[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
Kristin Smith
KSmith at wgmgroup.com
Mon Mar 2 12:09:53 MST 2009
Two points, lest we get too astray: 1) the City is responding to a
"Petition to Annex". State law prohibits cities from annexing
ag/industrial land proactively (i.e., against the property owners
wishes). 2) the history of the property has more than 30 years of
grazing cattle and raising quarter horses - such activity doesn't seem
to have caused too much damage to the soil to warrant such a passionate
discussion about its quality.
Kristin Smith, AICP
Land Use Planner
WGM Group, Inc.
http://www.wgmgroup.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:28:07 -0700
From: "Jim McGrath" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
To: "Eric Taylor" <ectbo at hotmail.com>, <geoffb at ism.net>,
<mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <92B4830B2B5E6E43B04109A6DFB96F96A5B60F at mha1.MHA.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
It's not the city. State law prohibits annexation of industrial or ag
land.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Taylor [mailto:ectbo at hotmail.com]
Sent: Sun 3/1/2009 11:16 AM
To: geoffb at ism.net; Jim McGrath; mcc at offthedial.com;
missoulagov at cmslists.com
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
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 Town America" 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
University of 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 LiveT Contacts: Organize your contact list.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Bl
og-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/565ff
43b/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:37:28 -0700
From: ERIN TURNER JON TURNER <jeturner4 at msn.com>
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Chickasaw
To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <COL117-W47A653BEFD6027F853EFE7F4A80 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Jed-
Others have given their input on your second question but I see no one
has responded to your first question. The eastern 5 acres, which were
being farmed under a lease, were sold to the current owner in the spring
of 2006 and he discontinued the lease to the farmer for the 2006 season.
Two of the neighbors, in the northeast corner (one of which is me),
offered various times thorughout the last 2+ years to purchase 1, 5 and
even all 10 acres for agricultural purposes. But no deal was made.
According to Montana State codes, the city can not annex active
agricultural lands so it is my assumption (and I may be wrong) that the
current landowner discontinued the lease to the farmer in order to not
have the land qualify as ag land. I just want to clarify, since you
inquired, that there are persons interested in that land for
agricultural purposes. Obviously, for us and the surrounding neighbors
who also have active ag lands, we would prefer to see the ag land on the
north boundary (and it has been stated that ALL the land is prime not
just a portion of it) where it would be adjacent to the main irrigation
ditch and would flow into other ag activities thus putting human
development (houses)next to human infrastructure (e.g. 7th Street,
services, etc). But the governing body has the ultimate say on this
decision. Thanks for being part of the conversation!
> From: missoulagov-request at cmslists.com
> Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 1
> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:00:04 -0700
>
> Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions to
> missoulagov at cmslists.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> missoulagov-request at cmslists.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> missoulagov-owner at cmslists.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Jed Taylor)
> 2. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Jim McGrath)
> 3. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Geoff Badenoch)
> 4. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Eric Taylor)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:07:13 -0700
> From: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>
> Subject: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
> To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Message-ID: <3E23390949004DD5BD284CABAA53F7F8 at ryan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/270ad
a54/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:29:30 -0700
> From: "Jim McGrath" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>
> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
> To: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Message-ID: <92B4830B2B5E6E43B04109A6DFB96F96A5B60C at mha1.MHA.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/27f9e
c29/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:01:13 -0700
> From: "Geoff Badenoch" <geoffb at ism.net>
> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
> To: "'Jim McGrath'" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>, "'Jed Taylor'"
> <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Message-ID: <374ACC25DF8A420EB45E2B5D45C7DE65 at Edradour>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> If you want to read a thoughtful book on the whole subject of
"committed
> lands" I suggest "Planning for Small Town America" 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 University of 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
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/0bfa8
337/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:16:09 -0700
> From: Eric Taylor <ectbo at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
> To: <geoffb at ism.net>, <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>,
> <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Message-ID: <BLU104-W6BC95D04896DF30BB6AB0B0A80 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Town America? 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
University of 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.
>
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Bl
og-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/7c6b0
e4f/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> -------Please delete extra content when replying to messages--------
> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula.
But posts to this list may be entered into the public record.
> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org
> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.
>
> End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 1
> ******************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Life without walls.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/0f7fd
638/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:13:55 -0700
From: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Chickasaw
To: "'ERIN TURNER JON TURNER'" <jeturner4 at msn.com>,
<missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <DDA14405B68A47CA8528E0192E5B3A8D at ryan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
That's good to hear that there are people interested in working this
land.
I guess when various government bodies talk about mitigating loss of
agricultural land, they are speaking in a conceptual sense, since if
they
were speaking in a legal sense, then they couldn't annex the land they
were
mitigating the loss of.
