing infrastructure, and encourage less reliance on car transportation with more residents within walking or biking distance of downtown, the university, and outdoor recreation locations.

Desirable neighborhoods should not be exclusive enclaves. Thoughtful upzoning, as shown in the proposed plan, combined with appropriate design standards, will help maintain neighborhood character while adapting to the needs of a growing community.

I object to residential zoning along the Bitterroot River near Sleven's Island near Fort Missoula. This is inconsistent with the adjoining areas and development will negatively impact important wildlife habitat.

The Lower Rattlesnake in Missoula is an Historic District. Allowing developers to create four story, dense, overcrowded structures will destroy the very nature of this Historic District. It creates more problems than it solves and monetizes a legacy community for greedy developers.

R1 resident, father with children in Missoula Public Schools, and business professional who has read nearly all of the available information provided by this site. I strongly agree that we need both 1- A clear description and ability to compare proposed changes with existing standards. This should include tables such as those found in the draft zoning plan with proposed and existing standards displayed, as well as any written changes made to the definition of terms or policies clearly highlighted.
2- Clearly communicated expectations of how the proposed changes will help broader issues with housing availability not already addressed by ADUs, inbuilding such as the Sawmill district, and expanding rural development. Those descriptions of expected outcomes should leverage data and not sentiment to address the risks associated to the changing of existing regulations.

It seems unlikely these proposed changes will do much to resolve the broader housing strain created by limited valley size, high housing prices, and realtively high interest rates (considering said prices) that Missoula city government cannot control. It does however seem likely to risk negative impacts to existing neighborhood character, burden to schools, and burden to critical infrastructure.

The allowance for increased density in the Rattlesnake, and the concomitant diminution of green space, would create many problems and destroy what makes the area attractive. It overlooks the important role that the Rattlesnake (esp. the lower Rattlesnake) already plays in contributing to Missoula's housing needs. It would compound existing traffic problems (due to limited access in and out of the neighborhood) while putting the safety of the elderly and of children at risk.

Concerns:
As a resident in R1 I have major concerns about infrastructure adequacy, historic preservation erosion, and negative impacts on neighborhood character and safety. It also will create further strain on resources including a school district already having budget issues.
Historically, rezoning proposals similar to Missoula's current plan have generated a variety of concerns and problems, many of which have repeated across different cities and eras. These include impacts on community identity, property values, infrastructure, and social cohesion, as well as potential for unintended negative consequences.
Rezoning, especially when increasing density or allowing new building types, often threatens established neighborhood character. This can mean loss of historic or architectural identity, altering the look and feel that current residents value. Even with overlays, new codes could allow redevelopment incompatible with historic character, threatening neighborhood uniqueness and established identities.
A frequent issue is that existing infrastructure—such as roads, water, sewer, and public services—may not be designed to accommodate increased population or building density. Improvements lagging behind new development can lead to congestion, utility failures, and degraded services.
Introduction of higher-density or different land use (like multifamily buildings or commercial uses in single-family zones) can depress property values for current owners and disrupt established social networks, leading to loss of identity and community cohesion.
Many residents purchased or invested based on legacy zoning, which promised a certain land use or protection. Sweeping changes undermine those expectations and reduce control over future neighborhood outcomes.
Changing use mixes in “transitional” corridors could bring commercial, industrial, or multi-unit structures into areas not physically suited for them, disrupting traffic, parking, and safety patterns.
Redevelopment often reduces green spaces, increasing impermeable surfaces, aggravating heat island effects, and impacting local ecology and tree canopy.

Petition
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of District R1 in Missoula, strongly oppose the proposed citywide zoning map and development code changes as outlined in the Zoning Framework. Our opposition is based on the following concerns:
The City has not adequately addressed infrastructure limitations, including aging water and sewer systems, which cannot accommodate additional development without major investment and disruption.
The City has not adequately addressed infrastructure limitations, including aging water and sewer systems, which cannot accommodate additional development without major investment and disruption.
We believe that historic neighborhood identity and property values will be harmed by rezoning, and that our community input has not been sufficiently considered.
We request that:
• The City retain existing R1 zoning standards.
• Infrastructure upgrades be prioritized before any increases in permitted density.
• Historic overlays and neighborhood protections remain in place.
• Further public engagement and transparent impact studies be completed before any citywide rezoning is adopted.

