1993 FORT MISSOULA PLAN --
A REVISION AND UPDATE OF TilE 1973 FORT MISSOULA
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Unedited Version Adopted by the
' MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL
January, 1994 For More Information about the Preparation of this Plan Document, Contact:
Missoula Office of Community Development 435 Ryman Missoula, Montana 59802 (406) 523-4657 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION Page 4
PART 1: Planning area in historical perspective Page 7
A. Past ( up to 1973) 1. The distant past of the Fort Missoula area 2. 1973
B. Present (1993) 1. Current natural features and character of the plan area, together with changes which have taken place since 1973 2. Current man-made features and modifications, together with changes which have taken place since 1973 3. Degree to which changes since 1973 have followed and implemented the 1973 Plan 4. Current role of the Fort Missoula area
PART II: Planning context and background Page 22
A. Existing communitywide plans 1. Population and housing 2. Economy and commercial/industrial land use 3. Environment 4. Recreation, passive and active 5. Community aesthetics, the historical 6. Fort Missoula as a district park 7. Community services and facilities 8. Revision of the Fort Missoula plan
B. Current issues, concerns, opportunities 1. Growth of the community 2. The evolution of Fort Missoula 3. Opportunities PART III: General goals Page 32
A. The character of this updating and revision of the Fort Missoula Plan (1973)
B. Distinctive character of the area
C. General goals
PART IV: Implementation Page 36
Specific means and methods for achieving the general goals History Education Ecology Open space Compatibility of uses, functions, and features Structures and infrastructure Acquisition and preservation of land Accessibility for people with disabilities Coordinating mechanism for implementation
APPENDICES: Page 47
A. Fort Missoula Steering Committee B. Outline of Public Involvement Process C. Record of Public Input (not attached; available for review at the Office of Community Development). D. Working Calendar of: Target Dates, Tasks, Responsible Parties E. Relevance of Current Community Plans {not attached; available for review at OCD) F. Sources
SCENARIOS SUPPlEMENT (Note: This Supplement is not an official part of the Plan document) INTRODUCTION
Origins of This Plan
During 1972-1973, the Fort Missoula Steering Committee of Fort area landowners worked with one another, with the City-County Planning Board and staff, and with the Missoula community to formulate a land use guide for the future of the Fort Missoula area. Now, twenty years later, a similar kind of process has occurred. This time, the Fort Missoula Steering Committee has consisted of citizen representatives of community groups, as well as most of the Fort area landowners. This time, the Committee's focus has been on updating an existing plan, rather than creating a plan from scratch. But, as in the previous case, the planning effort has involved the Planning Board, the planning staff, and the larger community of citizens. And as was also true twenty years ago, Fort Missoula's extraordinary value to Missoula City and County and western Montana has been a prime motivator of this collective effort to provide effective guidance about the directions and parameters for appropriate change at the Fort.
Additional motivators have prompted the updating of the 1973 Fort Missoula Plan at this particular time. An important one is the very real possibility for major land use changes to occur at the Fort, as the result of recent shifts in land ownership and landowner goals. Another motivator is a recognition that a substantial portion of the rich historical and natural resource base of the Fort is seriously threatened by a lack of coordinated attention and adequate funding.
Plan Update Process
The Fort Missoula Steering Committee was assembled in August 1993 (Please refer to Appendix A). Ten Steering Committee meetings were held during the fall of 1993. The Steering Committee sponsored two community meetings to inform and involve more citizens in the public planning process. The public involvement process associated with this planning process is outlined in Appendix B. Appendix C contains the full record of public input received during the preparation of this draft Plan document. This input was essential to the Steering Committee's understanding of current issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with the Fort area and the larger Missoula community; it has also been helpful in the formulation and testing of the general goals being proposed in this Plan. Appendix C is not attached to this Plan document; it is, however, available for review at the Missoula Office of Community Development.
The bulk of the Steering Committee's work was accomplished at the Subcommittee level. Five work groups, made up of Steering Committee members and additional interested citizens, tackled a range of tasks: Public Involvement, Plan Write-Up, Scenarios, Historic District Overlay Zone Review, and Divot Development Proposal Review (These latter two
4 subcommittees focussed their efforts on reviewing two specific proposals and offering suggestions for brjnging the proposals more closely in line with the goals and direction of this Plan, as it evolved).
Through the steps outlined in Appendix D, the Steering Committee prepared and forwarded a draft 1993 Fort Missoula Plan onto the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board, Missoula City Council, Board of Missoula County Commissioners, and entire Missoula community, as a proposed amendment to the Missoula Urban Comprehensive Plan. This Plan document, in its draft form, is presented below. The document has been developed, and is now being reviewed, in accordance with the state statutory authority and requirements for community master planning (MCA 76-l-Part 6).
Map A depicts the Fort Missoula planning area considered in the 1993 plan update process. This is generally the same area that received attention in the 1973 Plan, although the 1993 effort has focussed upon the lands which lie south of South Avenue.
Presentation of The Plan
The Plan first offers a historical perspective on the Fort Missoula area, recalling the distant _past, describing the Fort in 1973, and then outlining present-day activities and conditions. The document then outlines the communitywide context in which this Plan update is offered, referencing existing adopted community plans and policies which relate to the Fort Missoula area. The Plan goes on to characterize the Fort area's distinctiveness -- why it warrants special planning attention. Then, the Plan outlines a set of general goals and specific means for accomplishing these goals. Implementation strategies are discussed, and pertinent resources are appended.
A Scenarios Supplement can be found immediately following the Appendices. This section is not an official part of the Plan document, but it offers a set of scenarios illustrating a variety of ways that the Fort's future might be envisioned. The purpose of the scenarios is to help the Missoula community visualize and consider how different changes across the Fort landscape might -- or might not -- further the goals for the area, as stated in this Plan. The scenarios are not intended to represent specific development plans. Nor are they meant to exhaust the possible configurations of land uses. They do, instead, suggest possibilities. Any such possibility must be considered in light of its particular context and timing, but with the general goals and specific means of this Plan given foremost attention.
5 t)
1994 FORT MISSOULA ...,., .. " -· REVISED PLANNING AREA
!,I"IIIIIIIIIIIItJ .• .• . . Denotes • • • • Planning • • • • Area • • • • ,iunnnntnur
NOTE: Planning Area is larger than the area covered by the 1973 Fort Missoula Plan. 6a PART I PLANNING AREA IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
A. Past (up to 1973):
1. The distant past of the Fort Missoula area
Prior to non-native settlement, the Salish, commonly called the Flathead by non-natives, used the area in which Fort Missoula is located. The bitterroot plant grew abundantly in the Bitterroot and Missoula Valleys and served as an important source of food for them, as did the buffalo they hunted cast of the mountains. Early in the 19th century, non-natives came to the region in noticeable numbers, including Lewis and Clark's expedition, English and French fur traders and explorers, and missionaries. Permanent settlement by non-natives began in the 1850's.
By 1871, settlement in the Missoula and the Bitterroot Valleys created pressure for more lands, and President Ulysses S. Grant ordered all Salish moved to the Jocko Valley. Many of the Salish refused to leave and argued the legality of the treaties involved. At the same time, settlers resented the intrusion of Nez Perce hunting parties on their lands. The widespread conflicts between Native Americans and non-natives in the West during the 1860's and 1870's fueled settlers' concerns about adequate protection; at the same time, Missoula was growing as a community, and its leaders realized the economic value of a military installation in the area. Their efforts were instrumental in securing a location of a fort near Missoula.
Two companies of infantrymen began construction in June of 1877. Like most forts built in the West after 1870, the new post was not fortified. Instead, it featured a design of exposed buildings, suited to a patrolling force as opposed to a defensive posture. Within a month troops were ordered into action against the Nez Perce, interrupting construction. The soldiers pursued the Nez Perce, who were trying to escape into Canada from Idaho, and participated in the August 9 battle at the Big Hole River. Then they returned to Missoula and continued construction on the fort, officially named Fort Missoula on November 8 of that year. Troops battled a small band of Nez Perce in the summer of 1878; that was the last significant action against local Native Americans. Of the buildings constructed during this period, only a carriage house, a stone powder magazine and a non-commissioned officers' quarters have survived. Many of the original structures were removed during reconstruction of the Fort after the turn of the century.
Little changed at Fort Missoula until May of 1888. In that year, several companies of the 25th Infantry were garrisoned at the Fort. The unit was one of four in the Army which consisted of Black soldiers and non-commissioned officers who served under white officers. Members of the unit spent several weeks policing the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota during the hostilities surrounding the Wounded Knee incident late in 1890.
7 In 1897 and 1898, the Fort was home to the 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps, established by the Army to experiment with the bicycle as a means of military transportation. The Corps trained hard but was disbanded when its members were called for duty in the Spanish American War. The Army never adopted the bicycle as an official means of travel.
In 1898, the Army ordered the Fort abandoned. Title to some of the land was questionable, and the Fort was serving no clear purpose. Local businesspeople moved quickly to clear the title and hold off abandonment. Largely through the work of U. S. Senator Joseph Dixon, a Missoula citizen, Congress in 1904 appropriated funds to reconstruct Fort Missoula, in spite of the fact that the installation still had no clear military purpose. Many of the buildings constructed from 1906 to 1912 were designed in Mission-style architecture. Eighteen buildings from this reconstruction period remain.
Despite the new construction, the Army abandoned the Fort shortly before World War I. During the war, the University used some of the buildings for a training school. In 1918, Congress passed a bill permitting the sale or lease of portions of Fort Missoula.
A small garrison of soldiers was placed there in 1921. In 1933, Fort Missoula became headquarters for the Rocky Mountain Civilian Conservation Corps, encompassing Corps units in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Yellowstone and Glacier Parks. The CCC was a national program to provide training and work for young men during the economic depression of the 1930s. Several buildings were constructed and others improved during this period. The CCC program ended in 1941.
In that year, Fort Missoula began to serve yet another role. By order of the President, Axis ships began to be seized in U. S. harbors and crews arrested. Crew members were sent to locations like the Fort, which provided adequate housing facilities in isolated settings. Between 1941 and 1944, about 1200 Italian civilians were interned at the Fort under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Italians nicknamed the installation Bella Vista: beautiful view.
Eleven days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, another group of detainees began arriving at Fort Missoula, The Issei were men of Japanese birth living in the United States, many of them professionals or businessmen. The government arrested them to forestall any action against the country from within. Securing measures became tighter and officials addressed charges of mistreatment of the Issei. Some of the detainees were deported but none were prosecuted.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service's camp at Fort Missoula was the largest that agency operated in the United States, although the War Relocation Authority established larger camps for detention of the Nisei, Japanese-Americans who were citizens by birth or naturalization. The last of those interned there left in 1944 and the barracks which had been built for them were removed within a short time. The foundations and depression remain, a reminder of a painful reality of war. After World War II, the Army resumed its presence at
8 Fort Missoula and used the facility as a prison camp until 1947. Two concrete cell blocks and three other buildings from this period still exist at the Fort.