I've watched a number of the hearings on this development and read thru
at
least most of the staff reports, etc., and I would have to agree with
your
perspective that it doesn't seem to make sense to build a project that
separates the ag land from the irrigation ditch, especially when doing
so
places it against 7th street, which will someday (if it's not already)
be a
rather busy thoroughfare. I understand that, on a comparative basis,
this
is where the best land is, both in terms of soil and topography, but as
Helen said, it's all great soil. I also would think that things like
water
and sewer would be best connected from 7th Street, not by coming down
from
3rd.
I also wonder that if all the set-aside land is tagged for ag use (and
I'm
assuming that there will be covenants that require growing people food
on
this land lest it become, as Jon Wilkins reminded everyone of the
possibility, a pig farm) what will be the impact of having no common
open
space for the residents of this development? Are the proposed 30 lots
going
to be large enough to support individual gardening and recreation for
the
residents of this subdivision?
When I look at that space, which I've only done intentionally (as
opposed to
biking past it without appreciating that it's the object of so much
attention) using Google Maps and what's been presented before Council
and
committees, I see a project where the open space runs along the
irrigation
ditch divided by a relatively narrow connector to Stallion with traffic
calming in place. On the left would be common area open space for
pickup
ball games, community functions, dog running, etc., and the big
cottonwood
stays until it falls down. On the right (the NE) would be the ag land
(but
only about 1/2 as now proposed because the other half went to the open
space
on the left), but rather than bringing in an individual farmer, it would
be
a community garden common area for the residents of the homeowners
association, and such a project could be partnered with local
non-profits to
help educate people about the advantages of growing your own produce,
etc.,
and get them into doing it for themselves and having places for the
extra to
go to. What's really needed is to connect the homeowners to the land;
separating a chunk of it and turning it over to someone who isn't a part
of
the development is better than no ag land at all, but it perpetuates the
disconnect between people and where their food comes from and assumes
that
someone, somewhere else will be there to grow the food for them.
To address the concerns of the neighbors, I would run a very
aesthetically
pleasing fence typical of what one sees when they show the horse farms
in
Kentucky on Derby Day around the three sides and on the inside of this,
again all the way around the three sides (like a 25' strip of common
area),
I would plant various fruit and flowering trees to supply apples, etc.,
as
well as aesthetics. Inside of this 3-sided box goes the actual
development,
which would mostly present itself to 7th Street and transition from its
core
to the boundaries in a graduated way.
Of course, it's not my money, property, or decision so it's easy to play
philosopher king on the listserve. Good luck with getting a solution
that
works well for everyone involved and thanks for your reply.
_____
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of ERIN TURNER JON
TURNER
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 12:37
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Chickasaw
Jed-
Others have given their input on your second question but I see no one
has
responded to your first question. The eastern 5 acres, which were being
farmed under a lease, were sold to the current owner in the spring of
2006
and he discontinued the lease to the farmer for the 2006 season. Two of
the
neighbors, in the northeast corner (one of which is me), offered various
times thorughout the last 2+ years to purchase 1, 5 and even all 10
acres
for agricultural purposes. But no deal was made. According to Montana
State codes, the city can not annex active agricultural lands so it is
my
assumption (and I may be wrong) that the current landowner discontinued
the
lease to the farmer in order to not have the land qualify as ag land. I
just want to clarify, since you inquired, that there are persons
interested
in that land for agricultural purposes. Obviously, for us and the
surrounding neighbors who also have active ag lands, we would prefer to
see
the ag land on the north boundary (and it has been stated that ALL the
land
is prime not just a portion of it) where it would be adjacent to the
main
irrigation ditch and would flow into other ag activities thus putting
human
development (houses)next to human infrastructure (e.g. 7th Street,
services,
etc). But the governing body has the ultimate say on this decision.
Thanks
for being part of the conversation!
> From: missoulagov-request at cmslists.com
> Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 1
> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:00:04 -0700
>
> Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions to
> missoulagov at cmslists.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> missoulagov-request at cmslists.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> missoulagov-owner at cmslists.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Jed Taylor)
> 2. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Jim McGrath)
> 3. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Geoff Badenoch)
> 4. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Eric Taylor)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:07:13 -0700
> From: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>
> Subject: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
> To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Message-ID: <3E23390949004DD5BD284CABAA53F7F8 at ryan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/270ad
a54/
attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:29:30 -0700
> From: "Jim McGrath" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>
> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
> To: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Message-ID: <92B4830B2B5E6E43B04109A6DFB96F96A5B60C at mha1.MHA.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/27f9e
c29/
attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:01:13 -0700
> From: "Geoff Badenoch" <geoffb at ism.net>
> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
> To: "'Jim McGrath'" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>, "'Jed Taylor'"
> <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Message-ID: <374ACC25DF8A420EB45E2B5D45C7DE65 at Edradour>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> If you want to read a thoughtful book on the whole subject of
"committed
> lands" I suggest "Planning for Small Town America" 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 University of 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
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/0bfa8
337/
attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:16:09 -0700
> From: Eric Taylor <ectbo at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
> To: <geoffb at ism.net>, <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>,
> <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Message-ID: <BLU104-W6BC95D04896DF30BB6AB0B0A80 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Town America? 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
University
of 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.
