[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5

[Paul Hubbard]

Bob,

I appreciate your image of crops growing on terraced mountain slopes, as
Missoula continues to sprawl across its most fertile lands for the sake of
larger lawns and bigger homes, and sometimes in the name--and name only--of
affordable housing.  I even feel a little back pain in thinking about
constructing such terraces, and I agree with what you're implying here:
it'll be way easier to grow food on a funky shaped Agricultural Parcel at
Chickasaw than on terraced slopes.

Still, I ask you to provide one reason why City Council would not require
that 1) the best farmland be protected (just 3 of the 9.4 acres of
exceptional soil), and 2) that it is protected in a configuration that is
amenable to agricultural use, rather than a horse estate.

I also have to say that the way the final decision was reached to create
this funky-shaped "Agricultural" Parcel is deeply disturbing to me.  CFAC
has spent over 100 hours following this subdivision's multiple designs,
meeting with the developers, visiting the site, and attending public
hearings.  We are always transparent with our rationale--whether we are
suggesting a development would have minimal impacts to agriculture or
recommending a subdivision be denied--so that City Council can consider the
salient facts and make its own decision.  We expect the same transparency
from you.  When City Council made the motion to protect 3 acres in the SE
corner as a condition of annexation, it seemed obvious to everyone present
that I have spoken to (including some City Councilors and OPG staff) that
the motion referred the the 3 acres that OPG carefully delineated in their
staff report, which had a minimum width of 290 feet--not some undisclosed
subdivision sketch that the developer put in front of City Council at the
last minute.  Now, the "Agricultural" Parcel's width ranges from 200 feet to
300 feet to 100 feet, and a 1/4 acre lot sits on top of the best farmland.

Rather than simply dismissing our points by suggesting it's better than
farming a terraced mountain, I would ask you to justify: 1) how this shape
encourages the intended use of food production, and 2) how it mitigates the
adverse impacts to agriculture.  If we're going to lose 6.4 acres of
excellent farmland, seems the least we could do is protect the 3 acres that
stand out as the best and in a configuration that is designed for food
production.

Just for clarification, CFAC has asked that you *either* protect the best
farmland in a logical configuration for agricultural use--just as OPG has
delineated--as a condition of approval, *or* deny the project all together.
The City has a one-time opportunity to do this right.  We hope you choose to
do so.  If you can't, let the County have a chance.  It's possible we'd get
9 one-acre lots without any protected farmland.  But the County
Commissioners are realizing that under state law they, too, can either deny
a subdivision for its adverse impacts to agriculture or require conditions
of approval that truly mitigate those impacts.  Please don't lower the
City's bar out of fear for what the County will approve.

Thanks for listening and hosting this community dialogue.  It is much
appreciated, along with your efforts to grapple with growth, farmland and
food security!

Paul Hubbard
Land Use Program Coordinator
Community Food & Agriculture Coalition

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM, <missoulagov-request at cmslists.com> wrote:


> 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. committee update 5-6-09 (Bob Jaffe)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 22:27:05 -0600

> From: "Bob Jaffe" <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 5-6-09

> To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID:

>        <

> 689D48B33023A5469751A46A44C5A7A30D425B63 at mailserver.ci.missoula.mt.us>

>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>

> Greetings,

>

> This morning in Conservation we learned about an agreement the parks

> department had put together with developer Kevin Mitty regarding the

> park in the 44 ranch subdivision. Kevin wants to go ahead and build the

> improvements in the park and get reimbursed later as the city collects

> impact fees.  The estimated costs for the project are just over

> $1,000,000. In the end the city will only have to pay him back around

> $410,000.  It's a great deal for the city. I imagine Kevin's motivation

> is that his development will be more sellable with a finished park

> instead of a weed field. 44 Ranch is a very vertical project in that

> Kevin Mitty developed the property, built all the houses, and now is

> doing the city park improvements. It's kind of like John Didell at

> Pleasantview except Kevin is working with us for parks instead of suing

> us to avoid them.

>

>

>

> In PAZ we had the dreaded Chickasaw subdivision return.  This was the

> painful project out on seventh just past Tower.  We had required a three

> acre Agriculture set aside and a connecting road which required the

> whole thing to get redesigned. We approved it conditional on staff and

> the developer bringing something back to us that met all the various

> conditions we were after. They did this today and it was pretty straight

> forward. There were still a few concerns including traffic calming for

> the someday connection to the north and how storm water was being

> handled with the shallow aquifer. The Community Food and Agriculture

> Coalition didn't like the shape of the resulting agriculture parcel so

> they requested we deny the project. I get this image of the terraced

> farms cut into steep hillsides when they say killing the project is

> better than farmland that isn't a perfect rectangle. We will finish this

> one up next week.

>

>

>

> In A&F we discussed the parking garage planned for Front and Pattee.

> There are still a lot of unknowns. It will be at least 300 spaces and

> some retail along front street. If there is enough money it will be 600

> spaces. The downtown plan calls for 600 spaces so there is some concern

> of what the implications are to the rest of the analysis in the plan if

> we only build it to half size.  On the other hand I have some concerns

> over the idea of induced demand. We know that if we build a road bigger

> more people will drive on it. I imagine if we make parking easier

> downtown more people will choose to drive there. That's fine if you are

> talking about customers but not so good if you are talking about

> employees. I guess I would like to see us build the bigger structure and

> then allocate as much as can be used for short term parking and charge a

> lot for the leased spaces to encourage commuters to develop other

> habits.

>

>

>

> In public works we had some disagreement over approving the Mayor's

> choice to replace Tom Wilkins with Ginny Iverson on the parking

> commission board.  The motion stalled on a tie and will be forwarded to

> the floor with no recommendation.

>

> We also agreed to accept a bunch of stimulus money for the north Higgins

> street project, a project to build a whole bunch of handicap sidewalk

> ramps around town, and the sidewalk project connecting Spruce to

> Greenough. Some of us were expecting a fight from the more republican

> sorts over the evils of stimulus money but no one had any complaints

> today.

>

>

>

> In COW we heard a report from the lobbyist we hired to work the session

> for us in Helena. If you would like to see the written report it can be

> found here:

>

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2009/2009-05-04/Referrals/Le

> gRptCOWRef.pdf<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2009/2009-05-04/Referrals/Le%0AgRptCOWRef.pdf>

>

>

>

> Thanks for your interest,

>

>

>

> Bob Jaffe

>

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

>

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us <mailto:bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>

>

> 406-728-1052

>

>

>

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:

> http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090506/5e94b5f5/attachment.html

>

> ------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> -------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 39, Issue 5

> ******************************************

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090507/02808c02/attachment.htm>