Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parks Midtown topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council for binding park and waterway protections on Bob Ward/Southgate Crossing site
Summary
Residents asked the council to ensure public access, protect a waterway and mature trees, and require binding park commitments in developer contracts for the recently acquired Bob Ward/Southgate Crossing property in Midtown.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parks Midtown topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and community members urged Missoula officials on May 20 to preserve public access to natural features and secure binding park provisions as the city proceeds with selection of a developer for the Bob Ward / Southgate Crossing property.
Carrie Scharber, identifying herself as a Ward 4 resident in the Southgate Triangle, told council the city’s acquisition provides an opportunity for intentional planning and urged that the development-selection process include explicit, binding language to protect the ditch, mature trees and public access routes that neighborhood members use as an informal park. Scharber said the entity selecting the developer was founded by one of the sellers and that the solicitation plan relied on a seller-formed plan rather than the earlier Urban Land Institute public plan (from February 2003); she asked that the city require stronger park commitments in contracts.
Council members responded that the city is committed to including a park in the site plan and that the city will require park and public-access criteria in developer selection. Council Member Nugent and Council Member Anderson said the city’s purchase enables a formal public process and that any developer proposals will be evaluated with park and gathering-space criteria included.
Speakers asked for clarity and for a robust community planning process; council members reiterated that community engagement and master planning will follow and that city ownership enables more public input than private ownership would have allowed. No formal council action was taken at the meeting to modify developer-selection documents; councilors said a public process and contract language would be part of subsequent steps.