>
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Bl
og-c
ns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/7c6b0
e4f/
attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> -------Please delete extra content when replying to messages--------
> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula.
But
posts to this list may be entered into the public record.
> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org
> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.
>
> End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 1
> ******************************************
_____
Windows LiveT: Life without walls. Check it out.
<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_03200
9>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/a9c4a
c7b/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:17:49 -0700
From: David Strohmaier <dstrohmaier at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
To: <ectbo at hotmail.com>, <geoffb at ism.net>,
<jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>, <mcc at offthedial.com>,
<missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <SNT103-W54AF2E56498D44908ADA9CA1A80 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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 Town America? 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 University of 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/dd70b
ed7/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:24:28 -0700
From: "Geoff Badenoch" <geoffb at ism.net>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
To: "'Jim McGrath'" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>, "'Eric Taylor'"
<ectbo at hotmail.com>, <mcc at offthedial.com>,
<missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <E8249369F00047B8A769A9DE5FF7FB33 at Edradour>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Without the petition from the land owner to do so.
Geoff Badenoch
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim McGrath [mailto:jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 12:28 PM
To: Eric Taylor; geoffb at ism.net; mcc at offthedial.com;
missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
It's not the city. State law prohibits annexation of industrial or ag
land.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/d88f8
578/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:49:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Anne McD <mizzouliann at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Message-ID: <780388.19176.qm at web43512.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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/20090301/41976
287/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:09:56 -0700
From: Eric Taylor <ectbo at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
To: <dstrohmaier at msn.com>, <geoffb at ism.net>,
<jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>, <mcc at offthedial.com>,
<missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <BLU104-W50858F33E057CCB8C68855B0A90 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Thanks for the clarifications on the champion zoning question.
I find the zoning details confusing.
Forgive my previous ramblings about the photos at city hall. I was just
realizing how with an issue in the present like the chikasaw project-- I
often think of zoning as a tool used to create something new. When I see
the photos from 100 years ago, it seems more like zoning is a process of
perpetual change.
I like a mix of gardens in the city.
If the majority of folks want to require community garden space in
subdivisions- I think that is something I could live with.I feel like it
wold be ok if the process allowed the property owner and the people
closest to the development, to have a grater dagree of say in the
location of the dedicated space.
From: 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
Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:17:49 -0700
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 Town America? 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 University of 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.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live? Contacts: Organize your contact list.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Bl
og-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/f6861
346/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 20:14:25 -0700
From: "Bob Jaffe" <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw
To: "Anne McD" <mizzouliann at yahoo.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID:
<689D48B33023A5469751A46A44C5A7A304121C42 at mailserver.ci.missoula.mt.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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/d9d11
d83/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:25:23 -0700
From: "Jason Wiener" <JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us>
Subject: [MissoulaGov] FW: Follow-up on Chickasaw
To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID:
<689D48B33023A5469751A46A44C5A7A30C5F8D98 at mailserver.ci.missoula.mt.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I requested written clarification from Helen Atthowe regarding our visit
to the site of proposed Chickasaw Place. I've copied Council the
entirety of my and Helen's e-mails for inclusion of this communication
in the public record and to aid our deliberations. The information is
germane to the listserv discussion so I'm passing it along there as
well; the documents Helen attached cannot be posted to the listserv so
let me know off-line if you would like a copy sent directly to you.
Regards,
J.
*******
Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One
1238 Jackson St.
Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 542-3232
jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us
From: Helen Atthowe [mailto:atthowe at missoulaeduplace.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Jason Wiener
Subject: RE: Follow-up on Chickasaw
Jason,
Yes, I think you summed up my comments with great clarity. From the soil
sampling you and I did in the northwest and northeast as well as the
southeast sections, there was little significant difference in actual
soil quality. All areas are a loam with relatively good texture, and
there appeared to be little cobble, gravel,or rock. Which is unusual for
most of the sites I've sampled in Missoula. Hence the soil probe was was
easy to push down to 18" deep in most locations. The soil was not quite
so deep in that high area in the far northeast corner. The soil pH on
all samples was in a good plant growing range 6.7 - 7.0. It would be
beneficial to do a complete soil analysis and test for plant nutrient
levels and soil organic matter content. But, I suspect the levels are
all at least adequate judging from the vegetation present. The soils
were more frozen (possibly more wet) in the northeast section. This may
also have been due to vegetation differences. There are more annual
broadleaf and grass weeds in the southeast which was disturbed by
tillage in the past 5 years. In the north sections, there are more
deeper-rooted perennial pasture grasses. A loam soil would be more
likely to dry out where thinner, annual rather than deeper-rooted,
perennial vegetation is present. So, in summary the soil quality is
adequate for vegetable farming in all the sections we tested.