I strongly oppose this proposal as a Resident in R1 and will being petitioning city council.

Concerns:
As a resident in R1 I have major concerns about infrastructure adequacy, historic preservation erosion, and negative impacts on neighborhood character and safety. It also will create further strain on resources including a school district already having budget issues.

Historically, rezoning proposals similar to Missoula's current plan have generated a variety of concerns and problems, many of which have repeated across different cities and eras. These include impacts on community identity, property values, infrastructure, and social cohesion, as well as potential for unintended negative consequences.

Rezoning, especially when increasing density or allowing new building types, often threatens established neighborhood character. This can mean loss of historic or architectural identity, altering the look and feel that current residents value.

A frequent issue is that existing infrastructure—such as roads, water, sewer, and public services—may not be designed to accommodate increased population or building density. Improvements lagging behind new development can lead to congestion, utility failures, and degraded services.

Introduction of higher-density or different land use (like multifamily buildings or commercial uses in single-family zones) can depress property values for current owners and disrupt established social networks, leading to loss of identity and community cohesion.

Redevelopment often reduces green spaces, increasing impermeable surfaces, aggravating heat island effects, and impacting local ecology and tree canopy.

I stongly oppose the efforts to rezone the Rattlesnake, particularly the lower Snake into high density and high-rise structures. if successful the current plan will pose health and safety concerns-particularly wildfire, as there are only 2 already crowded vehicle access. It will tax the aged water and sewer systems. it will inexorably alter the 'small town' feel of the area. ironically, it could increase the demand for additional public schools while the fate of shuttered Prescott school (where my kids went) is in the mix.
do not rezone the Snake

As a resident of the lower rattlesnake, I strongly disagree with these zoning changes for several reasons.
Firstly, traffic into and out of our neighborhood is funneled through only two small streets (van buren and duncan dr). Significant population increase to an already saturated geographic area will cause traffic inefficiencies at best and emergency evacuation catastrophes at worst.
Secondly, our neighborhood is lumped in with similar zoning to downtown. This is an inaccurate characterization as these two areas are very much geographically separated. The lower rattlesnake shares more in common with the upper rattlesnake, and it’s important that we maintain our unique character as such.
Thirdly, our neighborhood infrastructure is not equipped for growth of this magnitude. For example, alluding a bit to my first point, the traffic situation would not allow adequate public transportation if our neighborhood drastically grew. And how much updating to all the septic/electric/etc systems will be required? These aren’t cheap projects.
I understand the need of all neighborhoods to do their part in solving Missoula’s housing problems. The lower rattlesnake already contributes to this through numerous multi-family units, ADUs, and small land parcels. The proposed zoning changes are unlikely to make a significant dent in Missoula’s housing problems and will come at a very high cost.

I really wish you had made this harder for anyone but an engineer and an urban planner to comprehend. Kudos to the "Zoning Team." Love, Us Mere Mortals

Strongly disagree with zoning changes; properties were purchased with specific zoning requirements.

I strongly disagree with the Proposed Zoning Map and Framework.
I live in the Lower Rattlesnake and believe the water and sewer infrastructure is unable to accommodate greater infill or larger developments. As it is now, most of the sewer lines need replacing as they have been in place for over 100 years and in many homes the water lines are a smaller gauge than what is acceptable now. Our water pressure is too low in many places in this area. I also feel lumping zoning the Lower Rattlesnake into the downtown area will erase the historic nature of this neighborhood. In addition with one road in and out of the Rattlesnake, increased traffic and congestion is very problematic. Most streets are not wide enough for two lane traffic once there are parked cars. This can cause issues with fire and service vehicles that need to have easy and quick access in case of an emergency.

Please include 2 items:

1/ Compare/contrast the new proposed zoning standards to the existing
2/ Include rationale as to why these changes are being proposed (especially to the entire city-wide zoning)

Thank you for the postcard notice, this comprehensive information, and the service you provide as the Missoula community navigates our way to meet the demands of a growing city in challenging times.

Please Provide ASAP a link for a downloadable PDF of the zoning framework. this is too difficult to review on line!

Don’t touch my upper miller creek neighborhood. Leave us alone. We are perfectly happy in the county.

tax the rich! i don't want my property taxes going up again.