In 1948, the Army began disposal of Fort property through sale or lease, By the time the 1973 Fort Missoula plan was formulated, owners or lessees included the Bureau of Land Management, the City of Missoula, the County of Missoula, Missoula Community High School, Missoula Community Hospital, Montana National Guard, the Montana Department of National Resources, the State of Montana, the U. S. Army, the University of Montana, and A. W. Fetscher, a private owner. The Post Cemetery, which contains graves of war veterans, Black soldiers from the 25th Infantry Regiment, and Army wives and children, remained active.
Founded to protect and enrich a developing community, Fort Missoula swung between being virtually useless and vitally important. Ironically, its most dynamic periods-- as the Civilian Conservation Corps regional headquarters and the Immigration and Naturalization Service's camp-- related only peripherally to its original goals.
2, 1973
The 1970 Census reported 29,497 Missoula City residents, 58,263 Missoula County residents, and an Urban Area population of 50.669. In 1973, northern City limits were confined to Interstate 90 except for portions of Waterworks Hill and the lower end of the Rattlesnake Valley. Western City limits extended out to Reserve Street north of Mullan Road, then substantially shrank back in meandering fashion south of the Clark Fork River. Community Hospital and the Rural Fire Station along South Avenue west of Reserve Street constituted an "island" of City lands surrounded by County jurisdiction. Southern City limits were likewise irregular, taking in the Hillview Heights development south of 39th Street as another island. The development pattern of the Missoula Urban Area in 1973 was a notable contrast between urban/suburban neighborhoods and scattered-site rural development. Large parcels of land remained in agricultural use, although a few pockets of newer urban development were evident (Ref. 1970 Census, City annexation records, Missoula County Population Analysis dated October 1983, and 1973 air photos).
At the time of the 1973 Fort Missoula Plan, dominant man-made features at the Fort included the Rural Fire Station, Fort Missoula campus, the Missoula Country Club, Community Hospital, a nursing home, the gravel mining and processing operation located east of McCauley Butte and the military cemetery. The Department of State Lands administrative offices and the State Nursery were located on Spurgin Road.
Most of the remainder of the Fort Missoula Plan Area was either vacant or in agricultural use. Those areas include what is now the Larchmont Golf Course, the University Foundation landholdings north of the historic fort and south of South Avenue, and the 160 acres of County-owned land off Spurgin Road. In addition, the University-owned property
9 south of Fort Missoula Road and north of the Bitterroot River, the Army campus to the west, and the Missoula Country Club were in use. The University conducted research in the former military jails along Post Siding Road, utilized the former Quartermaster Stables for storage, and used the riparian areas for biological and ecological research. To the east of the hospital, commercially zoned ground had not yet been developed. The Army leased to the Forest Service, the National Guard, the Army Reserves and the Navy Reserves. The Bureau of Land Management was also expected to locate in the Fort area. The Western Montana Regional Community Mental Health Center owned land and five Fort buildings within the original Fort complex. The Fort Missoula Historical Museum was founded in 1973 (See Map Band Table I for summary information about Fort area ownership, 1973 and 1993).
Throughout the 1970's, the Army continued to act as a landlord for various government agencies occupying structures at the Fort. There was very limited if any discussion of the Army vacating the Fort as an occupant and landlord. It was typical of military installations, that the Army owned and maintained the grounds, including all the infrastructure that supported the developed areas of the Fort. This included sewer, water, electrical, phone, and road systems within the Fort campus. In 1973, a new raw sewage force main was designed and installed by the Army as a consequence of the failure of the sewage system to treat Fort-generated sewage properly. This force main carried sewage from the Fort to an existing city sewer main east in Reserve Street. While this force main was new, it utilized the existing dry-laid clay sewer lines from aU structures which at that time were approximately 60 years old. The Army was also responsible for the electrical distribution and water systems, which were approximately 30 years old at that time, and included the water tower at the southeast comer of the property.
B. Present (1993)
1. Current natural features and character of the plan area, together with changes which have taken place since 1973
Land Forms
The Bitterroot River flows through the southern portion of the planning area. The dynamic action of the Bitterroot River, in geologic ages past, has been responsible for the dominant land forms in the planning area. McCauley Butte which rises approximately 320 feet above the surrounding area was once part of the Blue Mountain land form. The Bitterroot River, in carving its channel, isolated McCauley Butte from the surrounding mountains to the west.
The Bitterroot River and the Clark Fork River, in the more recent Pleistocene period, deposited the broad alluvial terrace which forms the Missoula valley floor. Most recently, in the sense of geologic time, the Bitterroot River has created and occupies the current floodplain and riparian areas. Little change has occurred to the physical form of the natural
10 features. The only exceptions are the removal of gravel from the alluvial terrace and removal of rock from the south face of McCauley Butte as part of the ongoing gravel processing operation west of Fort Missoula (Ref. Roadside Geology of Montana, by David Alt and Donald Hyndman, 1986).
Native Plants
The planning area was once dominated by native plant species. The Bitterroot River floodplain was dominated by Cottonwood and Ponderosa Pine with Red Osier Dogwood in the understory. The broad a11uvia1 terrace was dominated by Bluebunch Wheatgrass and Idaho Fescue. The slopes of McCauley Butte were covered with Bluebunch Wheatgrass and Sandberg's Bluegrass.
Native species are still present in the planning area. The cottonwood, pines and dogwood thrive in the floodplain areas. However, Spotted Knapweed and Leafy Spurge are displacing the native grasses in the floodplain areas. Knapweed dominates the terrace formations and is invading the slopes of McCauley Butte (Ref. Report to Missoula: $16,000 Pilot Project on Parks/Open Space/Resource Planning and Management, City of Missoula, July, 1993).
Wildlife
Three wildlife habitat categories appear in the planning area. The Urban Habitat is all the area outside of the floodplain and off the slopes of McCauley Butte. The River/Floodplain Habitat is all the area in the floodplain of the Bitterroot River. The Upland/Grass Habitat lies southwest of the Bitterroot River and along the slopes of McCauley Butte. Within the urban habitat non-native species such as English sparrow, starling, rock dove (pigeon), Eastern fox squirrel and goldfish (in Larchmont's ponds) thrive. The River/Floodplain Habitat is home to a diverse population of native birds, mammals and fish. Included are osprey and bald eagles, white-tailed deer, mink, and beaver, cutthroat, rainbow and brown trout. The upland/grass habitat attracts numerous birds including meadowlark, homed lark, and northern harrier. Mammals occupying this area would include red fox, weasel, Colombian ground squirrel and meadow vole (Ref. Report to Missoula: $16,000 Pilot Project).
2. Current man-made features and modifications, together with changes which have taken place since 1973
The riparian zone along Fort Missoula as it fronts the Bitterroot River has remained relatively unchanged in the twenty years since 1973; that is, no formal development has occurred, nor have adjoining property owners actively used the area. Some of the agricultural activity south of South Avenue has ceased. The areas formerly owned by the
11 University, now owned by the University of Montana Foundation, have received little care. The County-owned Larchmont Golf Course has been developed on a triangular piece of previously designated "land reserve" bordered by Reserve Street, Post Siding Road, and Fort Missoula Road.
The Bureau of Land Management built administrative offices. The National Guard built a facility on Reserve Street and expanded their facilities west of Fort Missoula. The Historical Museum has developed the former Quartermaster's Warehouse as a museum. The Museum has preserved several existing structures, acquired artifacts, installed displays regarding forestry and the lumber industry, and imported several historic structures. The Museum has made modest progress in developing a historic park on 32 acres of Fort land deeded originally to the City and subsequently acquired by the County. The facilities associated with Community Hospital have expanded significantly including physicians' offices and a rehabilitation center. In addition, three housing projects have been built along South Avenue, between Community Hospital and Reserve Street: an apartment complex, retirement housing, and assisted living.
Missoula County leases much of its land off Spurgin Road for recreational purposes to specific users, including American Legion baseball, Little League baseball, and an equestrian club. Such use somewhat fulfills the 1976 County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan's designation of this area as a community recreation area. At the same time, the lease commitments preclude the land from being used as an opportunity through barter, trade, or sale, for the acquisition of riparian lands along the Fort, as suggested in the 1973 Fort Plan.
Additional land use changes including the research activities conducted by the University on its properties have ceased. Some of the structures now owned by the University Foundation are not used at all; the others simply serve a storage function. The Fort Missoula active recreation park has expanded with an increased number of baseball, soccer, and rugby fields, batting cages, horseshoe pits, and tennis courts. Map C illustrates current ownership in the Fort Missoula area. Map D illustrates current City limits; it also outlines the boundaries of the Urban Service Area, as presented in the Missoula Urban Comprehensive Plan.
The last 35 years have seen no significant improvement or investment in Fort infrastructure.
12 Table I
MATRIX OF FORT AREA LANDOWNERS, 1973 AND 1993
Owner Acres 1973 USAGE 1973 NEEDS & PI AN S ...... 1993 - ' Bureau of s Maintenance Administrative complex, Has not responded Land Mgmt. Facility if possible, on South Avenue. s None Undetennined.
County of 28 Historical Restoration of NCO No capital facilities Missoula Structures remain, quarters; historic planning or funding or unused. complex and museum. fire protection; museum wants to move to old hospital How to buffer Fort from Adjacent properties/uses. 2 Rural Fire Station Undetermined Built Fire Station 160 At South and Undetennined Reserve, unused, Built Larchmont golf no buildings. Course
160 On Spurgin Road, Undetennined Partially developed park some Agriculture, small park, no buildings. (if awarded by Active Sports fields, (no GSA) 17 None Combine with the 51 buildings). acres, if awarded, for 51 None recreational facilities, with 110 buildings. Community 40 Hospital and Medical complex with Needs to acquire Hospital secondary facility. Doctors' offices. additional land to expand medical campus. Missoula 20 Surround old Vo-Ag Expansion Series Needs to retain pan of County High cemetary, some of buildings for career- land immediately south School agriculture. oriented high school, of Big Sky, would trade may need more acreage. remainder for foundation 40 Vo-Ag building, Intensive expansion on land west adjacent to agricultural present acreage. Yo-Tech Campus.
80 Vo~ Tech Center
13 Montana 17 Vehicle Amwry Construction. Has not responded. National maintenance Guard facility, several wooden structures.