As I already said, the southeast section would be much easier to farm
because it is flat, level and has already been tilled and worked up. The
north section has swales, high spots, and depressions. It would take
more initial work to bring this kind of topography into production.
This could be important to the economic viability of a potential farmer.
The easier the land is to get started producing on, the more quickly a
farmer will start making a profit. Your question to me is an excellent
one. here's a long answer: I would not consider leaving my Bitterroot
farm because after 15 years, I have removed the swales and leveled most
of the high/low areas in my fields that had been in pasture for 50 years
when I started. Also I have electric-free gravity-flow irrigation water
which is priceless. Well water is expensive and will become more so in
the future. However, at this point in my life, if I were to leave my
land, I would do so for the southeast section and not the north
sections. Twenty years ago when I was just out of graduate school and
had more energy, I would have been thrilled with the north section
because the soil is a deeper loam than I started with and I would work
with the topography and plant perennials (tree fruits and berries) in
the high areas. I have attached an economic analysis and soil quality
study we did on a new field we began to bring into production in 2005. I
wanted to document what a new farmer could expect on good, but not great
land, and test some low labor, reduced tillage methods to improve land
stewardship and decrease labor, fertilizer, weeding, and pest management
inputs.
Congratulations on your attempts to grapple with these complex issues.
This is a difficult, but important dialogue to begin. The emotions are
high on all sides. Members of CFAC responded very aggressively to my
comments in the hallway last night, but homeowners sitting nearby
thanked me as I walked out. We've had calls at the extension service
from developers and ranchers who are interested in being a part of this
agricultural land preservation discussion.
Good luck!
Helen Atthowe
Missoula County Extension Horticulturist
2825 Santa Fe Court
Missoula, MT 59808
(406) 258-4205
Fax: (406) 258-3916
NEW EMAIL: atthowe at missoulaeduplace.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Wiener [mailto:JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:40 AM
To: Helen Atthowe
Subject: Follow-up on Chickasaw
Helen,
Thanks again for your input at last night's meeting about the
proposed Chickasaw Place subdivision. We have to take up the issues
again tomorrow and so I want to be clear in understanding your testimony
about soils and the viability of agriculture.
As I understood your judgment, all of the soil we looked at on
the proposed subdivision site is high quality and well-suited to growing
food-rare in the overall scheme of soils in Missoula County, even if
relatively uniform across the site. As to the suitability of different
parcels for agriculture, more than soils comes into
consideration-topography, availability of water, presence of weeds, soil
microbiology and probably other factors that don't occur to me off-hand.
With respect to these other factors, the southeastern portion of the
property is superior to the northern portion, primarily because there
are few topographical changes and the proximity to the road will make it
easier to get farm equipment and the like off the land. If I remember
your notes, these features make the southeastern portion better for
commercial farming.
But "better" is a matter of degree and not kind so whether those
advantages outweigh other impacts caused by a design that protects the
southeastern portion instead of the northern portion is a different
matter. I don't expect you to weigh in on that (though feel free to).
However, I did wonder after hearing you joke that you might buy the
three acres if it goes up for sale, whether you would consider leaving
your farm in the Bitterroot to farm the northern piece if that was the
set-aside or if that was just the southeastern piece that was so
attractive.
Anyhow, please let me know if I have left out important factors
or failed to weigh the ones I included appropriately. As this is a
quasi-judicial land-use matter, information that is material to my
decisions should be disclosed and I am likely to share our
correspondence with my colleagues, both for its informative merit and to
comply with those rules about communication.
Thanks again for your assistance.
J.
*******
Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One
1238 Jackson St.
Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 542-3232
jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us
Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account
pertaining to City business may be considered public or private records
depending on the message content. The City is often required by law to
provide city records to individuals requesting records, some of which
are not public records and have limited scope of distribution pursuant
to state law. The City is required by law to protect private,
confidential information. This message is intended for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient
of this transmission, please notify the sender immediately, do not
forward the message to anyone, and delete all copies. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090302/20b30
122/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
-------Please delete extra content when replying to messages--------
Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But
posts to this list may be entered into the public record.
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.
End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
******************************************
More information about the MissoulaGov
mailing list