DRAFT Missoula Zoning Framework

Erik Iwanski Oct 6 2025 at 12:02PM on page 1

Suggestion

Please include a section that highlights the proposed changes from existing zoning standards to the proposed.

I don't see a comparison and that makes me question the intention behind this document.

in reply to adnuntiatio's comment

Erik Iwanski Oct 6 2025 at 12:01PM on page 6

Suggestion

Another concern is increased population densities in areas like the Rattlesnake with only two ingress/egress points. The traffic flow in/out of the Rattlesnake already is quite busy and I would oppose any changes to zoning that permits for increased population densities (apartments, cottage court, row house) unless traffic flow can be dramatically improved.

Stefan Olson Oct 6 2025 at 10:18AM on page 7

Question

By not allowing accessory structures, does this mean one-unit home properties cannot have a detached shed? If so, this is an unreasonable restriction for property owners who are also expected to maintain landscaping, boulevards, and sidewalks.

Kathie Snodgrass Oct 6 2025 at 9:55AM on page 25

Question

I live in Hellgate Meadows, which was built under its own standards under a specific City ordinance. Our neighborhood's height limit is 30 feet. Will that now change to 50 feet?

Bobbie Oct 6 2025 at 9:09AM on page 4

Question

Do you have a set minimum lot size for each R1, R2, R3 ,R4? if so, why are they not listed here?

Jesse Dodson Oct 5 2025 at 3:30PM on page 62

This framework seems like a bold step to fixing Missoula's restrictive zoning problem. It's refreshing to see all neighborhoods being called on to contribute a share of the housing supply. The city staff should be acknowledged for this. I hope it does not get watered down to much in the process.

Thula Oct 5 2025 at 1:05PM on page 38

The Fort Missoula historic overlay, prohibited uses need to include the following: specifically residential development. Residential use is entirely incompatible with the environs of the Fort Missoula Historic District. Allowing residential development will undeniably create an adverse effect and degradation of the historic character of the historic district. This will lead us to losing the National Register of Historic Places status as well as endanger our efforts to preserve and protect this special place.

Andrew Larson Oct 5 2025 at 11:11AM on page 62

Question

Does this table show that there is no parking requirement residential use in any of the urban residential districts? Hopefully I am misunderstanding this table, but if not, I think doing completely away with all requirements to provide parking would be a serious mistake. Current parking requirements are too restrictive, but completely eliminating all requirements for parking would a disaster in the high density areas. Missoula is a car based community and will continue to be for decades. Eliminating all parking requirements will decrease livability and quality of life and increase congestion and conflict. How about a compromise somewhere between the current rules and no requirements?

Andrew Larson Oct 5 2025 at 10:52AM on page 10

Question

Please clarify how these minimum lot dimensions apply to lot line adjustments, specifically flag lots.

in reply to adnuntiatio's comment

Adam Oct 4 2025 at 10:46PM on page 6

Suggestion

The Rattlesnake has two, not one, paved exit roads. There are numerous large safe zones throughout, in addition to two unpaved exit routes from the upper valley. The Rattlesnake is an area of moderate fire risk, according to the USDA Wildfire Risk to Communities project (link). For these reasons it is not considered a hazardous area for new housing.

Kadin Oct 4 2025 at 10:54AM on page 10

Question

flag lot width. is the wider portion or the narrower portion considered.

Daniel Hall Oct 4 2025 at 9:47AM on page 38

Suggestion

The Fort Missoula historic overlay, prohibited uses include the following: needs to add another item, specifically residential development. Residential use is entirely incompatible with the environs of the Fort Missoula Historic District. Allowing residential development will undeniably create an adverse effect and degradation of the historic character of the historic district. This will lead us to losing the National Register of HIstoric Places status as well as endanger our efforts to preserve and protect this special place.

Clint Oct 3 2025 at 5:40PM on page 25

Suggestion

Why so low? With rapid growth I like denser development to preserve more open space around the city. Downtown ought to be the place for taller buildings, say 160 ft at least.

in reply to Clint's comment

Clint Oct 3 2025 at 5:34PM on page 13

Oh I misread the graphic. I wouldn't mind seeing apartments and high rise condos being allowed to be taller as the city grows.

Clint Oct 3 2025 at 5:27PM on page 13

Question

So single family homes could be 50 ft (4 to 5 stories tall) and all the others could be higher? I'm not quite understanding what Rowhouse Unit C is. Thanks!