Montana State 200 Tree Nursery, Expanded experimental Has not responded. Dept of experimentation and maintenance Natural site, maintenance facilities. Resources buildings and offices. State of 6 Mental Health Indefinite Wishes to consolidate all Montana Clinic and services to a downtown employee facility, divest itself of apartments. old Fort hospitaL United States 32 Federal Agency Maintenance facility and Plans to "Excess" part of Anny offices and Army parking area for 150-200 Fort, including old Reserve. cars. buildings and river front at southwest comer. University of 54 South of River, Continued research Wishes to sell its Montana field properties at the fort for experimentation. scholarships. 82 Expansion of Research Zoological facilities. Go to housing buildings, storage developer. 42 and study plots. Continued usc, research River bed, and study. 120 research, and study plots. Continued use, research and study. A portion of this acreage Research and goes to Lutheran Elderly Study Plots. Housing Project.
A. W. 5 On South Avenue, Feasibility study. Developed a 3 st(lry Fetscher, undeveloped. High density housing private owner. project.
-- Prepared by Divot Development Company, 9/93
14 MAP B: 1973 Fort Missoula Land Ownership
spurgin road
missoula I ' >late 20: montana county 160 r I . '--,i,b ~~----'r!-- -r ~-,-h-,-~-- _j 40 private south avenue '\mchs gsa missoula '5 j community/"" me h s I L ___80 ' u 1o~; ~.1.51 ha:tal ' .-.J ~-, ' 9>0 \ / nat'l / 17 , ;r-" missoula 1r--:----;-- guard I j c•ty - '.. ,..,.....,...~ / i county 17 . "' '\jblm ' 160 • m1ssoula 1 5 ~ m&> c='-.__,k-.:2::.::8 I u s army J Uo! m n ready mix - --1.___ 32 J 82 ' ~~-.)---~ ____ --- ,)\~,;of roontano '"' \ 6 '
numbers indicate approximate acrOO!=)e
--Excerpted from 1973 Fort Missoula Guidelines for Development (p. II)
15 (l_ I (/) a: w z 5: Q) 0 ~ .c" "0 > !!!" a. - '0"' ~"' ,. "0"' a. :.:: "'~ c: ;:" 0 ' .c ~" ~ / 0 n ~ 0) 0) "'0 E "0 .!!1 u a. a. "'" c:0 a. 0 "~ (!) :; :::(!) ' ' :;;>--~:\______j 1- Cl w a: ()
------·------·----~------16 00
u
(]_, -< ?; 0 !'--; !'--;z r:Ll ~ r:Ll $v., c---1 (]_, "'V' • • (]_, "'"!$ ;:::! en
16a ~~
0\- J I I C"' 1-r---"1
?J"""'"e '\'l.\ei ":;\cC'3-
LEGEND
City Limits • Urban Service Area 6 Planning Area
>:dtth MAP D 3. Degree to which changes since 1973 have followed/implemented the 1973 Plan.
This profile of how the Fort Missoula area has evolved since 1973 prompts the question: To what degree has the 1973 Plan been followed over the years? Consideration of the extent to which the Plan has actually been implemented produces a mixed assessment. Changes which have occurred in close keeping with the 1973 Plan include the following: o Administrative actions.
a. Creation of the Missoula County Park Board.
b. Listing of Fort Missoula on the National Register of Historic Districts.
c. Retention of Maclay Flats as open space.
d. Zoning of public lands in accordance with the Missoula Comprehensive Plan (P-1, P·II).
e. An archaeological study of the Fort area was conducted in 1989. o Facility development.
a. Establishment of the Historic Park/Historical Museum at Fort Missoula.
b. Development of the Fort Missoula sports complex.
c. Development of the County's Spurgin Road ballfield and equestrian park.
d. Expansion of medical-related activities near the hospital.
e. Installation of joint sewer system.
f. Closure of the main (but haz.ardous) entrance at South Avenue and Reserve Street, with a replacement entry provided at Reserve and Dearborn.
g. Construction of Big Sky High School along South Avenue.
h. Development of Larchmont golf course (although the 1973 Plan recommended Maclay Flats for such a recreational facility)
[Readers, please note: Photo(s) of new development to be inserted here.]
17 o Program development.
a. Development of educational programs associated with the Fort's history.
b. Usage of recreational fields and historic park by local students.
Conversely, many of the suggestions contained in the 1973 Fort Missoula Plan have not been carried out. Most of what has not happened falls into the category of administrative action. Noteworthy examples include:
a. An ongoing Fort Missoula Coordinating Council was never established.
b. Both the status of Fort Missoula as public land, and the notion of treating Fort Missoula " ... as an entity, usable in multiple ways for public service ... " (p. 23), have been allowed to erode through the actions of individual landowners.
c. Adequate joint funding commitments for Fort maintenance and road improvements have not been made.
d. Exploring the possibility of a joint City-County Park Board has not progressed.
e. Riparian lands along the Bitterroot River have not been secured as public open space, through land trade, public acquisition, or conservation easements; clear provisions for public access have not been made.
f. The concept of a main-entry information center has not progressed.
g. Maintenance and restoration of the natural environment associated with Sleven's Island have not occurred.
h. A system of green belts, buffers, appropriate landscaping, and trails throughout the Fort area has not been designed or developed.
I. McCauley Butte and adjacent areas have not been secured as open space.
j. The water system has not been connected to the municipal system.
k. Traffic circulation issues have not been adequately managed.
l. A connection between the Fort Missoula area and the Maclay Flats/Blue Mountain Recreation Area has not been developed.
18 m. In the case of existing and newly developed facilities (e.g., parking), joint usage amongst landowners has not been promoted.
n. The Bureau of Land Management located along in the interior of the Fort, rather than along South Avenue; and, golf course development occurred at the Larchmont location, rather than at Maclay Flats as proposed.
It is clear that the Missoula community has, since 1973, acted deliberately to secure some of the Fort lands and buildings to provide both historic park and active recreational facilities to the public. It is also clear that the City and County governments have used their local zoning authority to help ensure that most of the lands at the Fort would continue to be used for public purposes. But what was so strongly promoted in the 1973 Plan, with respect to the area as a whole, has not happened, namely: to put into place the administrative policy and structure, the intergovernmental cooperation, and the action program needed to realize the Fort's full potential to excel " ... as a recreation area, an historical landmark, a nature education area and an administrative-public service center" (p. 22). Perhaps the question before Missoulians in 1993, as we look at present-day Fort Missoula along side of our 1973 Plan for the area, is: Do we still hold the 1973 Plan's expressed vision for the Fort? If so, are we prepared to re-commit ourselves to putting together the effort, cooperation, and funds which would be required to more fully realize such a vision?
4. Current place/role of the Fort Missoula area.
This discussion addresses Fort Missoula's place in the natural, socio-economic, and cultural environment of the Missoula Valley. As the earlier description of the Fort's present character and land uses reflects, this is a land where natural systems, buildings, and human activities uniquely coincide. Fort Missoula has, over the years, evolved to a point where it now accommodates an uncommon blend of rich history, traditional military base activity, unspoiled natural features, and a wide spectrum of community affairs. Throughout this evolution, the Fort area lands and buildings have been primarily dedicated to public uses and purposes. More specifically, the Fort area provides:
A Socio-Economic Resource o One of two major regional medical service centers in the Missoula community. o A place of active and diverse recreation for thousands of sports-minded citizens. o A place of employment for hundreds of people. o A center for military-related activities for state and federal governments. o A nucleus of land-management public agencies of both state and federal govemments.
19 o A place of residence for military personnel, non-military apartment dwellers, and retirees who rely on the ready availability of medical services. o A location for regional mental health care and administration. o A tourist attraction and conference center. o A source of gravel.
A Cultural Resource o An historic gem of local, regional, and national significance. o A place where a variety of open spaces combine to offer "breathing room" and recreational opportunity to us locally, as well as to our visitors. o A place of education. o A gathering place for community/regional festivals and events (e.g., Fourth-of-July celebration, Annual Pow-Wow, Apple Festival, Blue Mountain Clinic Run, Iris Sale, golf tournaments, educational programs about history and health). o A community park for unorganized recreational activities, both passive and active. o A neighborhood park. o A place of burial and respect for deceased military personnel.
A Natural Resource o An environmental gem, distinguished by such natural and cultural landmarks as the Bitterroot River and McCauley Butte. o A home to varied wildlife and plant life. o An area of interest to biologists. o An area of surface waters and flood storage. o An area cultivated for agricultural purposes.
20 The Fort Missoula area serves the Missoula community and western Montana in many ways. How can we maintain and/or support these functions, perhaps consider expanding them or introducing new ones, yet retain the area's irreplaceable resource base?
[Readers, please note: Photo(s) of current Fort area activities to be added here.] PART II PLANNING CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
A. Existing communitywide plans
The Fort Missoula area is only one part of the land area covered by several broad community plans. Although these plans do not address the Fort Missoula area in its distinctive character, their goals and policies are intended to relate to the area as part of some larger community (the urban area, or the county). Thus in formulating goals and means specific to the Fort Missoula area, it is important to keep the broad community goals in mind also and to see the area as one in which those goals may be furthered and, in some cases (say, water quality), should be furthered.
Attached as Appendix E is the list of the policies, goals, objectives, and proposals for action relevant for the updating of the Fort Missoula Plan. They come from three sources: the Urban Comprehensive Plan in its 1975 form, the 1990 Comprehensive Plan Update, and the County Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan (1976). The following discussion draws directly from these three plans and, in summary form, identifies those elements which might be taken to relate specifically to the Fort Missoula area. The order of exposition has no suggestion of priority, but simply follows roughly the order of Chapters in the 1990 update of the Urban Comprehensive Plan.
1. Population and housing
Whatever development occurs in the area to provide for increased population should pay for its own way. In general the most obvious type of development that would serve increased population would be residential. In regard to housing and residential land use, the community through its City and County adopted plans is committed to encourage a residential land use pattern which embodies two principles: it provides a high quality living environment in a variety of residential settings; it does this in a way which preserves natural resources, minimizes local government service costs, and protects public health and safety. The intent is to assure all residents adequate shelter in such a living environment, and to do this through private and public policies which maximize opportunity and freedom of housing choice, which promote excellence of housing design, and accomplish all this with the limits of the need also to preserve natural ecological systems and to insure that housing ventures do not become an economic liability to the community.
