[MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

[Anne McD]

Hopefully this connects to the listserv group.

Wasn't this Chickasaw issue decided last Monday or was the discussion extended?  

All I had read up to today noted that the "good" soil was in one particular area.  If all the soil is good then why does the consultant get specific about where the ag portion should be located?  

I like the community gardens idea or the land being made available to neighbors who already have ag land.  The cost of the community plot might be divided amongst the 30 lots in the subdivision. 

 From what I gather this seems likely to be a first excercise in ag lands in place of parks in approving subdivisions. 

Many aspects are confusing to me though- if it were the usual park land - wouldn't that be "donated" by the developer and be common area or public space?  And what would be the correct amount that would be required?  Why is it private ag land versus common ag land or public ag land?  

Reading of the annex and no annex info for ag land followed by a petition  allowance for annexation,and industrial sites first not annexed and then annexed- it gets more and more confusing.

I welcome the education on any of it.


 



________________________________
From: David Strohmaier <dstrohmaier at msn.com>
To: ectbo at hotmail.com; geoffb at ism.net; jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org; mcc at offthedial.com; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009 3:17:49 PM
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

The Champion Millsite is now part of the city. We annexed, zoned, and subdivided it year or two back.
 
Dave

Dave Strohmaier 508 E. Pine Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 327-8911, home (406) 721-1958, office


 
________________________________
From: ectbo at hotmail..com
To: geoffb at ism.net; jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org; mcc at offthedial.com; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:16:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

All,

I appreciate the perspective, that the current discussion before the council is one that planners, property owners, and developers have been having in the valley since the mid-80's.

The other day I was upstairs in city hall. There are a couple of great photos of water works hill, one taken in the late 1800's and the other taken in the early 1900's. Both of these photos show how heavily tracked the path on the hill was over 100 years ago. In one of the photos there is a big area that has been excavated, it is approximately 300 yards from the current trailhead, on Water Works hill. I think this is the cut that is today, the transition from the road to the footpath, where wood steps have been installed on the trail. Trees have grown in the cut giving it a much more natural look today.

I suspect the discussion of developing the urban fringe has been going on in Missoula for quite some time.

Another observation I had, was how the interstate running at the base of the North Hills, affects the transition from urban to fringe environment. The interstate is like a DMZ- a no mans land if you will, separating the town from the country. In the early photos you could walk out the back door of the highland brewery, and right into the rattlesnake wilderness!

Jim, what do you think the deal is--with the city not wanting to annex industrial land? Are you saying the Champion mill site os still not annexed into the city, kind of like a little island of county land in the urban core?

________________________________
From: geoffb at ism.net
To: jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org; mcc at offthedial.com; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:01:13 -0700
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw


If you want to read a thoughtful book on the whole subject of “committed lands” I suggest “Planning for Small TownAmerica” by Kristina Ford, Jim Lopach and Dennis O’Donnell, published in the latter part of the 80’s and is the first instance where I heard the term.  Kristina Ford was the Planning Director of Missoula in the mid-80’s, and Jim Lopach and Dennis O’Donnell are professors affiliated with the Universityof Montana.  Not only is it a book of uncommon sense, it lays out just how communities which are growing should think about planning for growth.  I believe it was available at one time through the American Planning Association.
 
Geoff Badenoch
P   Please consider the environment before printing this email. 
-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:30 PM
To: Jed Taylor; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
 
I'll address the second question -- the philosophical one, if you will.
First, annexation is NOT infill development (except in the case of a spot like the old Champion Mill site which has never been annexed because it used to be industrial). Infill development is making use of what we used to call "committed lands" -- areas within the city that already have services but have never been developed or need to be redeveloped.
I used to refer to what you describe as "leap frog" development-- annexing non-contiguous parcels far out from existing services. In the case of development far past the airport, for example, I agree it is problematic.
On the other hand, I don't consider this area that far flung. If a parcel on the urban fringe (to use the current terminology) wants to join the city slightly before another, that's okay, as long as the plan is annex all of it (which I think we should)-- in fact, it makes the whole process easier and cheaper for property owners and taxpayers alike.
The entire urban area should be part of the city. Urban=city.
That doesn't automatically preclude ag -- I'm a long time proponent of urban agriculture.



-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com on behalf of Jed Taylor
Sent: Sat 2/28/2009 2:07 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm a big supporter of locally grown
food, and believe that increases in transportation costs that we all will
experience in the future will make local sources that much more valuable.
And it's clear from the testimony about this project that the soil on these
lots, and especially the eastern half, is great for growing things.

So - if there's all this demand for land on which to locally grow food, and
if this land in particular is appropriate for that activity, then why hasn't
it been farmed since 2005?  Have there been people clamoring to farm it, but
have been prevented from doing so?


My other question is more philosophical.  Is the city really ready to annex
an individual piece of property a good mile west of its current boundary and
create this island of development surrounded by people who don't want it and
served by an infrastructure that really isn't ready to support it?  Is this
how growth-by-infill is going to occur - in an ad-hoc, patchwork,
one-project-at-a-time manner wherever they might pop up regardless of how
far away from the current city limits they might be?




  _____ 

"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi


________________________________
Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. Check it out. 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/41976287/attachment.htm>