Matthew Oct 3 2025 at 12:41PM on page 31

Suggestion

Civic Districts have limited residential, yet schools are part of limited districts. Schools should be placed at the center of residential districts. Zoning an area around schools in commercial or limited residential is counter-intuitive to the role and scope of public schools in Missoula. Major cities have adopted school siting policies, yet Missoula has avoided this step, why? The health and safety of the children will depend in many respects on this document, this needs to be ameliorated.

adnuntiatio Oct 3 2025 at 11:18AM on page 51

Question

Regarding the elimination of all parking requirements, I would like to find out what equity measures you plan to put in place for senior citizens who will be disproportionately harmed by the elimination of parking requirements. In 2022, over 17% of Missoulians were over age 65. Many seniors although not handicap in the legal sense, have mobility issues due to age that would be compounded by being forced to walk longer and longer distances in snow and ice while trying to carry grocery bags, etc. This situation will only get worse as more Missoulians age, high density housing increases, and parking areas decrease. The bus system is inadequate. It does not serve the majority of Missoula and bus stops are too far away for any practical use – especially if you are unable to walk long distances.

Thula Oct 3 2025 at 10:59AM on page 38

Suggestion

Prohibited uses for Fort Missoula should include residential development

adnuntiatio Oct 3 2025 at 10:49AM on page 6

Question

I question the wisdom of adding high density housing (apartments) in the wildland fire urban interface, specifically, the Rattlesnake valley. There is only one 2-lane road in and out. As of 2022, there were approximately 7,000 residents living in the Rattlesnake. A wildfire evacuation in this valley is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. How quickly do you think 7,000 residents would be able to evacuate via Rattlesnake drive? Please consider safety above all else. Please respond to my question via email. Thank you for considering my input.

Adam Oct 2 2025 at 11:18PM on page 9

Suggestion

While these standards represent a significant improvement, a more permissive category will be required to meet housing needs in high-demand areas, namely the University District. An FAR of 2.0 would allow for a 3-story building covering 2/3 of its parcel, which is not a particularly large structure. Remediating the U district's dire lack of student housing demands stronger action.

Adam Oct 2 2025 at 10:54PM on page 62

Suggestion

I commend the decision to eliminate residential parking requirements, but the public/civic and commercial parking requirements listed here are extremely onerous. These mandates force health clinics, grocery stores, and offices to have parking lots half as large as the buildings themselves, and churches require more than twice as much. This is not at all conducive to a good built environment. Requirements should be relaxed and urban settings should be differentiated from non-urban ones.

James Pool Oct 2 2025 at 3:41PM on page 10

Question

Concerning minimum lot widths of 40' or 30' within urban residential districts, it reads "minimum lot width standards apply to all new or amended lots..." Does this mean that existing unbuilt lots which are narrower are exempt?

James Pool Oct 2 2025 at 3:32PM on page 1

Question

I don't see off-street parking requirements for residential housing?

John Rouse Oct 2 2025 at 1:39PM on page 7

Question

If our subdivision is currently part of a HOA that has covenants and restrictions that are more limiting than the proposed Zoning guidelines, do the city zoning guidelines override those of the HOA, For example, according to the map, our homesite is included in an LU-R2 zone which apparently allows apartments. Our covenants ONLY allow single family residents and no rental properties. We believe the covenants established for our development should override city zoning requirements when ours are more restrictive. Please send a response to my email address.

Lisa Bao Oct 2 2025 at 1:32PM on page 57

Suggestion

The draft plans exempts all Urban Residential zoning districts (the majority of city residential neighborhoods) from any parking requirement, even on large multi-unit buildings like apartments. What is the rationale behind this? Functionally, where are residents going to park their cars? Most of the UR1-3 neighborhoods are in areas that do not have robust public transit (example: my neighborhood is primarily UR3 and we have one bus line that runs hourly) and are not feasible for most residents to live in without 1 car per household. I am in favor of reducing parking requirements, but a full exemption seems to be too extreme; what about something like 0.75 cars per unit, instead?

Lisa Bao Oct 2 2025 at 1:23PM on page 13

Question

How many stories does the max heights of 35/40/50ft correspond to, roughly speaking?

Lisa Bao Oct 2 2025 at 1:22PM on page 19

Suggestion

There is a typo here (downtwon)

Brandon Oct 2 2025 at 1:15PM on page 20

Suggestion

Great work. Thanks for working hard to improve our city.

john wagner Oct 2 2025 at 12:53PM on page 8

Question

could you clarify vehicular circulation areas, and are garages accessory structures?

Warning message

Summary

Residential Districts

Mixed-Use Districts

Special Use Districts

Historic Overlays (Excerpt)

Building Standards

Table of Allowed Uses

AI Tools

Comments

Add comment