2. Economy and commercial/industrjal land use
In the areas of business and commercial and industrial land uses, the community is committed to foster a healthy local economy functioning in harmony with quality of life goals, and to employ the land use process as an aid in fostering successful commercial and industrial development that is harmonious with other adopted community goals and quality of life concerns. Crucial is the affirming of two poles at once: healthy economy, and quality of
22 life. Certain urban design considerations are envisioned as making such achievement possible. Included are ideas of focusing commercial development in two or three major centers, yet locating some convenience retail facilities in close proximity to the neighborhoods they serve. Included also are ideas of preserving Missoula's historical heritage, in particular the older shopping district (downtown, for example), while developing other centers in a way that will minimize impact on the natural environment and enhance rather than degrade living areas. Industrial activities are to be situated so as not to interfere with commercial and residential uses, and are to be buffered to protect them from encroaching non-industrial uses. One of the rare mentions of the Fort Missoula area specifica1ly occurs in connection with the possible siting of a research park: with adequate controls to protect the historic and other resources found in the area, it might provide a large enough site.
3. Environment
In the area of the environment, the community commitment is to a pursuit of urbanization in the urbanizing area which is governed by concerns to protect and enhance our natural resources and to insure public health, safety and welfare. The concerns here are complex. They intend soil conservation practices and adaptation of development to soil suitability in all cases; they intend minimization of impact of development on water quality and air quality everywhere. They also intend the maintaining of wildlife as a viable presence in the urban area environment, and the maintaining and enhancing of desirable vegetation within that same area environment. They also intend the preserving of open space within and around the urban area, as a valuable element in quality of life. The notion of open space includes not only lands with valuable natural resources, such as ecologically important habitat types, but also lands with recreational value: developed parks for active recreation, other parks and areas for passive recreation. Especially important is the creation of an urban area open space system which includes dispersal of parklands to enable ready access to all and provision of connecting links between open spaces in different areas.
4. Recreation, passive and active
In the recreational area, the community is committed to providing a wide variety of indoor and outdoor recreation programs and facilities to all age and socioeconomic groups. Since 1975, Missoula County has periodically surveyed the population and identified the need for both types of recreational opportunity. Indoor facilities (e.g., swimming pool, track, basketball and handball courts, and ice-skating rink) need to be developed in existing community parks, such as Fort Missoula. Recreational opportunities should also include a system of recreational trails and bikeways, access to rivers, preservation of historically significant areas, and school-community cooperative arrangements. As suggested above, recreation is not limited to active organized recreation. It also involves the many other forms of recreational involvement with natural areas and simple open green spaces. The community is committed to furthering a county-wide open space system to which the urban area contributes very essential components. This system wi11 require the protection of rivers
23 and streams in their natural states, the restoration and preservation of natural areas including riparian zones and lakes, and the identification of recreational uses and values for natural resource lands that are compatible with environmental goals and other land uses. Natural areas should be protected to provide for nature study, biological research, and wildlife sanctuaries. Parklands and open space required to satisfy future needs should be acquired and/or reserved as soon as possible so that escalating land values that could prevent future acquisitions will be avoided.
5. Community aesthetics, the historical
In the area of community aesthetics, the commitment is to preserve and enhance the beauty of both the natural and the built environments in the Missoula urban area. This means preserving and providing appropriate access to areas of scenic open space value and to natural areas and green spaces of various sorts within and around Missoula. It also means encouraging interesting and innovative design of structures and creating attractive develop ment patterns overall, where new development is concerned, and preserving and adaptively re-using historic structures, protecting critical resources such as historic sites, and identifying for preservation those areas that are of historic and archaeological significance. Fort Missoula's designation as an historic district is mentioned in the discussion of the historic in the 1990 update of the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Fort Missoula as a district park
The Fort Missoula area is frequently mentioned with regard to recreation planning for the Missoula urban area because of the broad range of land types to be found in the area. The number one priority for fulfilling recreational needs in Missoula County is the creation of a river park system. Highest priority should be placed on protecting the rivers in general - and the Fort Missoula riparian zone in particular -- from undesirable development, and to perpetuate the appropriate public use and access to these areas. The design, acquisition, development, and management of recreation programs and facilities should be based on identified needs and emphases should be placed on what have been identified as major gaps in the recreation system, including a district park. As explicitly outlined in the 1976 County Parks Plan, Fort Missoula offers the best opportunity in Missoula for creating a district park to serve the whole urban area. "A district park should provide intensive developments for day use within a natural environment. It should be within a 15-minute drive of most residents of an urban center of 50,000 or more people" (p. 22). The vision of such a park integrates components of different types: historic, educational, riparian and riverine, visual resource and open space, trail, as well as developed recreational activity playground. Such a district park would be "probably the most important part" of the County's river park system. It would also integrate into itself, or under its management, the bottomlands south of the river, visual resources like McCauley Butte, and areas such as Maclay Flats. As of 1993, there are no district parks in Missoula County.
24 7. Community services and facilities
One final area of community goal-setting which is relevant to the Fort Missoula area is that of community services and facilities. Here the commitment is to encourage and support new land development within or immediately adjacent to areas where public services are currently available. The range of services involved includes sewer and water, transportation and public safety, as well as education and recreation. The focus here is on safety, efficiency, convenience, health, coordinated planning and execution of projects, and the wide distribution of a variety of services and a fair distribution of the costs of providing them. What seems desired is the provision services and infrastructure which are adequate for, and adapted to, the superstructure of community life which is sketched out in the other goals.
8. Revision of the Fort Missoula plan
In the discussion of the preservation of historic structures and sites, the mention of Fort Missoula's designation as an historic district is followed by mention of the prospective sale of lands owned by the University of Montana Foundation. A proposal for action recommending revising and updating the Fort Missoula Area Plan to accommodate a broader range of uses, is given its meaning in this context by the preceding discussion: with the possibility of sale of those lands has come "discussion of the possibility of accommodating a wide range of uses, from offices such as the Bureau of Land Management building to research facilities. The June 1973 Guidelines for development should be reviewed and revised following more discussion of the issue."
B. Current issues, concerns, opportunities
1. Growth of the Community
The past twenty years have seen sizeable expansion of Missoula's population. The "urbanized area" has spread westward across the valley. The Fort is no longer an island of public land some distance from the edge of town. The land between has been largely filled in with suburban and commercial development.
As the following table reflects, fluctuating cycles of rapid population growth characterize Missoula County's development history in recent decades.
Decade Population Change Numerical Change Rate of Change
1950-1960 35,493-44,663 9,170 25.8% 1960-1970 44,663-58,263 13,600 30.5% 1970-1980 58,263-76,016 17,753 30.5% 1980-1990 76,016-78,687 2,671 3.5%
25 Between 1990 and 1992, Missoula County's population is estimated to have grown to 82,000. This implies a rate of growth which would result in a population of 93,000-100,000 in the year 2000, an increase from 1990 to 2000 of 18-27%.
This population information confirms that Missoula is currently experiencing another period of growth. This growth has raised four major issues related to land use and quality of life in general, and the Fort Missoula area as a part of the larger community.
a. Pollution of the aquifer.
Much of Missoula old and new is not part of the community sewer system. Most of these areas rely on individual septic tanks and drainfields, a technology that depends upon the capacity of the ground to absorb waste. Whereas in 1973 Missoula relied heavily on Rattlesnake Creek for its water supply, today Missoula pumps its water from the aquifer beneath the valley. Water pollution from continued and expanded use of drain fields is a very real threat. Missoula City and County have recently established a Water Quality Management District to address this threat directly.
b. Air quality.
As in 1973, air quality remains a serious issue for the Missoula Valley. Stricter regulations have been put into place for wood-burning and industrial pollution. While vehicle emissions technology has also been improved, the sheer amount of vehicle traffic has dramatically increased. Recent Health Department data indicate that the Missoula Valley averages in excess of one million miles of vehicle traffic per day in the winter. The community's heavy reliance upon motorized transportation, including unnecessary trips and increasing commuter travel, poses a continuing threat to air quality. Missoula City and County have recently received a major commitment of federal funds to help address the issue. In addition, both governments have worked cooperatively with the University of Montana, U.S. Forest Service, and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to formulate an areawide non motorized transportation plan and trails development program.
c. Affordable housing.
While in 1973 the majority of Missoula households were able to own their own homes, today affordable housing whether for rent or ownership has become scarce. Vacancy rates for both owner-occupied and rental units have been at or below 1% for several years, pushing the cost of housing up. There has been an influx of capital in Missoula's housing market due to households moving here from other areas of the country, bringing the proceeds of previously owned modest homes that sell for $200,000+ in places like San Francisco. As a result, the average costs of available units for rental or ownership opportunity are now well above the affordable rate for the average household income of renters and homebuyers respectively. The Missoula City-County Housing Task Force has been actively working to identify the scope of this housing problem and identify a wide range of potential solutions.
26 d. Open space protection and recreational needs.
Providing adequate open space and recreational opportunity are essential to the design of a liveable community. With the spread of the urban area, open space can no longer be taken for granted. Development has leap-frogged into rural areas miles from town. It has crept up the hillsides to the south of town, and up the canyons to the east, north, and west. Waterworks Hill may soon have its first housing development visible from the valley floor. While river corridors are a priority for reclamation and protection, other aspects of open space such as neighborhood-level undeveloped lots are being targeted for housing infill. Availability and affordability of the large land areas needed to support community ballfields and other park and recreation facilities are diminishing. The newly prepared Non-motorized Transportation Plan addresses a part of this overall issue. In addition, both the City and County have recently initiated resource protection programs; the County Park Board has initiated an inventory of County parklands; and, the City has begun to develop an urban areawide open space plan.
2. The Evolution of Fort Missoula
Changes at Fort Missoula have generated both concerns and opportunities which merit attention as we look ahead to, and plan for, the future of this special place. Outlined below are two key issues currently facing Fort area landowners in particular, but also the larger Missoula community.
a. Physical Deterioration
Fort Missoula's infrastructure system (streets, sewer, water, power, phone and gas) serves the U.S. Army, Forest Service, National Guard, Missoula County and other users central to the Fort. The infrastructure system ranges from 50 to 80 years in age. Since the end of World War II, the only significant investment in upgrading or maintenance has been the connection to the City of Missoula sanitary sewer system. The majority of the basic systems have far exceeded their useful design life and are now in deteriorated condition and in need of major reconstruction. Many of the systems do not meet code, current design standards and/or service requirements. For years, maintenance has been provided only as a system or component fails. No comprehensive preventative or upgrade maintenance program has existed for years. Considerable infrastructure replacement is required. (Review of Fort plans and documents along with an interview of Jack Babon, U.S. Army Facilities Manager).
A Fort Missoula infrastructure analysis was recently performed by a local engineering firm on behalf of a private sector client. This analysis identified the system conditions outlined below.
Sewer
27 The existing sewers are 6"-8" vitrified day pipe. One section of service line has been video taped and found to be root bound. The mains are expected to have the same problem. The existing manholes are brick, and concrete. The lift station and force main to the City which was built in 1973 is sound.
