[MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

[Bob Jaffe]

Hi,
Here are a few clarifications:
We didn't finish Chickasaw on Monday night. The developer agreed to extend the deadline until this coming Monday. (State law limits the amount of time we can review a subdivision request.) We discussed it again on Wednesday in committee. We will continue the committee meeting Monday night at 6:00. Then we will try to wrap it up at the council meeting at 7:00.
 
The information we have received suggests that all the soil on the parcel is good for farming. But the best soil and best grade is in the SE. There is also a well there.
 
State law requires the council to consider mitigations to a number of different kinds of impacts from the subdivision.  One is the need for parkland. Another is the loss of agricultural land. Park land dedications are very specifically defined in state law as to the required amounts needed for mitigation.  State law regarding agriculture land mitigation doesn't give us any direction on what is appropriate. We are figuring that out as we go.  There is also no guidance on whether it should be common area, public, or privately held. This is all left up to us to decide on a case by case basis. This is the first time the council has required for mitigations for impact to agriculture.
 
There are a few different ways that property can be annexed. The city can force the annexation or the property owner can request it. The City can not force the annexation of industrial or Ag land. but those properties can be annexed upon petition.  There are two main reasons people ask to have their land annexed. The first is that we require it in almost all cases if they want to hook up to sewer. The sewer is needed for development at density greater than one per acre. The other reason to annex is the protest rules are different in the city. In the county if 25% of the adjacent owners protest the zoning change the project dies. In the city if 25% of the adjacent owners protest it requires a 2/3 vote of council to pass the zoning. The Chickasaw project has a 35% protest.
 
 
 
 

________________________________

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com on behalf of Anne McD
Sent: Sun 3/1/2009 3:49 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw


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.
 

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/d9d11d83/attachment.htm>