[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5
Bob Jaffe
BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us
Fri May 8 08:23:38 MDT 2009
Paul,
The current proposal is the outcome of compromise between the interests of a number of parties. The developer's request was to have a building site on the southeast corner of the ag parcel in the area that CFAC said was the very best of the soil. The final proposal moves the building site to the southwest of the ag parcel connected to the rest of the homes in the subdivision.
The developer argued strongly that having a premium building lot associated with the ag lot would make the whole project more viable.
Requiring a three acre agricultural set aside on this project is a huge step forward for those interested in ag preservation. Its a pretty tough pill for the developer to swallow. I think it is reasonable to make some accommodations for how he thinks he can make it work in his project.
I'm also confident a person can figure out how to manage a truck farm on a parcel with varying widths. My reference to the terraces had to do with the way human beings manage to find ways to make things work in less than perfect conditions.
At this point I believe our duty is to preserve the ag resource, not guarantee that it be actively farmed. Even if it is sold as 'horse property' now, when the situation and market are right, it will still be there for active agriculture.
There are also other reasons to do this project in the city besides the concern that the commissioners may not make ag preservation a priority. Over the long term, we see this area as becoming part of the city, which includes urban densities and infrastructure. 'Over the long term' happens in little pieces just like this over time. We also see that folks who live on the fringes of the city limits generally work, play, and shop within the city taking advantage of city infrastructure without participating in our tax base. If there is going to be a subdivision in this neighborhood it definitely should be done as a city project.
bob
________________________________
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com on behalf of Paul Hubbard
Sent: Thu 5/7/2009 10:32 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5
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 <http://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/20090508/a58cf467/attachment.htm>
More information about the MissoulaGov
mailing list