Water
There are two wells in the water tower area. They are approximately 90 feet deep, producing about 150 gpm each. This is insufficient capacity for fire flows. The tower was builtin 1910.
The mains are 4", 6" and 8" steel mains. This system does not allow for fire flow volumes to be moved through the system and the storage and wells are grossly deficient to provide for a 2000 gallon per minute industrial fire.
It is not economically feasible to construct a satellite water system with its own high capacity wells and large storage volumes to serve the Fort.
Streets
The street system is in poor condition and does not meet current standards.
Electrical Service
There have been no improvements since the 1940's. The system is a 3 wire 2400 volt Delta Y overhead system built in the 1930's and not compatible with the Montana Power Company system. It is currently converted through a series of transformers. The system does not comply with either the National Electric Code or the Normal Military Code. Building 24 and one-half of building 150 are fed directly from Montana Power Company but are deficient in capacity. There are PCB's in two existing transformers. The existing electrical system has serious deficiencies and should be replaced.
Gas Service
The age of the natural gas system is unknown. There is a separate line for the U.S. Forest Service at the Fort and the commercial gas is supplied by Montana Power Company.
The Army portion of the system should be replaced. Service to existing buildings should be upgraded, including metering.
Telephone Service
28 The current system is an Army system which is leased by U.S. West. There are problems with the phone system during severe weather. It provides for basic needs only and is inadequate for use with computers.
(Ref. "Report on Utilities and Street Upgrade, Fort Missoula" by WGM Group, Inc., November 1993)
Other Concerns
Except for some maintenance of structures along Officers Row (e.g., asbestos removal), the older Fort buildings have not received the ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation that they need. And, some of the lands themselves need specialized care. We do not know the degree to which some of the more environmentally sensitive lands (e.g., riverbank) require restoration.
b. Landowner Plans, Landowner Changes
In 1973, the vast majority of the Fort area lands were publicly owned. In 1990, the University and Board of Regents determined that the lands were not useful for expressly educational puqxJses. The University of Montana turned over its holdings to the University of Montana Foundation, a private coqxJration charged with the resJXJnsibility of fund-raising for the University. The UM Foundation has since indicated and acted upon its intentions to sell off a good portion of these lands to raise money for student scholarships. The Foundation has entered into a buy-sell agreement pertaining to its properties east of the original Fort campus. Negotiations arc in process for the sale of some additional University Foundation-owned lands located south of South Avenue, to the north and west of the original Fort campus (Again, see Table I and Maps Band C).
Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is actively attempting "excess" a good portion of its present holdings and relinquish its historical role as Fort custodian and landlord. Legislation is currently under consideration in the U.S. Congress to approve the Army's request. Ownership of many of the Army buildings will change and possibly shift over into private hands (e.g., as proposed to Congress by the Northern Rockies Heritage Center).
Such public-to-private ownership shifts raise questions about the extent to which the Fort area will continue to fulfill its historical role as a public place, where activities have had an inherently public purpose. The ownership changes also raise concern about the extent to which new owners will assume a stewardship role in addressing the values and needs not only of their particular holdings, but of the Fort area as a whole.
An effort to coordinate the achievement of individual ownership goals is currently in process. Discussions involving all property owners at the Fort have focussed on the possibility of a set of land trades wherein the University Foundation, Missoula County High Schools,
29 Community Hospital, and Missoula County could meet their mutual needs. In principle this kind of proposal has been agreed to by all parties. Details and timing for any such land trades still need to be worked out. Consideration is being given to the following factors: (1) Community Hospital's interest in participating in a land trade proposal is to expand their medical service campus to the west; (2) Big Sky High School wishes to consolidate its properties with the vo-ag campus to the west while still retaining a small piece of property directly across the street on South Avenue; (3) As indicated above, the University Foundation wishes to convert its land assets into capital for investing in scholarship funds; (4) The Historic Museum wishes to acquire the Mental Health Center property for its main facility and perhaps aggregate additional lands to form a buffer along the northerly border of the historic campus; (5) The Fort Missoula sports complex could increase in size, and therefore its capacity for active recreation would increase through the provision of additional playing fields; (6) As described above, the Army may soon relinquish a good share of its present holdings, including the original Officer's Row. Under any land trade proposal, those areas still occupied by the National Guard and the Army and Navy Reserves are expected to continue as they are, as they expect to remain active in the Fort area.
3. Opportunities
These issues create a climate of uncertainty and some anxiety over the future of Fort Missoula. Yet, these times also hold promise. The opportunities presented at Fort Missoula today are numerous. They include: o Expansion of a thriving regional medical campus. o Expansion of active recreational facilities and, in other ways, a fuller development of Fort Missoula as a District Park of regionwide significance. o Potential for helping to address the community's needs for affordable and medically assisted housing. o A chance to begin implementing the Missoula Valley's newly prepared Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and to test the community's concept of an urban area open space system. o Conservation and restoration of the riparian area and biological laboratory associated with Stevens Island. o Expansion of educational opportunities associated with the history, culture, ecology, and agricultural resources of the area. o Possibility of creating a nucleus of museums with a regional historical and cultural focus.
30 o Increased likelihood of jointly funded and maintained infrastructure to support activities in the area. o Potential for private development to enhance the local tax base. o Establishment of a perpetual scholarship fund for University of Montana students. o A chance to collectively re~assess the values we ascribe to Fort Missoula, and update our plans for and commitments to the area accordingly. PART III GENERAL GOALS
A. The character of this updating and revising of the Fort Missoula Area Plan (1973)
Twenty years have passed since the original Fort Missoula Plan was written. At the time of the 1990 update of the Urban Comprehensive Plan, changes and signs of further change made it appropriate to talk of updating the Fort area plan. Recent developments which hold the potential for generating major land use changes at the Fort area have made an update imperative. They have also given the planning process a context of pressure and uncertainty.
A community area plan must be responsive to two things. One is the distinctive character and potential of the land in the planning area, the unique or distinguishing features which give its character to an area and define its unique contribution to the larger community. The other is that larger community itself and the good of the community whole. The effort which has brought forth this update has sought to respond to both.
Parts I and II of this update have laid out the planning area in historical perspective, characterized it as it presently is in its natural features and man-made modifications, addressed the current role of the Fort Missoula area within those larger communities, and taken note of the changes that are occurring both in the larger context and within the Fort Missoula area. They have also recalled the adopted communitywide plans whose goals and policies relate to the area as a part of the urban area or the county, and taken note of current issues, concerns and opportunities relating to it in its own right and as part of a larger community.
One final step needs to be taken before setting forth the goals which this plan establishes for the Fort area. That is to describe the distinctive character of that area: what makes it different and valuable in its own right, and what makes its contribution to the larger urban and county communities distinctive as well.
B. Distinctive character of the area
The original Fort Plan addressed what was then almost wholly public land, and encompassed an area which extended roughly from Spurgin Road to immediately south of the Bitterroot River, and from McCauley Butte to Reserve Street. In this revision, the lands north of South Avenue which were included in the 1973 plan are envisioned as keeping the same status as that plan gave to them. That means, except for what has passed into private hands, those lands continue to be thought of as a land reserve, best dedicated until some higher and better use was found to public purposes of a recreational, agricultural, institutional, or educational nature. Some such reaffirmation is implicit in the 1990 update of the Urban Comprehensive
32 Plan, on the accompanying Residential, Open Space and Public Land Uses map. The focus for the present updating and revision of the Fort Missoula Plan has been the lands south of South Avenue, which form the historical Fort Missoula complex and an adjoining area which no longer contains any particular connection with the historical character of the place. Yet the overall vision embodied in the goals and means still sees the original plan area as a whole, and sees that whole as functioning now in greater connection with the urban area than twenty years ago.
Part I of this revision has provided enough information on the area to make out its complexity. But taking it as a whole, this plan sees the area south of South Avenue as marked by five different components, each with its particular contributions to make to the character of the whole: o There is a natural component represented by the Bitterroot river, its riparian area, and the lands south of the river. As part of its character, this component offers the opportunity for education, environmental and ecological in the main. As a further extension of this component, there are McCauley Butte and the Maclay Flats, and Blue Mountain as well. o There is a historical component represented by the area contained in the National Register district: the structures and organized space of the inner core of the Fort campus, the open space on three sides around it (ignoring the river and land to the south), and the outlying markers such as the cemetery, the internment foundations, the stables, and other factors which show the history associated with the Fort itself at various stages. As part of its character, this component offers the opportunity for education, both historical and cultural in the main. o There is an active recreational component, composed of playfields for various sorts of organized athletics and of two golf courses. one public and one private. These facilities are complemented by another recreational area between South Avenue and Spurgin Road. o There is an unparalleled concentration of significantly different types of open space in a single area-- not only active recreational areas, but also conservation land, parkland, urban forest, visual resources and vistas, (informal) trails, and adjacent agricultural land to the south and the State forestry land to the north. This combination distinguishes the Fort Missoula area as a rare major open space area to still be found on the valley floor in close proximity to the City of Missoula. o There is an institutional and agency presence, public and quasi-public in character. The military presence, a heritage of the fort in its original function, is complex: Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard. There is, more broadly, a Federal agency presence (the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management), connected with federal lands and forests and (among other things) with the recreational possibilities represented by these.
33 There is a community hospital, one of two major medical centers in the Missoula area, with some attendant offices and facilities. There are, finally, a cluster of education institutions, facilities, and activities: vo-ag, vo-tech, along with Big Sky High School, have a place here; while some vacant buildings and signs remind of a recent University research capacity that was located here.
C. The goals.
The following general goals anticipate a future in which changes will continue to occur at Fort Missoula. But in keeping with the recognition in the first Fort plan that we as a community need to maintain what is significant and alive in our history as we grow, develop, and change, this updated Plan advances on the 1973 Plan by reaffirming the first plan's vision in changed circumstances where it seems still valid, and by adapting and modifying it where that seems called for. Amidst the climate of change, the goals reflect an important vision and challenge to the citizens of Missoula City and County: that we must be active, ongoing stewards of the Fort Missoula area. As stewards, in considering the possibilities for change, we must keep foremost in our minds the Fort's irreplaceable assets, public value, and long-term future.
As a guide for achieving this vision and meeting this challenge to stewardship, the following policy is offered: That any development which will change the character of the Fort Missoula area will be acceptable only if it clearly meets all relevant general goals of the Plan to some degree, and does not detract significantly from any one of the goals.
34 GENERAL GOALS
1. To protect, preserve and enhance the historical and cultural value inherent to the Fort area.
2. To conserve, preserve, and restore significant ecological features of the Fort area, including native plants and animals.
3. To maintain, enhance and integrate the distinctive mix of open space elements in the Fort Missoula area: conservation land, parkland, views and vistas, urban forest, trails and trail corridors, and agricultural land.
4. To ensure that any new development and use, or expansion of existing use, meets the following conditions: it responds to significant community needs, it involves a site uniquely suited for meeting those needs, and it respects the distinctiveness and harmonizes with the character of the Fort area.
5. To coordinate planning and development of buildings, capital and other facilities, and site layouts, so as to maximize joint use, minimize expense, and create a functionally integrated system. PART IV IMPLEMENTATION
The goals which were set forth in Part III outline an ideal which is to be held to through changing circumstances over the years ahead. The Fort Missoula area which that ideal envisions is something which is to be realized in the course of time, through a variety of efforts and only step by step.
On the basis of goals and policies embodied in adopted community plans, the community has already made substantial investments which, following out the directions embodied in the plans, have strengthened and enhanced certain of the distinctive features of the area. For example, the listing of the Fort on the National Register of Historic Places, and the establishing of the Historical Museum located at the Fort, were steps which realized the plans' concern for historical preservation; the creation of an area of active recreational playfields, and the creation of a public golf course, were steps which realized the plans' concern for recreation and open space.
It is important that the community similarly invest in the goals of this update. The following specific means and methods for achieving those general goals are offered as pathways by which this may happen. Suggested pathways include zoning, fundraising, information gathering, specific project design and accomplishment, more refined planning, and cooperative ventures by both traditional and non-traditional partners. Such pathways are certainly not the only ones available to us. Citizens and local elected officials are encouraged to identify additional ways to effectively implement this Plan.
The categories used to present the specific means and methods should not be viewed as rigid separations. The categories simply organize the various suggestions. A good deal of overlap exists amongst the means and methods. Any action listed under one category is likely to tie in with one or more actions suggested under other categories.
36 SPECIFIC MEANS AND METHODS FOR ACHIEVING THE GENERAL GOALS
HISTORY
1. Establish an Historical Overlay District to protect historic features and to ensure that development in and around the district is sensitive to the historical nature of the Fort.
2. Continue to enhance an historic campus at Fort Missoula, including expanded opportunities for interpretation.
a. Provide a permanent interpretative opportunity for the internment camp.
b. Explore all potential avenues for securing the funds needed to maintain and enhance the historic campus.
3. Enhance the Native American presence in the Fort Missoula area, and develop there the sense of history and culture belonging to that presence in the Missoula Valley area.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
1. Immediate and short-term: a. Adopt an effective City-County Overlay District. b.
2. Ongoing and long-term: a. Apply Overlay District standards to any proposed development. b. Identify potential funding sources for historic preservation, interpretation, education, and acquisition of artifacts, and secure what is possible. For example, National Park Service (e.g. National Trust for Historic Preservation), foundation grants, and local contributions, including a bond. c. Encourage the local Native American groups and the pertinent University personnel and programs to identify ways in which Native American culture can be more extensively represented at Fort Missoula. d. Continue to support cultural events related to Native American and other communities. e.
3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including the City Historic Preservation Advisory Commission and the County
37 Museum; University; interested Native American groups; Friends of the Historical Museum at Fort Missoula; Northern Rockies Heritage Center; State Historic Preservation Office; Disabled American Veterans; local architects and historians; Congressional delegation; national groups involved in preserving the memory of the internment eras involving Japanese-Americans and Italian Americans.
EDUCATION
4. Promote awareness of historical, cultural, ecological and open space features and values present in the Fort Missoula area.
5. More fully develop the educational opportunities afforded by the historic campus, the ecological features, the open space elements, the recreational programs, and the medical activities of the Fort area. Make such educational opportunities readily accessible to the public, particularly the student populations of Missoula County.
a. Encourage and support the University's educational mission in the Fort area, to include study of nature and historical study.
b. Encourage other museums with a historical focus to locate at Fort Missoula: a natural history museum, a military history museum, a Native American culture and history museum, a museum which illuminates the geological history of this valley, a museum dedicated to the history of Missoula, etc.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
1. Immediate and short-term: a. Support efforts to secure land, facilities, and operational funds for a museum complex at the Fort. b.
2. Ongoing and long~term: a. Assemble the relevant group of educators to identify opportunities for expanded education. b. Pursue funding to support programs and exhibits. c. Develop and/or expand educational outreach to the community, especially to local schools. d. Establish an annual Fort Mis-soula week, and during that week, a festival or celebration of the Fort area in one or more of its aspects. e.
38 3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including the City Historic Preservation Advisory Commission and the County Museum; University; School Districts; private schools; interested Native American groups; Friends of the Hi-storical Museum at Fort Missoula; Northern Rockies Heritage Center; State Historic Preservation Office; local architects and historians; Congressional delegation; environmental groups; medical professional groups.
ECOLOGY
6. Inventory the ecological features of the Fort area, and assess their condition. Prepare, finance and carry out a restoration and maintenance program.
7. Make creative use of open space to suggest the original ambiance of the Fort area, including use of prairie grasslands and visual distance. The intent would be to enable visitors to the Fort, and especially to the Museum(s), to experience the Fort as early visitors saw it.
8. Keep Fort lands on the south of the river in their natural state for educational purposes. Obtain public access to those lands.
9. Restore Slevens Island to a semi-natural state and maintain it as such. Provide public access and a minimal trail system.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
1. Immediate and short-term: a. Secure cooperation and identify resources (money and expertise) needed to accomplish the long-term restoration and maintenance program. Place initial focus on the river and riverbank area. b. Research prairie restoration projects in other communities. c. Engage parties with prospective development plans in exploring the design potential for grassland reclamation. d.
39 2. Ongoing and long-term: a. Design and carry out land conservation and management program for Slevens Island and the University Foundation lands (old-growth pine forest) south of the Bitterroot River. b. Carefu11y locate, design, and develop public access along the river and Slevens Island, consistent with protecting the resource. c. Identify and secure funding for the long-term management of conservation lands and any form of public access along the river. d.
3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including the City Open Space Advisory Committee, Historic Preservation Advisory Commission, and Pedestrian-Bicycle Coordinator; the City and County Park Boards, City Parks and Recreation Department; University Foundation and other immediate landowners; prospective developers, landscape architects; Con gressional delegation; environmental groups (e.g., Montana Native Plant Society) and conservation organizations; United States Forest Service; State Fish Wildlife and Parks.
OPEN SPACE
10. Design and develop connecting links, visual and physical, which help to unite the open space elements of the Fort Missoula area and to relate them to the surrounding built and natural environment.
a. Design and develop a logical and safe network of trails, streets and sidewalks, to facilitate efficient and appropriate movement to, from, and within the Fort area.
b. Respect significant views and vistas to, from, and within the Fort area by sensitive placement of trees and landscaping, and by appropriate location and design of roads, buildings, and other constructed facilities.
c. Respect the generally open landscape of the Fort area by minimizing the visual impacts of fences.
11. Create and maintain a system of tree-lined boulevards along South Avenue and Reserve Street, to include the Fort access roads, Old Highway 93, and the roads through the historic Fort campus.
12. Provide public access along the Bitterroot River, including access from the north side to the south side of the river.
40 13. Develop the Fort Missoula part of a river corridor trail system that connects with an urban area-wide system of trails and walkways.
14. Actively further the role of Fort Missoula as a major element in a county-wide park system.
a. Refine the Fort Missoula District Park concept as needed, based upon updated parks/recreation/open space needs assessment survey data, to ensure that the Fort area offers what it is best suited to provide in this regard. Then, fully implement the district park plan.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
1. Immediate and short-term: a. Identify significant views and vistas, and encourage parties with prospective development plans to retain them (creative design solutions, incentives, etc.). b. Ensure that prospective development plans promote logical and safe circulation. c. Update the County Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan, and secure the commitments to carry out the refined idea of Fort Missoula as a district park. d. Complete and adopt an urban area Open Space Plan. e.
2. Ongoing and long-term: a. Design and develop an overall Fort area trail network that links with the urban-area-wide trail and corridor system proposed in the non-motorized transportation plan. Secure necessary funding, easements, and as much volunteer labor as possible for construction. b. Make sure that the system of tree-lined boulevards is included in the urban forestry plan, and support the establishment of funding mechanisms that would ensure the needed plantings and maintenance. c. Identify locations for a north-south crossing of the river which would have minimal impact on the natural areas and would effectively connect the north side with Maclay Flats on the south. d. Explore the potential for a conservation easement or acquisition that would secure Macauley Butte as a significant natural and cultural landmark for the community. e. Conduct new parks/recreation/open space needs assessment survey. f.
41 3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including the City Open Space Advisory Committee, Historic Preservation Advisory Commission, Pedestrian-Bicycle Coordinator, and the Office of Community Development's open space planner; City and County Park Boards, City Parks and Recreation Department, Urban Forester; existing and prospective landowners; prospective developers, landscape architects, recreation planners; Congressional delegation; environmental groups, conservation organizations, land trusts; United States Forest Service; State Fish Wildlife and Parks.
COMPATIBILITY OF USES, FUNCTIONS, AND FEATURES
15. Promote the compatibility of adjacent land uses within the Fort area and between the Fort area and surrounding lands, through appropriate location, design, and regulatory and management practices.
a. Work cooperatively with local elected officials, schools, adjacent land owners, and citizens to assure an efficient and harmonious incorporation of land uses at the Fort into the life of the community.
16. Where adjacent uses clash visually or functionally, devise ways to buffer and/or harmonize the uses (examples of ways are landscaping, distance, architectural design features, intensity transitions, and coordination of activity schedules).
17. Devise architectural and graphic themes and standards consistent with the Fort's present and future image as an historical, river-situated site.
18. Discourage cross-traffic through the Fort interior and the use of Fort roads as a short-cut around the major intersection of Reserve Street and South Avenue.
a. Retain public access to destination points within the Fort area.
b. Maintain emergency services access.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
1. Immediate and short-term: a. Formulate and adopt communitywide design standards that promote attention to sensitive environmental and cultural resources. b. Survey existing landowners to identify current situations of incompatible land uses. Help find and carry out creative solutions to any problems. c.
42 2. Ongoing and long-term: a. Assemble a group of designers and historians to provide assistance in devising themes and suggesting applications: for example, compatible street-lighting, signage, public art, etc. b. Promote communication and cooperation between Fort area landowners and neighborhood associations in the vicinity. c.
3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including the City-County Office of Community Development; City Design Review Board; school districts; existing and prospective landowners; adjacent landowners and neighborhood associations; local architects, graphic artists, and historians, including the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission.
STRUCTURES AND 1NFRASTRUCTURE
19. Inventory the existing capital facilities at Fort Missoula (e.g., sewer, water, streets), identify the needs, and prepare, finance, and carry out an improvement program.
20. Upgrade buildings to safe conditions, and otherwise restore and maintain existing buildings to allow more efficient use or adaptive reuse.
21. Place utilities underground.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
1. Immediate and short-term: a. Secure commitment to fund and carry out inventory. b. Eliminate any hazardous conditions in facilities and buildings. c.
2. Ongoing and long-term: a. Design, fund, and carry out improvements on an annual basis. b. Explore potential for tax-increment financing. c. Establish a monitoring program for physical conditions (infrastructure, structures). d. Encourage joint-usc arrangements for parking and other capital facilities. e.
43 3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including the City Public Works Department, City and Rural Fire Departments, County Surveyor, Historic Preservation Advisory Commission; Mountain Water Company; existing and prospective landowners; Disabled American Veterans; local engineering firms.
ACQUISITION AND PRF.SERVATION OF LAND
22. In cases where any private lands are determined to be critical to public usage, consider them for purchase or exchange by appropriate stewards, based on fair market value.
23. Explore aU potential avenues for securing the funds needed to acquire (or otherwise preserve) and manage those lands which contain significant ecological, open space, and/or recreational value.
a. Work with landowners to secure the preservation and enhancement of riparian lands, McCauley Butte, and other habitat in and along the river, for public enjoyment in an appropriate fashion and for educational purposes.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
I. Immediate and short-term: a. Explore options for a bond which would fund acquisition and management of critical lands. b.
2. Ongoing and long-term: a. Consider potential for "land reserve areas" to be sold or exchanged to acquire critical lands. b. Encourage conservation groups to assemble additional funding for acquisition and to identify potential landholders. c. Involve business leaders in taking an active role in securing significant ecological, open space, and recreational lands. d.
3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including City Open Space Advisory Committee, Rural Planning Office; conser vation groups and land trusts; Congressional delegation; Montana Departments of State Lands and Fish, Wildlife and Parks; local attorneys and private landowners.
44 ACCESSIBILITY ~'OR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
24. Through targeted outreach and compliance with guidelines of the American Disabilities Act, make the Fort Missoula area more accessible to Missoula County/Western Montana residents and visitors for their cultural and recreational enjoyment.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
1. Immediate and short-term: a. Survey the area to identify access problems. b.
2. Ongoing and long-term: a. Assemble a group of representatives from the building community, from the disabled community, and from the different levels of government, to find solutions to any identified access problems. b. Ensure that prospective development plans achieve or exceed ADA compliance. c. Encourage use of facilities by people with disabilities. d. Encourage access design which is compatible with the character of the historic structure. e.
3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including Building Inspection Department, Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator, and Historic Preservation Advisory Commission; Disabled American Veterans; Summit Independent Living and other local advocacy organizations for the disabled; local builders and architects and their professional Associations; landowners.
45 COORDINATING MECHANISM FOR IMPLEMENTATION
25. Establish a Fort Missoula Council of Fort area landowners, tenants, and representatives of pertinent community groups including adjacent neighborhoods, to provide ongoing leadership and the coordinating mechanism needed to implement this Plan. Regular communication, coordination, and joint planning and action should be the fundamental basis of the CouncH's operations. Such an approach would facilitate an integrated functioning of uses and activities in the area.
IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THESE MEANS:
1. Immediate and short-term: a. Secure the commitment to create the Fort Missoula Council, and support its continuing efforts. b.
2. Ongoing and long-term: a. Assemble a design team to assist the Fort Missoula Council, to facilitate good design and compatible uses. b. Encourage creative thinking to resolve land use issues and problems in mutually beneficial ways: for example, an imaginative use of land trades; or, exploration of the potential for tax-increment financing. c.
3. Parties who might participate in implementation: Missoula City and County, including the Office of Community Development; landowners and tenants in the Fort area; local design community. APPENDICES
47 APPENDIX A
FORT MISSOULA STEERING COMMMITTEE
CO-CHAIRS
ED HEILMAN 728-7377 COUNTY PARK BOARD 112 MICHELLE CT MISSOULA MT 59803
STEVE ADLER 728-3013 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVIS COMM 1400 COUNCIL WAY MISSOULA MT 59802
LANDOWNERS
BOB BROWN 728-3476 MISSOULA COUNTY HISTORICAL MUSEUM AT FORT MISSOULA BUILDING 322 MISSOULA MT 59801
BOB ERWIN 251-2404 MISSOULA COUNTRY CLUB P 0 BOX 3057 MISSOULA MT 59806
CAPTAIN STEVE MURRAY 243-2627 QUARTERS 29 FORT MISSOULA ROAD MISSOULA MT 59802
BOB BRUGH 721-4613 DIVOT DEVELOPMENT 125 1/2 WEST MAIN MISSOULA MT 59802 GRANTWINN 728-4100 COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER 2827 FORT MISSOULA ROAD MISSOULA MT 59801
MARK WALTON 728-2400 MISSOULA CO HIGH SCHOOLS ADMIN BLDG 915 SOUTH AVE MISSOULA MT 59801
TED DELANEY 243-2593 UM FOUNDATION BRANTLY HALL PO BOX 7159 MISSOULA MT 59812
CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVES
**PHIL SMITH 542-7515 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, CHAMBER 9750 BUTLER CREEK ROAD MISSOULA MT 59802
**JERRY STONE 721-6840 BOARD MEMBER, CULTURAL EXCHANGE C/0 J KIRBY & ASSOCIATES 2011 SOUTH 4TH WEST MISSOULA MT 59801
CHARLENE MILLER 543-5334 TARGET RANGE HOMEOWNERS ASSN 3416 SOUTH A VENUE MISSOULA MT 59801
RICHARD GOTSHALK 549-3168 OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMI1TEE 304 SOUTH SECOND ST W MISSOULA MT 59801
49 GINNY CASS 543-8836 MISSOULA CONSOL PLANNING BD 4615 ASPEN MISSOULA MT 59802
RON ERICKSON, FACULTY REP 549-4671 UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 3250 PATTEE CANYON MISSOULA MT 59803
** Individual or organization was unable to participate actively.
* * * * *
It is important to mention the fact that several additional individuals attended most of the Steering Committee meetings and actively participated in the discussions. In most cases, these same individuals also worked hard on the various Subcommittees. Significant contributions to the overall effort were made by:
Roger Bergmeier Bill Ballard Nick Kaufman Suzanne Julin Ken Stolz Jamie Hoffmann Sue Reel Gene Diemer Patty Kent Jack Babon
SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE:
0 Public Involvement. Steve Murray, Chair
0 Plan Write~up. Bill Ballard, Chair Richard Gotshalk, Asst. Chair
0 Scenarios. Bob Brown, Chair Philip Maechling, Asst. Chair
0 Historic Overlay Ginny Cass, Chair Zone Review
0 Divot Development Jamie Hoffmann, Chair Proposal Review
50 AGENCY ADVISERS TO STEERING COMMITTEE:
JIM VAN FOSSEN 721-7275 CITY PARKS AND RECREATION
CHUCK GIBSON 721-2291 CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
BRUCE BENDER 523-4620 CITY ENGINEERING
ALLAN MATHEWS 523-4650 CITY HISTORIC PRESERV AT! ON OFFICER
NANCY LEIFER 728-7666 HOUSING TASK FORCE (523-4718/message) 544 CLEVELAND MISSOULA MT 59802
GEOFF BADENOCH 523-4607 MISSOULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TIM HALL 721-5700, ext3484 RURAL PLANNING OFFICE
* * * * *
Overall technical support provided by: City~County Office of Community Development
For Planning Process: Doris Fischer, 523-4631 For Subdivision/Zoning: Philip Maechling, 523-4669
51 APPENDIX B
OUTLINE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENI' PROCESS
The Steering Committee made a deliberate effo_rt to share information with the public, and to solicit input from the public. Opportunities for public involvement included: o "Around Missoula" coverage in the Missoulian for each Steering Committee meeting. o Community meeting on October 13, 1993. o Community meeting on November 3, 1993. o Initiatives to obtain Missoulian coverage of community meetings. o Press releases for community meetings. o Mailing list maintained of interested citizens. o Lending library maintained of relevant documents and other references. o Comment sheets distributed at community meetings, so that people could write down their thoughts and either hand them in or mail them in. o Transcription of public comments received at community meetings and through comment sheets. Cataloging of comments according to proposed Plan goals. Catalogue forwarded by Public Involvement Subcommittee onto Plan Write-up Subcommittee for consideration in preparation of Draft Plan. Public record maintained as Appendix C. to this Plan document (not attached, but available for review).
* * * * *
Note: Before the Steering Committee was established, Divot Development Company held some discussions with Fort area landowners and City-County agency staff to identify current issues and obtain initial reactions about a proposed development proposal for 83 acres of University of Montana Foundation land. Divot Development Company also sponsored one community meeting in August, 1993.
52 APPENDIX D
WORKING CALENDAR OF: TARGET DATES, TASKS, RESPONSIDLE PARTIES
Target Dates Tasks Responsible
9/22 Discuss past and current Full Committee planning/land use parameters. ID elements that should go into Plan's Goals Statement. ID elements that should go into Plan's Description of Current Conditions.
Agree on Committee game plan. Set up subcommittees as desired (Note: If you cannot attend the September 22nd meeting but are interested in working on a particular subcommittee, please call Doris at 523-4631 ).
9/23-10/5 Subcommittees begin to meet. Each one will need a Coordinator.
Plan Document outline is developed. Plan Write-Up Goals Statement is drafted. Description of Current Conditions is drafted.
Plans are made for a community Public Involvement meeting, to be held during the week of October 10th.
10/6 Review drafted Goals Statement Full Committee and Description of Current Conditions. Brainstorm on alternative future scenarios, unrestrained by "whether or not we could really do it". Look at Divot Development's proposed scenario.
10/7-10/19 Hold community meeting to share Public Involvement information and solicit ideas for alternative future scenarios.
53 Target Dates Tasks Responsible
Refine scenario ideas from Scenarios Committee and community into 2-3-4 alternatives, with some consideration given to implementation tools/strategies.
Draft Plan Document is written. Plan Write-Up
Overlay Zone Proposal is Overlay Zone reviewed. ID suggestions for Proposal Review revision.
Divot Development Proposal is Divot Development reviewed. ID suggestions for Proposal Review revision.
10/20 Draft Plan Document is reviewed. Full Committee Overlay Zone Proposal modifications and Divot Development Proposal modifications are also reviewed, if time permits.
10/21-10/26 Draft Plan Document is revised. Plan Write-Up and Scenarios
Steering Committee Statement Overlay Zone regarding Overlay Zone Proposal Proposal Review is drafted.
Steering Committee Statement Divot Development regarding Divot Development Proposal Review Proposal is drafted.
10/27 Steering Committee OKs Draft Plan Full Committee Document as ready for community wide review.
Steering Committee considers proposed Statements re: Overlay Zone Proposal and Divot Development Proposal,
54 Target Dates Tasks Resoonsible
10/30-1 1/9 Another community meeting is Public Involvement held to present Draft Plan, solicit public input, and explain formal public review process. Overlay Zone Proposal and Divot Development Proposal are also presented.
Further modifications to Draft Plan Plan Write-Up Document may be desirable. and Scenarios
Further modifications to Overlay Overlay Zone and Zone and Divot Development Proposals Divot Development may be suggested. Proposal Review
11/10 Review input from community Full Committee meeting, and agree on any further Plan modifications. Develop outline of Steering Committee testimony for Planning Board public hearing.
1 1/16 Planning Board holds hearing on To be determined proposed Plan Update, Overlay Zone (Co-Chairs?) Proposal, and Divot Development Proposal. Steering Committee offers testimony.
11/17 Consider public input and Planning Full Committee Board treatment of proposed Plan Update. Give direction to Subcommittees for "preferred scenario" in Plan; any further Overlay Zone revisions; and any further Divot Development revisions.
11/18-11/30 Final revisions are written. Plan Write-Up and Scenarios
Overlay Zone and Divot Development Proposal Review
55 Target Dates Tasks Responsible
12/1 Final revisions to Plan are OK'ed. Full Committee
Final suggestions for Overlay Zone and Divot Development Proposals are also OK'ed, to the extent possible.
Testimony before City Council and County Commissioners is outlined.
12/6 Joint public hearing before City To be determined Council and County Commissioners. {Co-Chairs?)
12/13-15 Action by City Council and County Commissioners.
56 APPENDIX F
SOURCES
Koelbel, Lenora, Missoula The Way It Was, Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1972.
Long, Wallace, The Military History of Fort Missoula, Friends of Fort Missoula Historical Museum, 1983.
McDonald, James R., Missoula Historical Resource Survey, Vol. I.
Mullay, Colonel P. H., "Fort Missoula, Montana" in Histories of Army Posts, reprinted from "The Recruiting News", n.d.
Missoula Historic Preservation Advisory Commission (Draft) Report to the Fort Missoula Steering Committee, 9/2/93.
National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Nomination Form, Fort Missoula Historic District, 1987.
1973 Fort Missoula Plan, Missoula City-County Planning Board.
1976 Missoula County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan.
1975 Policy Guide for Urban Growth, Missoula City and County.
1986 Missoula County Recreation Needs Assessment Survey.
1990 Update, Missoula Urban Comprehensive Plan, Missoula City and County.
1992 Update, Missoula County Inventory of Conservation Resources.
1993 Missoula Housing Task Force Findings.
1993 Report to Missoula: $16,000 Pilot Project on Park/Open Space/Resource Planning and Management, City of Missoula.
1993 (Final Draft) Non-motorized Transportation Plan, Missoula City and County; University of Montana; U.S. Forest Service; and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
1983 Missoula County Population Analysis, Missoula Planning Office.
U.S. Census; also, Montana Department of Commerce.
57 SCENARIOS SUPPLEMENT
A scenario is a view of the future of an area, which is formulated only in terms of very generic types of land use and activities. A scenario is not a development plan. It may envision a residential use of an area, for example, but it makes no commitment concerning how that type of use will be carried out. It says nothing of the density of the housing, the specific locations, the massing and any design features, and the like; it also says nothing of how well the housing will be taken care of, of upkeep and improvements and any other management issue. It simply speaks of a general type of use as being located in a certain area.
Scenarios differ in terms of the types of use they envision as present, the scale on which those types of use are present, the location at which they are present, and overall, the design of a whole area in which different types of land use and activity are being seen as sharing an area and impacting one another accordingly.
The set of five scenarios being presented are illustrative only. They do not begin to exhaust the possible scenarios. But they do provide a visualization of different views of the future of the area. The point is to stimulate the mind and imagination and to challenge the viewer to envision further alternatives.
In all five scenarios, certain common assumptions are made. 1. While the Army may leave all or part of the Fort, the buildings and land use in the central core of the Fort-~ the National Guard area, the Historical Museum, and the portion of the Fort currently owned by the Army-- will remain largely unchanged. The buildings and land use wi1l remain public or quasi-public. 2. All design standards applying to whatever development takes place in any of the scenarios will respect the Fort area's historical character, its linked open spaces, and its access to educational facilities. 3. Stevens Island and the floodplain area will remain undeveloped, and the floodplain regulations will not change. 4, The golf courses will not change in their ownership or land use.
Certain terms are used for the land uses and activities which are being envisioned for the Fort area in these scenarios. Since some of those terms can mean different things to different people, we offer the following definitions to make clear how they are meant in these scenarios.
1. Historic: included here are the following: a. Tangibles such as (1) vegetation (treed boulevards) (2) buildings (not simply as structures, but the organized space, the campus, thus buildings together with open spaces such as the parade grounds and the openness around the whole campus) (3) places with traces (cemetery, internment camp building foundations, etc.) b. Intangibles such as (1) Native American relations to the Missoula Valley land area and to the Fort Missoula area in particular (2) the white man's involvement in and settlement of this valley and the beginning and early phases of the evolution of Missoula (3) affairs related to the Fort itself and to Fort lands since the Fort's construction (4) natural history in relation to this valley, including geological, botanical, biological, ecological, environmental, and other features and changes which have gone into the making of this place and the life-forms that have been found here.
2. Open space: there are six types of open space component, land-based but not simply amounting to undeveloped land. We include: a. conservation areas (lands valuable for their natural state and features, and worthy of preservation in that regard) b. parldands (lands developed in some measure to adapt them for active and passive recreational use) c. urban forest (the woody vegetation of the urban area, both planted by man and springing up naturally) d. agricultural land on the urban fringe (cultivated in some way, adapted for use in producing crops and maintaining animals) e. vistas and views (significant visual resources visible from one or more view-points through view corridors which must be open in order to maintain the view) f. trail corridors and greenways (land adapted to carry trails, mostly pedestrian, bicycle, or equestrian in nature and not motorized-- but one can speak of trails more broadly, to include sidewalks or even streets [so far as they are adapted for bicycle use]).
3. Medical: facilities whose primary function is to provide health services on site (hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices, etc.).
4. Educational: this includes facilities and functions which have an educational purpose and are conducted by educational institutions (UM, the Vo-tech, the local school system), museums, or non-profit groups with an educational component to their mission.
5. Residential: facilities for residential use only.
The five scenarios may be briefly characterized as fo11ows.
SCENARIO 1: There would be no change from the present in land use, but much change would be possible within the uses in question. This could occur e.g. by increased investment, improvements of various sorts, or even shifts within the type of use
2 (from undeveloped open space to active recreational playfields, for example). This scenario would allow for the most opportunity for developed and undeveloped open space, and would preclude any development in the area incompatible with maintaining current open space. It would maximize historic uses also, and allow for the potential increase in the educational usage of the land.
SCENARIO 2: Beyond maintaining current uses, this would allow for expansion primarily of medical facilities along South Avenue, continguous to the current medical facilities. Recreational facilities would be relocated and expanded to the west and south of their present location (into the current UM Foundation and High School land). Educational use would still be located primarily in the core Fort area and floodplain. This scenario accommodates historic and open space use of the land, medical expansion, and some educational aspects.
SCENARIO 3: This provides for the moderate expansion of medical facilities, possible expansion of residential areas and a larger educational component. This scenario would favor historic and educational use of the land; undeveloped open space would be somewhat reduced and residential usage somewhat increased along South Avenue.
SCENARIO 4: This allows for increased medical, a large educational component along the river and centered in the Fort core, and an integrated residential component with clustered development and a connected network of open space. This scenario would further reduce the current undeveloped open space; it could preserve most of the historic nature of the area; some ecological features would be infringed upon by the increased development.
SCENARIO 5: This is the total development scenario. It would delete some of the existing uses, and existing uses would undergo a change in boundaries. Whatever the different forms which this development could take, the impact on the goals could be severe: historical features could be diluted depending on the type of development, existing ecological features would be severely impacted, open space would remain only as developed space.
A FINAL REMINDER:
The five scenarios do not exhaust the types of development and nondevelopment possible. Each of the five is itself able to be realized concretely in different ways. So there is much possibility which is not presented through these five. The challenge to the community is to continue to try new combinations, to seek out new opportunities to meet all of the goals of this Plan.
3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·II • • • • I' • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • i' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'I I! I '·· ij I I· I I I :II ! ,, I ' ' ' I I! I l I I ~I
[p~oj Public, Historic e.nd Educntion"'l U~cs !m!ll! Residential uses • Full DeveloprnenL, Assorted Uses Jt/J Land Reserve B Unknown Future Uses D Developed nnd Undeveloped Open Space Scenario 1 B Historic District .. ,.- . ' • ' • ' . ' + +- + + ' ' ji • .• ' ' ' ' . . • ' I +- +- + + ' + + + ... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' ' ' ' ' • ' • • ' ' ' r I ' ,I
I '
to;?;:{; Public, Historic o.nd Educaiionnl Vses filii] Residentio.l Uses R Full Dcvclopmenl. Assorted Uses k?t:l Land Reserve R Unknowr. Future Uses D Developed nnd Undeveloped Open Space Scenario 2 B Historic District il' I I Fi I' ' I iiir!E' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I I i !.
I I ,,
I !I "
Public, mstoric c.nd Educntional Uses
Residential Uses
Full Development, Assorted iJscs
Land Reserve Unknown Future Uses L Developed a.nd Undeveloped Open Space Scenario 3 B Historic Distnct • i, • .. . • .. • • • ' • • ' • • • • • • • . • i" • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • I • ' • • • •
,[
~ Pubhc. Historic !>.ncl Eclucc.tional Uses if~iliJ Residential Vscs 1 M rt[p;IT!,•,__t:_J: r-/ full Development. Assorlcd Usc~ i H : tr~:~r:J Land Re-serve ~ Unknown Future Uses I'L....J Dcvdopcd nnd Undeveloped Open Spo.cc Scenario 4 B Historic District ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .' ' . ' • • • I. ' .• . ' • • • • • • ' • • • • • ' • • • • • • • I li=B • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • '81 I i! • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • ' • ' • • • • ' • • • ' • • • ' • ' • • • • • • •
I'!
i ;I
~ Publi<::. Historic and Educ~tional liscs L,",: Residential Uses Full Development. Assorted Uses
Land Reserve
• Unknown Future Uses C Dcvdopcd and J.,"ndevcloped Open Spuec
d l-l